Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

[_just me]

The point is, is that while yes there is "some" teaching of history, that's not the same as "teaching history" or having history classes in Church.

You expect us to teach ALL history, no matter if it's actually true or not.
What's worse is you want us to teach "your version" of history, as if it is the actual and true history, when it's not.

What "relevance" in a Sunday School class does teaching that Porter Rockwell a once body guard of Joseph Smith once attempted to kill Governor Boggs for his evil acts against the Church?

Please tell us how this "history" has any relevance to a Sunday School lesson, let alone any other number of useless facts, and let alone your false facts, or your facts used to lie?

As I said, the Church doesn't teach history, it teaches the Gospel of Christ.
It only quotes history as it relates to the Gospel of Christ.

Get a clue people!

When the church uses "facts" to present the LDS church and its "leaders" in a certain light (ie, they were the poor, downtrodden underdogs) it would matter VERY "much" to give the WHOLE "TRUTH" about the history of the church and their dealings with those around them.

LDS members are "taught" that Joseph Smith was arrested and put on trial time and again for "trumped up charges" and no good reason, just plain and simple bigotry.

When the "WHOLE TRUTH" is examined we find a different story. There actually were good, valid reasons for Joseph Smith to be arrested and put on trial. We find the the "Saints" were engaged in activities that were arrogant, subversive, illegal and destructive at times. Yep, that bothered the heck outta the neighbors.

In "fact," we discover that Joseph spent a lot of time running from the law because he was breakin' the law. Breakin' the law.

[_ldsfaqs]

When the church uses "facts" to present the LDS church and its "leaders" in a certain light (ie, they were the poor, downtrodden underdogs) it would matter VERY "much" to give the WHOLE "TRUTH" about the history of the church and their dealings with those around them.

It can be useful sure.

LDS members are "taught" that Joseph Smith was arrested and put on trial time and again for "trumped up charges" and no good reason, just plain and simple bigotry.

When the "WHOLE TRUTH" is examined we find a different story. There actually were good, valid reasons for Joseph Smith to be arrested and put on trial. We find the the "Saints" were engaged in activities that were arrogant, subversive, illegal and destructive at times. Yep, that bothered the heck outta the neighbors.

In "fact," we discover that Joseph spent a lot of time running from the law because he was breakin' the law. Breakin' the law.

And see, that is where we depart.....
Reason being is the WHOLE TRUTH actually shows the opposite, which entirely supports the Churches position and basic presentation of it's history and leaders.

See, you're quote mining of certain facts of history, isn't the "real" history, it is an out of context misrepresentation of the history. Take for example your Joseph being arrested and put on trial many times. It's a perfect example of your revisionist history. Because basically every time he was acquitted and didn't actually do anything wrong. He was not actually breaking the law as you claim. Your negative "perceptions" are not the same as the whole truth, fact and reality. If Joseph had been "guilty" all those times, he would have been convicted. But he wasn't, and so he wasn't.

We know Joseph's actual mistakes, weaknesses, or anyone else in Church history. But your version of the history is vastly compounded false. You add all kinds of sins onto him and the Church that simply is not true. If they were actually true, we wouldn't be Mormon. But, we see what you don't and aren't willing to see, so we know your "tales" of the Church are false, perversions and misrepresentations. And as someone who has no interest in man-made religion, no "family" to hold me fast (as you all like to falsely claim of LDS who hold to the so-called lie) etc. etc., I trust my judgment far over yours.

[_Drifting]

Take for example your Joseph being arrested and put on trial many times. It's a perfect example of your revisionist history. Because basically every time he was acquitted and didn't actually do anything wrong.

...and yet the Church chooses not to add these many faith promoting examples of Joseph being shown to be honest and upright and acquitted, within any of it's attempts to publish a narrative about Joseph's history. Funny that.

[_ldsfaqs]

Take for example your Joseph being arrested and put on trial many times. It's a perfect example of your revisionist history. Because basically every time he was acquitted and didn't actually do anything wrong.

