He makes a few good points and a few bad ones. Some comments.
There was a recent article in Arizona where a brother was
excommunicated from the church for apostasy. He told the newspapers
about losing his belief when he discovered that Joseph Smith had more
than one wife. Again, I am puzzled. His misunderstanding is that it is
ok to know that Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff had
more than one wife and to believe they were prophets, but it means
Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet if he did.
It was really not this simple. Why did he make it look like it was?
I don't mean to say that we should only be reading whitewashed
histories that leave out the mistakes and faults of men. But it makes
me ask what history these people are reading.
Does the history they read include the lives, histories, and
testimonies of the witnesses who said over and over again that they
had seen the plates and they had seen an angel?
Does it include the story of Martin Harris complaining how heavy the
plates were as he held them on his lap for an hour and a half?
Does it include Martin Harris saying, "Well as sure as you see my hand
so sure did I see the angel and the plates"?
Does it include Oliver Cowdery speaking of the Book of Mormon
translation from his deathbed and saying, "I know that whereof I
testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the
mind--it was real"?
Does it include the story of Katharine, Joseph Smith's sister hiding
the plates in her bed under her legs?
Does it include the quote from John Whitmer as he says, "I handled
those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides"?
Does the history include the many reports from others who also saw
angels?
Does the history include the 121 independent eyewitness accounts of
the mantel of Joseph Smith being passed on to Brigham Young on August
8, 1844, such as the one from nine-year-old William Van Orden who
suddenly said, "The Prophet [is] not dead, for I [see] him on the
stand"?
Yes. Did he read the the histories that state the witnesses did not see with natural eyes but spiritual, that the plates were covered when they handled them, that the transfiguration of Brigham was inserted into the history after the fact.... that the accounts of the event may be dubious?
Did he read that the way the priesthood is taught to have been restored is nothing like what really happened, that there is no mention of John the Baptist's visit before 1832? That the MK priesthood ideas were not there till 1835 and then we here about Peter, James and John and not before? Where in the histories that the Church sponosrs is anything about polyandry and Helen Mar Kimball? How about anything in the LDS sponsored histories that cover the fact that the first Manifesto was a subterfuge and that it really confused the hell out of the members? How about the Changes to the D&C as well?
I suspect that the histories they are reading aren't complete. I
suspect this incompleteness because I have read many of those
histories.
I suspect he is wrong.
In reading them I find there are things often left out,
there are things included that aren't relevant, and there are things
included of suspect authenticity.
Can he enlighten us as to what it not relevant in his mind and what is suspect?
To be fair, all histories leave
things out and get some things wrong. There simply isn't enough room
for all of history in any one book, and research is always expanding
and subject to human error.
Is this reason to leave most of the difficult issue out?
But it is interesting to observe what is
strategically left in or taken out. Some histories use facts and
quotes to paint a picture that shows Joseph Smith as a flawed man and
therefore not a prophet; however, they leave out facts and quotes that
show that he was a prophet. Yet, when you see all of the facts and
quotes and their textual and historical contexts, you see both
pictures and come to understand that Joseph Smith was flawed man who
was also a prophet of God.
And some histories paint him as nothing but a hero that you cannot but help to love and know as a prophet because he appears near to perfection.
It is sometimes argued that Church history books and lesson manuals
leave out pertinent facts. They tend to leave out the flaws of early
Church leaders. But, these facts aren't pertinent to the question of
whether these men were called of God because the Church teaches that
all men have flaws including prophets. And yet, God uses those flawed
men to bring about His work.
This is the dumbest thing he said and the dumbest argument anyone can make. "It does not matter that Joseph Smith lied to his wife about plural marriagem married other mens wives and told teenagers that they would gain exaltation by marrying him." He was a prophet damn it.
Ands not only do the tend to leave out the flaws they deliberately leave out the flaws. And what they did and their charecter is pertinent in deciding if we can trust the fact they claimed to speak directly to God.
If one is going to make a life changing decision such as leaving a
church, it should be based on more than one disturbing fact, or on
reading one disturbing book, or worse, a few articles from an Internet
web site. More research is always necessary to understand the
historical and textual context of the history you have read.
]
Oh come now. If one is going to commit their life to a Church in time, money, devotion etc like one does who is LDS one should expect the Church to be forthright and provide disclosure to difficult issues. Would Mr Gordon invest $10,000 or more on such flimsy material as one gets in the missionary discussions? Yet he expects people to devote their life and that of their families without disclosure.
And by they way my guess is for most it more then "one disturbing fact, or on
reading one disturbing book, or worse, a few articles from an Internet
web site." Can you say straw man?
If you are struggling and seeing only the negative picture of the
Church and Church history, these books might help you see the other
picture and understand that both pictures can peacefully coexist,
providing a richness to our history. Good and bad often coexist as
humans make both good and bad decisions. Additionally, sometimes what
we call bad is simply our misunderstanding of God and how He works.
The true miracle is that God uses us as flawed human beings to carry
out His flawless work
.
I have no problem with God using flawed men and women. Why does the Church seem to need to paint them as not flawed?