DiscussMormonism.com

With all of the ugly meaty truths available to not only the gentiles but to the unwitting members with shakey testimonies, is there an effort to shift more of the historical truths back into the curriculum to help inoculate the members testimonies against the google virus?

To be honest, had I been raised like you, awash in all of the unsavory history of the church, non of what I discovered would have fazed me. Keep in mind, this must start at a very young age.

Instead, I was raised in the heart of the Mo'rridor, never knowing the truth about MMM, smiths polyg,fanny, helen, papyrus fiasco, the six shooter at carthage, masonry, ... the list goes on.. Then one day I googled "Horses+book+of+Mormon" and which lead me to many websites, including Farm/Fair.

The explanations were to far reaching and much too late.

I thought you had mentioned that you were on a committee that oversaw the content of some of the lesson manuals. True?

Do you think it is time for the manuals to put a pleasant spin on the unsavory history in the style of Bushman?

Since this is actually a fairly substantive question (for which I congratulate you), I think I'll respond to it.

Polygamy Porter wrote:With all of the ugly meaty truths

"The ugly meaty truths"? There are some problem areas in Church history, but none, in my judgment, that are particularly damaging to the Church's truth claims.

Polygamy Porter wrote:available to not only the gentiles but to the unwitting members with shakey testimonies, is there an effort to shift more of the historical truths back into the curriculum to help inoculate the members testimonies against the google virus?

I'm unaware of any effort to revise the Church's curriculum -- which is already quite full of "historical truths" -- in order to fend off criticisms.

Polygamy Porter wrote:To be honest, had I been raised like you, awash in all of the unsavory history of the church, non of what I discovered would have fazed me. Keep in mind, this must start at a very young age.

I don't think the Church's history is especially "unsavory." Quite the contrary, actually.

Polygamy Porter wrote:Instead, I was raised in the heart of the Mo'rridor, never knowing the truth about MMM, smiths polyg,fanny, helen, papyrus fiasco, the six shooter at carthage, masonry, ... the list goes on.

I'm guessing, frankly, that you probably don't know the truth now.

Polygamy Porter wrote:Then one day I googled "Horses+book+of+Mormon" and which lead me to many websites, including Farm/Fair.

FARMS and FAIR are two entirely distinct organizations. There is, thanks in particular to moi, some pretty minimal coöperation between them, but that's about the extent of it.

Polygamy Porter wrote:The explanations were to far reaching and much too late.

That's unfortunate.

Polygamy Porter wrote:I thought you had mentioned that you were on a committee that oversaw the content of some of the lesson manuals. True?

I served for nearly ten years on the Gospel Doctrine Writing Committee. I was released from that committee probably a little more than a decade ago.

Polygamy Porter wrote:Do you think it is time for the manuals to put a pleasant spin on the unsavory history in the style of Bushman?

I don't think that Richard put a "spin" on Joseph's biography. I don't agree that our history is "unsavory." And, no, I don't think that we need any "pleasant spin" in the manuals.

Thanks for the reply.

However you are biased and jaded. You seem proud to still be a member knowing all of the, in my opinion, unsavory bits of history.

With that, in my opinion, were it left up to you on the 1990 changes to the temple ceremony, very little if any at all would have occurred.

Lets discuss what I find unsavory shall we?

1833, a law was passed in Illinois against the practice of bigamy(more than one spouse).

Smith and some of his inner circle were practicing polygamy and polyandry in Nauvoo.

He had the 1835 edition of the D&C canonized which contained section 101:4 specifically forbidding polygamy.

Later in 1842 he wrote the Articles of faith, one of which stated Mormons followed the law of the land.

in my opinion, he lied, broke the law, and broke his own rules laid out in his canon and Articles of faith.

Feel free to explain your take on that.

1833, a law was passed in Illinois against the practice of bigamy(more than one spouse).

Smith and some of his inner circle were practicing polygamy and polyandry in Nauvoo.

They weren't legal marriages. He and his inner circle weren't bigamists. If indeed the unions were more than "spiritual", they would have been guilty of adultery, not bigamy.

Surely you can put up a better argument than that.

Or not.

Jersey Girl wrote:

1833, a law was passed in Illinois against the practice of bigamy(more than one spouse).

Smith and some of his inner circle were practicing polygamy and polyandry in Nauvoo.

They weren't legal marriages. He and his inner circle weren't bigamists. If indeed the unions were more than "spiritual", they would have been guilty of adultery, not bigamy.

Surely you can put up a better argument than that.

Or not.

If these were not legal marriages and they were not anything more than spiritual, then why do Mormon authors like Bushman and Compton as well as the LDS church use the term POLYGAMY to describe smith's associations with these women?

Put on your trifocals and look up the definition of the word.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Since this is actually a fairly substantive question (for which I congratulate you), I think I'll respond to it.

Polygamy Porter wrote:With all of the ugly meaty truths

"The ugly meaty truths"? There are some problem areas in Church history, but none, in my judgment, that are particularly damaging to the Church's truth claims.

