Jason Bourne wrote:Yes Liz I agree. This is one og my major beefs. The way the Church treats its history and the fluffy feel good way they try to present it.
I wonder if this will ever change? I know some feel that Bushman's Joseph Smith book is an advance, I not sure how much it really is. Moreover, I think this is something they've been a bit forced into by by the work of others (Quinn, etc.)
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
The problem is that the persecution of Joseph Smith, the Nauvoo Expositor and the disaffection of William Law, and even the excommunication of Oliver Cowdery cannot be properly understood without acknowleding Joseph's polygamy. For heaven's sake, two of Joseph Smith's own councilors in the First Presidency were excommunicated for accusing Joseph Smith of adultery and calling him to repent for it, and one of them was the main scribe of the Book of Mormon, and supposedly a witness to a great many of the visions and things that happened at the start of the church! How can anyone make sense of Oliver Cowdery, one of the founders of the church, leaving it, without knowing that he felt Joseph had fallen into adultery and gotten excommunicated over it? How can anyone possibly understand correctly what William Law's beef was with Joseph Smith if Joseph's polygamy cannot be mentioned?
Oh, I know. William Law just becomes this evil, Satan-driven apostate who turns from a normal, righteous, God-fearing man, into a psychopathic, Satanic hose beast because the Devil wants to oppose the work of God. Yeah, that's the ticket. No specific reason for Law's disaffection even need be mentioned if he's just going to be shown to be an evil APOSTATE, since apostates are so demonized by the Church's historians that their pure, unmitigated evil stands all by itself. No, it wasn't William Law's opposition to polygamy that got him in trouble with Joseph Smith, it was, (drumroll) William Law's wicked desire to oppose the Work of God.
What a pile of dog poo. Juliann, DCP, others if you are reading this, the Church's historical website is exactly a perfect example of a so-called history lesson from the church about Joseph Smith that does exactly what critics have been saying the church does, which is to completely sweep under the rug the major fact that Joseph Smith "married" dozens of other women, and that the opposition to this practice was one of the factors which brought him down in the end. You can deny it all you want, but you won't find a hint of it on that Joseph Smith history site from the Church.
Oh, well I guess the answer is that this isn't really a history site per se, is it, but rather a marketing tool. And marketers can and do leave out or include whatever they feel will strengthen the selling points they're trying to make.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:The problem is that the persecution of Joseph Smith, the Nauvoo Expositor and the disaffection of William Law, and even the excommunication of Oliver Cowdery cannot be properly understood without acknowleding Joseph's polygamy. For heaven's sake, two of Joseph Smith's own councilors in the First Presidency were excommunicated for accusing Joseph Smith of adultery and calling him to repent for it, and one of them was the main scribe of the Book of Mormon, and supposedly a witness to a great many of the visions and things that happened at the start of the church! How can anyone make sense of Oliver Cowdery, one of the founders of the church, leaving it, without knowing that he felt Joseph had fallen into adultery and gotten excommunicated over it? How can anyone possibly understand correctly what William Law's beef was with Joseph Smith if Joseph's polygamy cannot be mentioned?
Oh, I know. William Law just becomes this evil, Satan-driven apostate who turns from a normal, righteous, God-fearing man, into a psychopathic, Satanic hose beast because the Devil wants to oppose the work of God. Yeah, that's the ticket. No specific reason for Law's disaffection even need be mentioned if he's just going to be shown to be an evil APOSTATE, since apostates are so demonized by the Church's historians that their pure, unmitigated evil stands all by itself. No, it wasn't William Law's opposition to polygamy that got him in trouble with Joseph Smith, it was, (drumroll) William Law's wicked desire to oppose the Work of God.
What a pile of dog poo. Juliann, DCP, others if you are reading this, the Church's historical website is exactly a perfect example of a so-called history lesson from the church about Joseph Smith that does exactly what critics have been saying the church does, which is to completely sweep under the rug the major fact that Joseph Smith "married" dozens of other women, and that the opposition to this practice was one of the factors which brought him down in the end. You can deny it all you want, but you won't find a hint of it on that Joseph Smith history site from the Church.
Oh, well I guess the answer is that this isn't really a history site per se, is it, but rather a marketing tool. And marketers can and do leave out or include whatever they feel will strengthen the selling points they're trying to make.
Gotta say I agree with Sethbag here.
by the way, Quinn notes in his Mormon Heiarchy, Vol 1 that Cowdry too had and affair and wanted a plural wife around the same time of the Joseph Smith and Fanny affair.
Yikes, what a dumbed-down gloss-job site that is. Light on information all together, but heavy on preaching persecution, sacrifice and martyrdom. Is that what people are looking for in a religion these days? Somehow, I doubt it will sell that well.
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Yikes, what a dumbed-down gloss-job site that is. Light on information all together, but heavy on preaching persecution, sacrifice and martyrdom. Is that what people are looking for in a religion these days? Somehow, I doubt it will sell that well.
And no mention of his six shooter that he fired and landed two deadly bullets(HC by John Taylor) and the masonic distress call in the window just before the mob cut him down.
Once you understand that most of what LDS Inc cranks out is pointed at the tithe paying members, you understand why it is presented the way it is. The spin docs are afraid that the average member's mindset is to immature to wrap their puny brains around such complex historical facts. Tithing is at stake!
Joe was a Mason?
Joe was calling out to the Masons and not GOD when he muttered "Oh Lord, Oh God"?
Joe had a gun and shot and killed two people?
Joe was not a martyr?
Joe adapted the masonic rituals to the temple ceremony?
Joe drank alcohol?
Joe was banging 14 year girls?
Joe cheated on his wife?
Joe's translation of the papyrus does not match the modern translation, AT ALL?
and on
and on
and ooooonnnnnn......
Jason Bourne wrote:Gotta say I agree with Sethbag here.
by the way, Quinn notes in his Mormon Heiarchy, Vol 1 that Cowdry too had and affair and wanted a plural wife around the same time of the Joseph Smith and Fanny affair.
Why should that matter?
Joe restored the only true and living gospel of one Jesus Christ to the earth. Who cares if he screwed the Laurels?
Jason Bourne wrote:Gotta say I agree with Sethbag here.
by the way, Quinn notes in his Mormon Heiarchy, Vol 1 that Cowdry too had and affair and wanted a plural wife around the same time of the Joseph Smith and Fanny affair.
Why should that matter?
Joe restored the only true and living gospel of one Jesus Christ to the earth. Who cares if he screwed the Laurels?
Jason Bourne wrote:Gotta say I agree with Sethbag here.
by the way, Quinn notes in his Mormon Heiarchy, Vol 1 that Cowdry too had and affair and wanted a plural wife around the same time of the Joseph Smith and Fanny affair.
Why should that matter?
Joe restored the only true and living gospel of one Jesus Christ to the earth. Who cares if he screwed the Laurels?
The Laurels? No one would mind if he'd stuck to that age group (well, not toooooo much). It's when he reached down into the MIA Maids that people get really upset.