From my blog:

A common experience a lot of ex-Mormons have is discovering, to their shock, unsavory or problematic parts of LDS Church history that they had never heard in church, seminary, or on their missions. Predictably, some apologists respond by ridiculing these members who were foolish enough to get their church history and doctrine from approved church sources. LDS Church News writer Scott Lloyd calls such members “lazy and intransigent” for not taking the time away from scripture study and raising a family to study outside sources of church history. Besides, such apologists say, none of this controversial stuff is hidden by the church. For example, when a church member is troubled to find that the Book of Mormon was translated when Joseph Smith “would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat” they can point to a mention of this in a 1993 Ensign article from Russell M. Nelson. Apparently, if it was stated once, in passing, in a church magazine, it must be widely known. The bottom line is that, for such apologists, members who do not know such things are intellectually lazy, and those who do learn such things ought not to be troubled by them (why, they never say).

But does the church hide its history? I don’t think it’s so much about hiding information as it is about controlling how, when, and where the information is presented. I remember that the Clinton Administration in the US talked often about “message control”: unpleasant information was revealed at times when most people would not be paying attention. Often, information would be discussed or “leaked” late on Friday afternoon, as most people don’t pay much attention to the news over the weekend. By Monday, the information would have been covered in the media and discussed on the Sunday talk shows and would have mostly blown over. I think this is how best to understand the way the church presents information.

As I mentioned, the head-in-hat method of translation is well-known among critics and former Mormons and has been mentioned in the Ensign twice (the other is in a passing reference in a discussion of a tight vs. loose translation method in the September 1977 Ensign). Many church members do read the Ensign, but a significant number do not. If you happened to have been old enough to read the Ensign in 1977 (I was 12) or 1993 (I knew about the head in hat method by then), you would know about this; otherwise, you wouldn’t. The institute manual “Church History in the Fulness of Times” does not mention the seer stone or how it was used. Nor do the seminary and Sunday School manuals. Instead, all of these sources speak of the use of the Urim and Thummim as traditionally understood.

This issue came up for me when a church member I know said that everyone knows that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. It is taught in seminary, and people who are surprised by this were just not paying attention in class. Of course, very few church members know any of the details, the secrecy, the coercion. If you asked most Mormons about polyandry in the early church, they would most likely not know what you were talking about.

So I did a little experiment and searched lds.org for mentions of Joseph Smith and polygamy (the web site contains just about everything the church has published since 1971, so if you can’t find it there, you won’t find it).

I searched for the following terms:

Fanny Alger (Joseph Smith’s first alleged plural wife): 0 hits
Sylvia Lyon (one of Joseph’s “polyandrous” wives): 0 hits
Helen Mar Kimball (the young of Joseph’s wives): 1 hit, no mention of plural marriage
Zina D.H. Young (another polyandrous wife): 19 hits, mentions of being Joseph’s plural wife: 0
Eliza Partridge (orphan who moved into Joseph’s home as a teenaged “nurse girl” and was married to him without Emma’s knowledge): 1 hit
Emily Partridge (Emily’s sister, same story): 1 hit

A fairly explicit discussion of Emily and Eliza appears in a 1979 Ensign article by church historian Dean Jessee:

"Emma Smith needed help with her newborn son, and hired first sixteen-year-old Emily, then twenty-year-old Eliza too.

"Although little Don Carlos Smith died a short time later, Emily and Eliza continued to live in the Smith home, where, in the summer of 1842, both girls “were married to Bro. Joseph about the same time, but neither of us knew about the other at the time; everything was so secret” (Emily, “Incidents,” p. 186)."

Louisa Beaman (sometimes considered Joseph’s first plural wife): 1 hit, as follows, from the “Church History in the Fulness of Times” institute manual:

"Moreover, Joseph Smith and the Church were to accept the principle of plural marriage as part of the restoration of all things (see v. 45). Accustomed to conventional marriage patterns, the Prophet was at first understandably reluctant to engage in this new practice. Due to a lack of historical documentation, we do not know what his early attempts were to comply with the commandment in Ohio. His first recorded plural marriage in Nauvoo was to Louisa Beaman; it was performed by Bishop Joseph B. Noble on 5 April 1841. During the next three years Joseph took additional plural wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands."

