Does the Church Suppress History?

[Tator]

I think the truth of this matter probably lies somewhere in the middle. Certainly the LDS church does not actively teach any of the controversial aspects of Mormon history. You’re not going to find a discussion of Joseph Smith’ plural wives in any church lesson about temple marriage, for example. To this point, you’re not going to find a discussion of how Joseph Smith used the same “seer stone” to dig for buried treasures (which he may have even admitted to Emma’s father was deliberate fraud) to translate the Book of Mormon. Believers defend these omissions by stating that these teachings have nothing to do with the threefold purpose of the gospel. Critics point out that these facts have something to do with the question of the validity of the church in the first place, but we’ll never agree on that.

But does the church actively HIDE this information, or just conveniently not mention it? While in the past, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that certain leaders did think that they could actively hide troubling information, and even edit church history to do so, I think leaders today know they’re not going to be able to get away with it, even if they wanted to (and I do think many would want to, like BKP). So I think this stuff “slips through” at times, and critics may not fully admit that.

I’ll use my own experience as an example. I joined the church as a teenage convert at the age of 19. The missionaries and members were open about the church’s polygamous past, as far as Brigham Young and Utah were concerned. I do not remember ever being taught in church that Joseph Smith actively practiced polygamy. I believed – and I must have believed this from what I was taught by members, because I knew nothing about the LDS church outside what the members taught me – that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy because Emma was opposed to it. I think many members of the church still believe this today.

In fact, it is a very reasonable thing to believe. Everyone knows that Emma was opposed to polygamy - that cannot be hidden. And the scriptures that explain polygamy specifically stated that the first wife must give her permission. So it was far more natural to assume that Joseph Smith never actually practiced it due to his wife’s opposition that it was natural to assume that Joseph Smith defied how God said polygamy should be practiced in the first place. I knew that many women were sealed to Joseph Smith, but my impression was that they were sealed to him AFTER his death.

I did not realize that Joseph Smith actually practiced polygamy – to say nothing of the other seamy facts about HOW he practiced it – until I’d been a member for well over a decade, when I happened upon Mormon Enigma in the local library.

Years later, when discussing this on ZLMB, some believers pointed out that there had been Ensign articles that mentioned Joseph Smith’ plural wives. I read every Ensign, usually cover-to-cover, so how did I miss this? I think I was probably interpreting these statements with my preconceived ideas about Joseph Smith’ polygamy in the first place. So when I read references to Joseph Smith’ “wives”, I interpreted that to mean “the woman that were sealed to him after his death”, not as in “women he married as plural wives during his lifetime”.

I do believe that the writers of these articles are probably content to use vague enough language that one could reasonably interpret it in this manner, anyway.

The language used in the Institute manual that bc quoted is quite clear, however. But this was after my institute period, and I would not have been exposed to it. I’d be interested to hear if there were any earlier references in Institute manuals. I’m open to the idea that maybe these things WERE mentioned in materials I was exposed to, and my mind “erased” the information because I was uncomfortable with the idea of my idealized Joseph Smith practicing polygamy when he knew Emma detested it. And clearly the LDS church DOES bear responsibility of teaching this silly idealized, romantic relationship between Joseph Smith and Emma.

So, bc, here's two questions for you:

1 - Do you agree that most members of the church do not know details of Joseph Smith' polygamous activities, and believe that women were sealed to Joseph Smith after his death, but he had not actively married these women during his lifetime due to Emma's opposition?

2 - If you agree to number 1, why is this the impression of most members of the church?

[_Scottie]

That started with Brigham...because there were more women than men, and was necessary to care for all the women.

As a side note, can I just say that this logic makes NO sense!!

Why in the world would BY have to marry these women in order to take care of them? You can't just give to the poor because they are poor? They have to be a wife before you can provide for them???

[_mms]

I know I sound like a broken record, but for some reason it is soooooo irritating to me that people cannot admit the obvious. It was so refreshing to see Dallin Oaks admit it. What more could we ask for than what he said -- he went so far as to say that the church has only presented an "adoring" history and did not deal with anything "unfavorable." Yet, pride is such a factor with the apologists that they cannot find it within themselves to agree with Oaks -- they have spent far too much time arguing the opposite of what he said and have probably even caused people to make a final decision to leave by calling them stupid for not knowing Joseph Smith was married to other men's wives. It is truly pathetic. I sit in Priesthood Quorum every Sunday and time after time comments are made that indicate no one in the room as any clue about much of the CHurch's history. Occasionally I raise a point, but it is rarely worth it, as people cannot accept reality. If we get into whether I can "prove" it, it means I start referring them to sources. If I do that, I will find myself in a bad situation -- as the guy who is causing doubt among the Quorum members. Whatever.

[_BishopRic]

That started with Brigham...because there were more women than men, and was necessary to care for all the women.

As a side note, can I just say that this logic makes NO sense!!

