Does the Church Suppress History?

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

KA

I knew about polygamy most my life and that Joseph Smith did it. Just not the details, the way it was hidden and denied, the pressure that was put on some women to comply and no clue about polyandry and so on. I understand this is difficult to teach in a balanced way. But never the less it should be disclosed to blossoming members and investigators.

[_KimberlyAnn]

This is what irritates me: Some Mormons, like BCSpace, tend to believe that ex-Mormons are either liars or were lazy Mormons if they claim that they were not taught the more disturbing parts of church history as active members.

BCSpace smugly remarked, "read it and weep" following his singular, improperly documented quote, which failed to prove that ex-Mormons on this board were either lazy members, out in the parking lot checking the score during church, or liars when we say we were unaware of portions of church history. I have NO reason to disbelieve BCSpace when he says he learned about Joseph Smith's polygamy as a Deacon or Teacher. I don't doubt that he's telling the truth! But, for some reason, he seems unable to return the favor.

I didn't know about Smith's polygamy until I was eighteen and a friend came home on winter break from BYU and told me. She didn't know until she heard it at BYU. I don't remember exactly how she found out there. It may have been in a class, or possibly from another student. That's the truth. I went to Seminary. I wasn't lazy. And, I'm not lying. I don't think BCSpace is lying, either.

KA

PS. I want to add that I was aware polygamy was a part of the early Mormon church, and was taught that it would be practiced again, eventually. I didn't know, however, about Joseph Smith's polygamy. I was aware of Brigham Young's.

Also, during my tour of the Beehive house this past fall, BY's polygamy wasn't mentioned at all, until I brought it up...

[_Jason Bourne]

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.....

THis is amazing. Simply amazing. So the actions of the founding prophet have no bearing on the restoration? Eternal marriage is rooted in D&C 132. If plural marriage is irrelevant to the overall message then remove D&C 132.

[_antishock8]

Does the Mormon Church suppress its history?

Does a bear crap in the woods?

Hmm....

[_Scottie]

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.

My mistake, Scratch. From the Deseret Book website

Deseret Book is a wholly owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, the holding company for business firms owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Deseret Book is a profit-making Utah corporation.

For some reason I was thinking DB was Sherry Dew's baby.

[_bcspace]

This is what irritates me: Some Mormons, like BCSpace, tend to believe that ex-Mormons are either liars or were lazy Mormons if they claim that they were not taught the more disturbing parts of church history as active members.

The only other option would be that an exmo has been away for so long they have forgotten.

BCSpace smugly remarked, "read it and weep"

An entirely appropriate response to mms' lazily researched claim.

following his singular, improperly documented quote,

Considering all the time you invest in antiMormonism, I wouldn't believe you if you said you weren't familiar with the CES site or the institute manuals.

which failed to prove that ex-Mormons on this board were either lazy members, out in the parking lot checking the score during church, or liars when we say we were unaware of portions of church history. I have NO reason to disbelieve BCSpace when he says he learned about Joseph Smith's polygamy as a Deacon or Teacher. I don't doubt that he's telling the truth! But, for some reason, he seems unable to return the favor.

The erroneous claim that it is not taught now has been well answered. However, I may have access to a much older manual (1982ish which is within the range requested) and if so, I will tell you for sure about that one.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow... The TBMs over on the MAD thread are in a complete tailspin over this issue. "Scotty Dog" Lloyd has said that the claim that the Church "suppresses history" is "defamatory." Check out this subsequent posting from him:

The fact that Joseph used a seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon should not be all that shocking to anyone who knows of the Urim and Thummim, which is clearly described in Joseph Smith -- History in the Pearl of Great Price as two stones fastened to a breastplate, a divine instrument given to aid the translation process. Where is the great leap in concept between two stones fastened to a breastplate and one stone placed into a hat? I don't get it.

Actually, I think there is a pretty clear difference. The description of the U & T sounds very magical, like this is some ancient, mysterious device with deep connections to some very old epoch (esp. the "breastplate") portion. Contrastingly, a stone w/ a hole in it tossed into an upturned hat sounds like something a garden-variety charlatan would do. Scott might not "get it," but I'm sure plenty of others do. Perhaps we should ask him: Would you prefer to tell an investigator that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim, or that he tossed a seer stone into his hat?

Anyways, check out these other hyperbolic, completely apoplectic postings:

I really don't know anyway else of saying this: its YOUR shortcoming that you are not doing honest research WHEN YOU FIND SOMETHING THAT TROUBLES YOU, not the Churches. and since apparently the people arguing that the Big Bad Church is to blame for their lack of ability to do honest complete research will never change their mind, I think its time for me at least to move on to other subjects.

Instead, we continue to get this generalized whine of "I never knew about this stuff, and the Church should have told me". The critics can't even agree on what "stuff" they are all talking about. And of course, we know that if we were to address all the stuff they wanted, there would still be more stuff that they would come up with to rationalize their exit from the Church.

The Church consists of people. As one of us, you can help us become perfected.

If you continue to choose to be someone who isn't one of us and not in agreement with us, though, I hope you will do more than criticize us.

The fact is, plural marriage was not a factor in the persecution of Mormons until very late in the Nauvoo period. In many ways, the worst atrocities occurred in Missouri, before the Saints ever settled in Illinois.

Go read some Church history before accusing the Church of deception.

This post cracked me up:

There are some, like Scott has mentioned, who will have some type of spiritual confirmation and then basically all of the pesky facts become irrelevent.

LOL!!!

[_Who Knows]

The worst part about the 'seerstoneinahat' thing, is that it was the same method Joseph Smith used to scam people - by pretending to be able to find buried treasure.

[_mentalgymnast]

It seems to me that the Church hasn't so much suppressed history, or openly advised members against reading certain things; rather, Church leaders have cannily engaged in spinning and smearing of certain works. Thus, Brodie's admirable and groundbreaking biography becomes a "historical novel." D. Michael Quinn's work becomes "untrustworthy." So on and so forth. I reckon that this process, and the effect it has on the membership, is somewhat akin to the exhortations to avoid R-rated movies and the like. There's not really a formal list (or an Index Librorum Prohibitorum, as it were---conveniently, the MPAA does this for the Church) on which specific films are banned; instead, the general warning is enough to scare most TBMs away from this.

Comparing movie ratings and such with what books not to read doesn't work. Ratings have been talked about/discussed ad nauseum for years among church members...at church, and in homes. I have never heard discussions as to Brodie's book being a "historical novel" or Quinn's work being "untrustworthy" in general church group settings. Or discussions/warnings of any other books that I can think of.

Years ago when I was a babe in the woods in regards to the unwhitewashed version of church history, etc., I can't remember anything that would have discouraged my reading interests at all. My interests developed independently without any influence one way or the other from "the church".

I think that you are, as usual, putting blame on "the church" where none is warranted. Why do you keep doing that?

Regards,
MG

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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???

Yeah, I always loved that excuse. There were more women than men, so naturally polygamy was required. LOL. It's interesting that countries are able to rebuild after wars in which men and boys are killed in large numbers, and they don't need to institute polygamy to take care of the widow women.