Joseph Smith Plural Marriage: 94 hits

Some representative quotes:

Gordon B. Hinckley’s “Truth Restored” (ostensibly a history of the LDS church) contains only this about plural marriage; the rest of the section covers the persecution polygamy engendered):

"Although polygamy is no longer practiced in the Church, no account of the Church’s history can be complete without some discussion of the practice. It was first announced by Joseph Smith at Nauvoo in 1842. Many of those close to him knew of it and accepted it as a principle of divine pronouncement. However, it was not publicly taught until 1852.

"In the families that practiced polygamy, each wife, with her children, occupied a separate house, or, if the wives lived in the same house, as was sometimes the case, in separate quarters. No distinction was made between either of the wives or the children. The husband provided for each family, was responsible for the education of the children, and gave both the children and their mothers the same advantages he would have given to his family under a monogamous relationship. If it was thought he could not do this, he was not permitted to enter into plural marriage.

"While the practice was extremely limited—only a small minority of the families were involved—it was the kind of thing of which enemies of the Church could easily take advantage."

A 1977 article from church historian Davis Bitton:

"Starting during Joseph Smith’s own lifetime but limited to a few dozen families until its official announcement in 1852, plural marriage brought a powerful new challenge to the equanimity of Latter-day Saint family life."

The church’s main page about plural marriage says:

"After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment."

Liahona, April 1980:

"July 12 [1843]. A revelation on the “Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and Plural Marriage” (D&C 132) was recorded, giving fuller meaning to the “new and everlasting covenant” which had been mentioned as early as 1831. The Prophet had explained the doctrine to a few, and plural marriages had been performed in 1841."

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith:

"This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. …

"In 1841 the first sealings of couples were performed, and in 1843 the Prophet dictated the revelation that describes the eternal nature of the marriage covenant (see D&C 132). The doctrines in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831. As commanded by God, he also taught the doctrine of plural marriage."

The only mention in the Gospel Doctrine Doctrine and Covenants manual:

"The revelation to practice plural marriage in this dispensation

"In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood."

A D. Michael Quinn article from the Ensign in 1978 is unusually frank:

"How a family accepts members who join it by marriage is, in some ways, analogous to how a Church accepts members who join it by baptism. The experiences of plural marriage make the analogy even closer. The Whitney family rose nobly to the challenge in a way that was an example to the Church. On 27 July 1842, the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded a revelation to the Whitneys on plural marriage.

"“My husband revealed these things to me; we had always been united, and had the utmost faith and confidence in each other. We pondered upon them continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine. The Lord was very merciful to us; He revealed unto us His power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision, a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own minds that God had heard and answered our prayers and intercedings before Him.” In obedience to the command of the living prophet, Newel and Elizabeth Ann gave their daughter Sarah Ann in marriage to Joseph Smith. Nearly a year later, Joseph Smith dictated the general revelation about the eternity of marriage and the nature of plural marriage, and Newel asked to have his own copy, a providential request, since the first copy was destroyed. Thus, Newel’s desire to have the word of the Lord has blessed the entire Church by preserving what is now Section 132 [D&C 132] in the Doctrine and Covenants."

As I read these accounts, I noticed something. Through the 1970s, the church discussed some of these things far more openly than they do today (the Quinn and Jessee articles being notable), but in the early 1980s, references to Joseph’s practice of plural marriage became more guarded, usually brief references in the passive voice (“and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime”). There is a reason for that.

In the 1970s, the church historian’s office was being run by professional historians, such as Leonard Arrington and Dean Jessee. According to Arrington, “historians, at Brigham Young University and elsewhere, were given full access to the Church Archives and commissioned to write accurate and reliable treatises on a variety of assigned topics” (“The Writing of Latter-day Saints History,” Dialogue, 14:3 [Autumn 1981], p. 126). Several publications came of that new openness from the historian’s office: “The Expanding Church by Spencer Palmer, published in 1978; the biography of Heber C. Kimball by Stanley Kimball, published by the University of Illinois Press; the biography of Jedediah M. Grant by Gene S. Sessions, recently accepted by the University of Illinois Press; and Voices of Women by Ken and Audrey Godfrey and Jill Mulvay Derr, now being published by Deseret Book Company” (Ibid., p. 127). Two works were commissioned for the church’s 1980 sesquicentennial: The Story of the Latter-day Saints, by James Allen and Glen Leonard and published by Deseret Book; and a projected multivolume (reportedly it would have 16 volumes) “History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1980,” though no volumes were ever produced.