Why in the world would BY have to marry these women in order to take care of them? You can't just give to the poor because they are poor? They have to be a wife before you can provide for them???

Yes, and we know now that there were not more women than men -- it was all a weak attempt to justify the abhorant practice of polygamy!

[_Mister Scratch]

and the fact that Deseret Book doesn't see fit to carry all sorts of prominent works on LDS history is very telling.

I'm not sure why you are equating a private business with the LDS church??

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always been under the impression that Des. Books is owned by the LDS Church.

Does the church mandate what can and can not be sold at Deseret Book? Could it possibly be a simple case of a simple business decision to not stock a book that is a poor seller for the intended demographic of the business?

If these books have never been on offer, how would they know whether or not they are poor sellers? Moreover, No Man Knows My History has sold something like 1,000 copies per year ever since its release. It would be a foolhardy business decisions to exclude it from shelves.

[_Mister Scratch]

Nice try, BC. Again, I defy you to find something ON THE SITE, as opposed to on another site. You cannot be serious. Actually, you probably are. A sad state of denial.

Well now you are changing the rules. You say ON THE SITE. The original question as put to me was "find a single reference" and I found many. I've done my duty and note that I made no initial claims on this subject in the first place. Where is the need or my obligation to accept your new game?

BC---

Would you mind linking to these "many" references? I have found some mention of D&C 132, and "eternal marriage," but I was unable to find anything that would make a never-mo aware of the fact that this refers (tangentially) to polygamy. "Eternal marriage" and "plural marriage," after all, are not necessarily the same thing....

[_Jason Bourne]

Yep, prevalent attitude that you will find here with the Cult lapdogs Bourne and Nehor. The history is in your face and it is your fault if you didn't know about it. And if you did know about it, and followed it incorrectly, then you were to blame. The Cult will always be blameless.

Well here you go Infintus. Let's see how well your reading comprehension skills are. I actually agree with Scratch on this post as well as the other one on BKP. I have looked at the thread at MAD and disagree with Dr Peterson. I do not see how one can compare selling cars and a political party to selling religion. Essentially Peterson concludes that the Church has only an obligation to promote the faith especially to youth in seminary and institute. I disagree and believe that a Church that expects honesty in order to enter the temple ought to be more forthright about the difficult aspects of it founding history. I do not understand how anyone can say these things have no impact on where the message is true and will argue that the behavior of the person giving he message can help us determine if we want to trust him. At a minimum, I think a book like RSR ought to be used in a high school level church history course about Joseph Smith. And while I do not believe history is suppressed because a member can find these things out with a little leg work, especially given the internet, there is an undertone of discouraging reading of things that may put the history in a negative light. I was taking to a friend about this yesterday. He had read RSR but said his wife wanted nothing to do with it because of the negative stuff in it.

Also I was astonished and a comment by Dan Peterson about young busy mothers. It was in response to one poster who siad as a young busy mother her time for research and reading was limited. He said that young busy mothers and not the fault of the Church. Well sure maybe not the fault of the Church per say or directly but indirectly??? I think so yes when it strongly encourages marriage and not delaying children.


So Infintus, I await your apology.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes; fascinatingly, DeseretBook.com does not list No Man Knows My History, despite the fact that none other than Richard Bushman states that "it has shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring". Why would this critical book on the life of Joseph Smith be kept out of the Desert Book catalog? Hmmm??? Prof. Bushman rightly cites it as *the* dominant interpretation of Joseph Smith, and yet where is the book in the Church's bookstore? Also conspicuously absent from the website's store (unless I'm missing something, that is):
--Anything by Juanita Brooks
---Anything by Will Bagley
---Anything on Mountain Meadows, for that matter
--Anything by D. Michael Quinn

Well they do sell Mormon Enigma and RSR

[_Jason Bourne]

Compton, a still-believing LDS, is often utterly baffled by the treatment he receives at the hands of these FARMS reviewers.

Has anyone notified the resident rabid TBM defenders here? I'm sure they, like FARMS or FAIR, would jump on Compton as being "dismissed as insufficiently credentialed; unprincipled in various ways and hence likely to waste his time in debate; unworthy of his special attention in part because I have shown unscholarly tendencies in Internet postings"

Ok, credits to DCP in his dismissal of Bob McCue, but relevant. ;)

I think Compton is quite brilliant.

I await your apology.

[_John Larsen]

and the fact that Deseret Book doesn't see fit to carry all sorts of prominent works on LDS history is very telling.

I'm not sure why you are equating a private business with the LDS church??

Does the church mandate what can and can not be sold at Deseret Book? Could it possibly be a simple case of a simple business decision to not stock a book that is a poor seller for the intended demographic of the business?

Deseret Book and the Church are inseparable as entities.

It might be a business decision, but I very much doubt that sales are Deseret Book's primary concern.