Well then you're either stupid, in denial, or a liar. Shocker!

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Polygamy Porter wrote:available to not only the gentiles but to the unwitting members with shakey testimonies, is there an effort to shift more of the historical truths back into the curriculum to help inoculate the members testimonies against the google virus?

I'm unaware of any effort to revise the Church's curriculum -- which is already quite full of "historical truths" -- in order to fend off criticisms.

Historical truths? What, like the year Joe was born? Yeah, I suppose there might be a couple.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Polygamy Porter wrote:To be honest, had I been raised like you, awash in all of the unsavory history of the church, non of what I discovered would have fazed me. Keep in mind, this must start at a very young age.

I don't think the Church's history is especially "unsavory." Quite the contrary, actually.

Well then you're either stupid, in denial, or a liar. Shocker!

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Polygamy Porter wrote:Instead, I was raised in the heart of the Mo'rridor, never knowing the truth about MMM, smiths polyg,fanny, helen, papyrus fiasco, the six shooter at carthage, masonry, ... the list goes on.

I'm guessing, frankly, that you probably don't know the truth now.

LOL... As if you do.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Polygamy Porter wrote:Then one day I googled "Horses+book+of+Mormon" and which lead me to many websites, including Farm/Fair.

FARMS and FAIR are two entirely distinct organizations. There is, thanks in particular to moi, some pretty minimal coöperation between them, but that's about the extent of it.

Stirring the pot again, are you? You sure that satan isn't your redeemer?

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Polygamy Porter wrote:The explanations were to far reaching and much too late.

That's unfortunate.

Not as unfortunate as hearing the truth, burying your head in the sand, and claiming the air is great down there.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Polygamy Porter wrote:I thought you had mentioned that you were on a committee that oversaw the content of some of the lesson manuals. True?

I served for nearly ten years on the Gospel Doctrine Writing Committee. I was released from that committee probably a little more than a decade ago.

So we can all hope that the committee contains some honest people now? Maybe there's hope for the church after all.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Polygamy Porter wrote:Do you think it is time for the manuals to put a pleasant spin on the unsavory history in the style of Bushman?

I don't think that Richard put a "spin" on Joseph's biography. I don't agree that our history is "unsavory." And, no, I don't think that we need any "pleasant spin" in the manuals.

Well then you're either stupid, in denial, or a liar. Shocker!

Better get your juliann... er, I mean... your molo fixed. Maybe get yourself fixed too. I'd like to see Mormons stop reproducing, for the good of all mankind.

Some Schmo wrote:
Well then you're either stupid, in denial, or a liar. Shocker!

It is quite possible that two people can disagree over the same evidence and not be stupid, in denial, or a liar.

Better get your juliann... er, I mean... your molo fixed. Maybe get yourself fixed too. I'd like to see Mormons stop reproducing, for the good of all mankind.

I think that is a disgusting sentiment. Mormons hurt all mankind? How so? Why not just pick a few other people you disagree with and not let them reproduce either. Eh?

Jersey Girl wrote:

1833, a law was passed in Illinois against the practice of bigamy(more than one spouse).

Smith and some of his inner circle were practicing polygamy and polyandry in Nauvoo.

They weren't legal marriages. He and his inner circle weren't bigamists. If indeed the unions were more than "spiritual", they would have been guilty of adultery, not bigamy.

Surely you can put up a better argument than that.

Or not.

He and his inner circle were certainly bigamists. I do not see how you can say this.

"The ugly meaty truths"? There are some problem areas in Church history, but none, in my judgment, that are particularly damaging to the Church's truth claims.

Many years ago, as a believer, I naïvely picked up a book from my library shelf called Mormon Enigma. Now, I had been an active, devout believer since my conversion at the age of 19, but I live on the east coast with limited information about the LDS church (prior to the internet, of course). I was shocked and horrified by what I read. I called the most knowledgeable member of our ward, who had actually written a book about historical Nauvoo that was used in church instruction, and timidly asked him if he had ever read anything in church history that were troubling. He said no. That was it, just 'no', he'd read NOTHING that was troubling. That was the extent of our conversation.

Now, I'm not saying that one HAS to lose faith after hearing about Joseph Smith' polyandry and deceiving Emma, but I'm saying that one SHOULD feel some qualms, be a bit troubled, after reading such things. So what was the most disturbing to me wasn't that this believer didn't lose faith like I did, but that he didn't even view these issues as troubling. I think there is really something odd about that.

One of my pet peeves is when believers act as if there really is NOTHING in church history or teachings that could POSSIBLY justify a loss of faith. Excuse me, there is. There is plenty. Perhaps you have found a way to retain belief in the face of things like Joseph Smith' polyandry, the Book of Abraham, false teachings of past prophets - but if a believer can't even bring themselves to admit that there IS troubling information in church history that - at least - makes the loss of faith not incomprehensible, then I tend to think they're playing games, either with themselves or with us.