Does the Church Suppress History?

[_beastie]

President Wilford Woodruff, who was closely associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, said: “Emma Smith, the widow of the Prophet, is said to have maintained to her dying moments that her husband had nothing to do with the patriarchal order of marriage, but that it was Brigham Young that got that up. I bear record before God, angels and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage to several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in this congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words. But lo and behold, we hear of publication after publication now-a-days, declaring that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with these things. Joseph Smith himself organized every endowment in our Church and revealed the same to the Church, and he lived to receive every key of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods from the hands of the men who held them while in the flesh, and who hold them in eternity.” (In Journal of Discourses, 23:131.)
Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual Section 132 Marriage: An Eternal Covenant

What year was this manual published?

[_Mister Scratch]

An interesting update to the events currently unfolding at MAD. Previously, RDL (whom I predict will be booted off pretty soon), posted this:

Consider a religion apart from Mormonism. Take Scientology. Suppose Scientology came into the possession of a letter from L. Ron Hubbard that spoke of "all the suckers who buy into the silly tale I'm telling." Is the Church of Scientology not committing fraud by withholding that letter from Scientologists, who might be inclined to leave if they saw that letter?

Check out DCP's reply:

That's a very, very different matter. In your hypothetical case, the Church of Scientology would have incontrovertible proof of the falsehood of its claims. You may think that such proof exists in the case of Mormonism, but I don't, and I'm quite confident that the leadership of the Church doesn't share your opinion, either. So we're not taking about revealing definitive evidence of fraud, but of turning Church curriculum and classroom instruction over to its critics.

And RDL's excellent retort:

I never said the church has a duty to give equal time or any forum to those who disagree with it. And I never said it's fraud for the church not to teach every bit of history and doctrine. I only said that when the church has or discovers information that it knows or should know might be material for some deciding whether to be a Mormon, it should have a duty to disclose that information. In the example I gave, I think the church had an obligation to make me aware of the discovery of the papyrus, because obviously that could affect whether I believe the Pearl of Great Price is scripture.

And I do think the Abraham/papyrus issue by itself is more conclusive proof of the falsity of Smith as a prophet than the L. Ron Hubbard letter I offered would contravene Scientology.

Ouch.

[_bcspace]

Yes, the ignorance of some who never were members of the LDS Church or if they were, never attented or paid any attention at all in class.

I paid attention. In fact, I paid attention enough to know that Deacons do not go to Seminary. Sorry, BCSpace, but your quote from the Seminary manual is not evidence that Joseph Smith's polygamy should be known to Deacons.

Where did I state that it should be known to deacons?

KA goes from one half-truth to another. How typical of the antiMormon to change the subject when stymied on another.

I was referencing this quote to which you were replying:

GIVE UP THE ARGUMENT that we should have learned this stuff when we were deacons.

And now KA tries the same refuted argument from another angle (blame it on the other poster). Please provide the quote where I made such an argument KA.

You didn't learn it in Seminary as a Deacon (or younger). The quote you provided does not satisfy your assertion, or the demand of your interlocutor . You may have learned it as a Teacher in Seminary, but the quote you provided doesn't prove that, either. From what year's manual was that quote extracted? That may be a newer manual than the manuals used when many of us were youth.

Yet that logic goes against the assertion in this thread that such is not taught among us now.

When I was in Seminary, different lessons were taught to different ages. Is that quote from the manual used as instruction for fourteen and fifteen year olds? Or is it from the manual used to teach high school Juniors or Seniors?

Absent the pertinent information, I still maintain your quote doesn't support your assertion.

That same manual is used by seminary teachers. The student study guide also references the same verses. So the argument that these things are not taught falls flat. I have two children in seminary and they recognize the institute manuals as what is being taught out of (just checked) AND my oldest daughter (a senior) remembers hearing about Joseph Smith's plural wives. One of the seminary teachers here has a daughter on my soccer team. Shall I double-check?

Seriously, BC, EDUCATE US ON WHY PLURAL MARRIAGE CANNOT BE FOUND ON THE OFFICIAL CHURCH WEBSITE ON JOSEPH SMITH'S LIFE. I assume no response means you, in fact, are KO'd on the issue of whether the Church intentionally suppresses its history.

Since I've made no claims regarding that site, how is it again that I am KO'd on this issue?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I think the apologists forget that most critics on this board and over at MADB were once members. Some of us were members for decades, including primary, seminary, institute, gospel doctrine, etc. We know what we were taught. We know Mormon culture. For an apologist to tell a former member that the church doesn't try to suppress it's embarassing history is like an abusive parent telling their kid they were never abused. They're not fooling anybody by trying to deny this. Next thing they're gonna say is the church has never taught that native americans were Lamanites, as if none of us remember what we were taught.

[_mms]

BC, let me help you out here, considering you have been so helpful. If it is your position that the Church does not intentionally suppress certain aspects of its history, why did it choose to make not a single reference to 32 out of 33 wives on the Joseph Smith official website? Or do you agree that it did so to supress a certain aspect of its history? You are KO'd because you have attempted to demonstrate that the Church does not suppress its history, even purportedly teaching deacons or younger about Joseph Smith's other wives, but now I have given you a current whopper of an example and you have no response. K.O.

