Does the Church Suppress History?

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:02 am

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?

If true (because there are references to many materials on that site which may mention it), I'd say because plural marriage is not practiced today and therefore it detracts from the message and is not relevant.

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?

Should? Not really. The overall Restoration is far more important than the esoteric doctrines. However, I have no problem answering the question "Did Joseph Smith practice plural marriage?" forthrightly when it comes up. Yes, I am pulling the milk before meat principle on you and why not? Consider: How many lay Christians know that God authorized plural marriage in the Bible? Not many.....

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:03 am

Scottie wrote: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.

Some good points here. I'm not altogether sure if "suppress" is the absolute best word, but, until someone can find a better one, it works for me. It is true that the Powers That Be are "very selective," as you put it, but I think that the manipulation of information goes a good ways beyond this. The example of the Joseph Smith website, and the fact that Deseret Book doesn't see fit to carry all sorts of prominent works on LDS history is very telling. Further, mms has supplied quotes from both New Era and Elder Dallin Oaks. What seems clear, in the end, is that, at the very least, certain points of view are definitely censored and cast away.

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??

Probably never.

Post by **_mms** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:07 am

Wow. He responded. So, BC, why does it only detract (and why is it only not relevant) if it is associated with Joseph Smith, as the Church mentions it elsewhere in its online materials, just nowhere on Joseph Smith site. Could it be that it seeks to present an image of Joseph Smith that does not include plural marriage? Could it have attempted to present this image with its own members? Could that be why so many members are surprised to learn of Joseph Smith's plural marriage/polyandry? Duh.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:13 am

Hey, BC, go look at www.josephsmith.net and find a single reference to plural marriage, I dare you.

I accept this dare and after only a little perusal, I note that the site links (off-site) to questions about Joseph Smith, Emma Hale, and plural marriage. Probably not to the liking of an antiMormon exmo's sensibilities about what constitutes a reference on the site and the amount of details given, but I now wholly reject the notion that www.josephsmith.net does not contain a single reference to plural marriage. It contains many.

Now, since it only took me only about 5 minutes to find these references, I'll leave the proof to the student. Are any of you intellectually honest enough to take up the challenge?

Post by **_mms** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:18 am

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.

How about YOU being intellectually honest, BC. Show us the ACTUAL REFERENCE TO "PLURAL MARRIAGE" ON THE Joseph Smith SITE. Or are you arguing something akin to "well the site links to the Bible, therefore it references every single subject in the Bible." lol

Post by **_karl61** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:27 am

LMAO:

I typed in Emily in the search and got this:

1. Character of Joseph Smith - Witnesses

Emily D. Partridge Young, Early Member of the Church Joseph was a prophet of God, and a friend of man.

http://josephsmith.net

2. Character of Joseph Smith - Witnesses
Emily D. Partridge Young, Early Member of the Church Joseph was a prophet of God, and a friend of man.

http://josephsmith.net

They somehow forgot to mention she was one of his wives

can we say SUPPRESSION OF HISTORY.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:27 am

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?

Post by **_mms** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:32 am

bcspace wrote:
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?

This kind of complete disengenuousness gives credence to the Church's critics. BC is a shining example of the kind of "truth" you can expect from too many of those who purport to "defend" the Church. To BC, a "reference" to "plural marriage" is a reference to anything that references "plural marriage." Really? Whatever gets you through the day, BC.

Post by **_mms** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:35 am

thestyleguy wrote:LMAO:

I typed in Emily in the search and got this:

1. Character of Joseph Smith - Witnesses

Emily D. Partridge Young, Early Member of the Church Joseph was a prophet of God, and a friend of man.

http://josephsmith.net

2. Character of Joseph Smith - Witnesses
Emily D. Partridge Young, Early Member of the Church Joseph was a prophet of God, and a friend of man.

http://josephsmith.net

They somehow forgot to mention she was one of his wives

can we say SUPPRESSION OF HISTORY.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

Wow. I think BC will be done now.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:35 am

This kind of completely disengenuousness gives credence to the Church's critics. BC is a shining example of the kind of "truth" you can expect from many of those who purport to "defend" the Church. To BC, a "reference" to "plural marriage" is a reference to anything that references "plural marriage." Really? Whatever gets you through the day, BC.

Well, mms has given up where it took a raving idiot like me only 5 minutes to find what was asked for. I'm sure that there is someone else out there with the honesty and gumption to complete the mission.