...and yet the Church chooses not to add these many faith promoting examples of Joseph being shown to be honest and upright and acquitted, within any of it's attempts to publish a narrative about Joseph's history. Funny that.

I don't know what Church you've gone to but I've attended some 30 Wards in my life, and various events from Joseph's life including some of his charges and incarcerations have often been mentioned. After all, they are faith promoting, because they show your kinds evil and our kinds innocence.

[_Sethbag]

Ldsfaqs, it's not evil to recognize that the LDS church is just one more drop in the bucket of made-up churches throughout the history of the Earth.

What's really funny is that you are so convinced that it's not; that's it's special, and unique in actually being true.

[_Drifting]

I don't know what Church you've gone to but I've attended some 30 Wards in my life, and various events from Joseph's life including some of his charges and incarcerations have often been mentioned. After all, they are faith promoting, because they show your kinds evil and our kinds innocence.

I note you use the word 'some' and the word 'mentioned'.
What about some quotes from the teaching and student manuals about Joseph being on trial for "glass looking" or perhaps the unsuccessful dash for cash to Canada?

[_ldsfaqs]

I note you use the word 'some' and the word 'mentioned'.
What about some quotes from the teaching and student manuals about Joseph being on trial for "glass looking" or perhaps the unsuccessful dash for cash to Canada?

1. I learned it first reading Church history. But yes, it's been mentioned here and there.
Of course, it wasn't a "trial" it was the equivalent of a pre-trial hearing, and he was acquitted, because most of the testimony from the people he actually helped said HE COULD do what he said. Thus, it's a non-issue, not worthy of mention.

2. What about it? I would recommend you read the full facts of the issue.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... _copyright

[_Drifting]

I note you use the word 'some' and the word 'mentioned'.
What about some quotes from the teaching and student manuals about Joseph being on trial for "glass looking" or perhaps the unsuccessful dash for cash to Canada?

1. I learned it first reading Church history. But yes, it's been mentioned here and there.
Of course, it wasn't a "trial" it was the equivalent of a pre-trial hearing, and he was acquitted, because most of the testimony from the people he actually helped said HE COULD do what he said. Thus, it's a non-issue, not worthy of mention.

2. What about it? I would recommend you read the full facts of the issue.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... _copyright

Sorry, but 'fairmormon' is not a reflection of the official Church's position on anything.
Quote from "lds.org"

[_sock puppet]

I note you use the word 'some' and the word 'mentioned'.
What about some quotes from the teaching and student manuals about Joseph being on trial for "glass looking" or perhaps the unsuccessful dash for cash to Canada?

1. I learned it first reading Church history. But yes, it's been mentioned here and there.
Of course, it wasn't a "trial" it was the equivalent of a pre-trial hearing, and he was acquitted, because most of the testimony from the people he actually helped said HE COULD do what he said. Thus, it's a non-issue, not worthy of mention.

It's an issue. It's worth of mention.

Brushing it aside without taking a close look is the best thing for you to do to help keep your "testimony" intact.

[_ldsfaqs]

1. I learned it first reading Church history. But yes, it's been mentioned here and there.
Of course, it wasn't a "trial" it was the equivalent of a pre-trial hearing, and he was acquitted, because most of the testimony from the people he actually helped said HE COULD do what he said. Thus, it's a non-issue, not worthy of mention.

It's an issue. It's worth of mention.

Brushing it aside without taking a close look is the best thing for you to do to help keep your "testimony" intact.

I've looked at EVERY issue carefully. I would have had to be both a convert and a former Mormon, and anti-mormon, Atheist/Agnostic who then returned to the Church.

My judgement now is far more knowledgeable and wiser than when I was an anti-mormon like you.

Further, I state it's a non-issue because when one looks at the FULL history and facts, not anti-mormon cherry picking and lying, it turns out to have been just another false charge against Joseph, one of the first, starting the ball rolling for the rest.