[_Scottie]

The recent one about MMM thread on MAD board, he branded the event;
"So called MMM"

What is even crazier is I have stumbled across the use of "so-called" (meaning "Commonly called") in the last two books I've read (Backgrounds of Early Christianity by Ferguson, and Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity edited by Fiorenza), and in a (disappointing) book by Dr. Marcus Martins on the priesthood ban.

I’m glad there are other scholars (some non-LDS at that) that have shared in his stupidity. Surely we can give him the benefit of the doubt in regards to “so-called,” no?

Oh yeah! You just reminded me of that thread on MAD. The "so called MMM" thread.

If I recall correctly, DCP was out of the country and we were all anxiously awaiting his return. Did he ever respond to that?

[_bcspace]

BC, let me help you out here, considering you have been so helpful. If it is your position that the Church does not intentionally suppress certain aspects of its history, why did it choose to make not a single reference to 32 out of 33 wives on the Joseph Smith official website? Or do you agree that it did so to supress a certain aspect of its history? You are KO'd because you have attempted to demonstrate that the Church does not suppress its history, even purportedly teaching deacons or younger about Joseph Smith's other wives, but now I have given you a current whopper of an example and you have no response. K.O.

I think you should go back to my original post in this series of responses and see exactly what position I took. Q.E.D.

You guys are so desparate to bash your favorite strawman that you'll turn anything into a debate about it. A strawman debate, ha! But if you'd like a response about the notion of the Church suppressing it's history, I'd say suppress isn't the right word.

[_Yoda]

BC, let me help you out here, considering you have been so helpful. If it is your position that the Church does not intentionally suppress certain aspects of its history, why did it choose to make not a single reference to 32 out of 33 wives on the Joseph Smith official website? Or do you agree that it did so to supress a certain aspect of its history? You are KO'd because you have attempted to demonstrate that the Church does not suppress its history, even purportedly teaching deacons or younger about Joseph Smith's other wives, but now I have given you a current whopper of an example and you have no response. K.O.

I think you should go back to my original post in this series of responses and see exactly what position I took. Q.E.D.

You guys are so desparate to bash your favorite strawman that you'll turn anything into a debate about it. A strawman debate, ha! But if you'd like a response about the notion of the Church suppressing it's history, I'd say suppress isn't the right word.

Then simply answer this question, BC.

Why do you think the Church didn't make any type of mention regarding Joseph Smith's plural marriages on the official Church website dealing with autobiographical information on Joseph Smith?

Plural Marriage was a pretty large part of Joseph Smith's legacy. Shouldn't it at least be mentioned? Particularly in reference to his family tree?

[Guest]

BC, let me help you out here, considering you have been so helpful. If it is your position that the Church does not intentionally suppress certain aspects of its history, why did it choose to make not a single reference to 32 out of 33 wives on the Joseph Smith official website? Or do you agree that it did so to supress a certain aspect of its history? You are KO'd because you have attempted to demonstrate that the Church does not suppress its history, even purportedly teaching deacons or younger about Joseph Smith's other wives, but now I have given you a current whopper of an example and you have no response. K.O.

I think you should go back to my original post in this series of responses and see exactly what position I took. Q.E.D.

You guys are so desparate to bash your favorite strawman that you'll turn anything into a debate about it. A strawman debate, ha! But if you'd like a response about the notion of the Church suppressing it's history, I'd say suppress isn't the right word.

Hilarious! Who's desperate? BC cannot honestly answer the question (in the above post) without admitting what he has tried to argue with. That is my frustration. Some things are so obvious, but the most vocal "defenders" cannot admit them. Even when Dallin Oaks admits it, they try to backpedal on his behalf. They have spent so much time arguing that the Church has not presented an "adoring" history that does not deal with anything "unfavorable" that when Oaks admits the opposite in a single statement, they cannot deal with it. Cog diss kicks in and Oaks' words become vague and confusing when they were so clear and straight forward. How about simply admitting the obvious and then trying to justify it like Oaks did. Admit that it has to do with not creating doubts, and then explain why the information should not create doubts. But quit arguing that the Church has not done what it obviously has.

[_Scottie]

BC, let me help you out here, considering you have been so helpful. If it is your position that the Church does not intentionally suppress certain aspects of its history, why did it choose to make not a single reference to 32 out of 33 wives on the Joseph Smith official website? Or do you agree that it did so to supress a certain aspect of its history? You are KO'd because you have attempted to demonstrate that the Church does not suppress its history, even purportedly teaching deacons or younger about Joseph Smith's other wives, but now I have given you a current whopper of an example and you have no response. K.O.

I think you should go back to my original post in this series of responses and see exactly what position I took. Q.E.D.

You guys are so desparate to bash your favorite strawman that you'll turn anything into a debate about it. A strawman debate, ha! But if you'd like a response about the notion of the Church suppressing it's history, I'd say suppress isn't the right word.

I would have to agree with this, BC. I don't think suppress is quite the right word either.

They are very selective about what gets taught in church. The typical apologist response is something like, "The information is out there if you want to get it. Church is not the place to teach about warts. It is your own fault if you never bothered to read church history or JoD."

I say, the church has an obligation to teach this information SOMEWHERE. If not church, then do it in at a special fireside.

It's funny how I knew about BY's polygamy all throughout my church life and it never bothered me one bit. But when I found out about Joseph Smith polygamy, my world came crashing down.

When will they learn that inoculation is the best preventive medicine??