Suddenly, in 1981, the frank discussion ended, access to the church archives was severely restricted, even for trusted church historians, and Arrington and his staff were transferred from church employment to BYU. Since then, when church history is discussed in manuals and magazines, its presentation follows the admonition of Boyd K. Packer, not coincidentally delivered at almost the same time as the dismissal of the professional historians and closing of the archives:

"Church history can he so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer. … There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful. There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. … In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it."

Packer is describing a rather extreme form of message control, in which only the positive is to be revealed out of fear for destroying the faith of church members. I think we’re all pretty familiar with the “sanitized” version church history that has resulted over the last thirty years or so. What happened to cause such a change?

As I mentioned, the book “The Story of Latter-day Saints” that was commissioned for the sesquicentennial and published by Deseret Book Company. Before the book was published, Ezra Taft Benson and Mark E. Petersen tried to kill the project. Arrington writes:

"Kimball began by saying that The Story of the Latter-day Saints had raised some concerns. Benson admitted that he had read only portions of the book but that at least one of the Twelve had read all of it. Calvin Rudd, an institute teacher, had given him a two-page list of his concern in very general terms: the book would make young people “lose faith,” it “demeaned” Joseph Smith, it gave only sixteen lines to the founding of the church. For five or ten minutes Benson continued his “grave warnings” about “the problems and dangers and risks” of the existence of such a book. I responded. Then Petersen expressed his concerns very strongly and openly. I again responded. Then both Benson and Petersen took another turn."

Arrington was asked by Delbert Stapley to “have members of the Twelve review manuscripts. … Stapley added that some members of the Twelve insisted that we exclude any information from our publication that might put the church in a bad light.”

Shortly after the publication of the book (which was not reprinted until 1986, when the controversy had died down), G. Homer Durham took over the responsibility for the historian’s office. The church stopped cooperating with outside publishers and universities and severely restricted access to the church archives. The historian’s office was now part of the “faith-promoting” mission of the church. To the church’s credit, they have produced a few volumes of the Joseph Smith papers, but then we already know that Joseph Smith tended to leave the unsavory out of his own histories, so that’s a safe, mostly faith-promoting project.

Ironically, back in the 1970s, the church could almost completely control the flow of information to its members, but it chose not to do so. Today, the church has lost all control of information, as many primary sources of controversial issues are readily available on the Internet. It’s quite possible that, had Arrington been allowed to produce a more open and accurate history thirty years ago, the information that is so shocking to so many church members might have elicited only a yawn.

Fantastic Post. Fantastic. Bravo.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I think the most revealing way to see how LDSinc hides history is in its policy on using only officially sanctioned church books for lessons at church and religion classes. These books/materials gloss over a lot of controversial history.

"It’s quite possible that, had Arrington been allowed to produce a more open and accurate history thirty years ago, the information that is so shocking to so many church members might have elicited only a yawn."

Things like the 'head in the hat' nonsense would have not raised a brow if I had been taught that as a kid, but I wasn't.

It's the feeling of 'being lied to' that has led me out of the church.

Thanks for posting the history of when the church started hiding their history. Very interesting.

The information was just to damning, they had no choice but prolong the inevitable.

Not only is the history itself damning, but you also have to contend with the fact the church tried to distorted it or even keep you from seeing it.

What they've done is underscore the shock value of it all. They've ironically given the real church history more credibility merely by trying to hide it.

For me the facts were the reason to leave the Church. The deception was the reason I was (and still am at times) kinda pissed off.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2011 06:11PM by badseed.

Agree totally, never thought of it quite that way, but what you say there is exactly how I feel - I left because of the facts, but the lying is what pisses me off still.

Which, btw, tells me that if the facts had come out earlier I still would have left as soon as I became of age. All that magical crap, polyandry, bogus translation of BOA -- just ridiculous!

I would never have bought into ALL of those things, and there are so very many, the list is nearly endless. But the lying is the worst of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2011 03:00PM by think4u.

Rebecca Gibson

its not the facts that disturbed me as much as discovering how completely dishonest the church had/has been. That continues to piss me off.

...if the Arrington inoculation had actually happened. Maybe. There's no way to know for sure.

Looking back though I think I barely managed to believe based on the whitewashed one-sided stuff I was taught. I always realized the story was pretty unbelievable and it took stuff like Truman Madsen's one sided Joseph Smith talks to get me to shelf my concerns. Not that I wasn't committed...I was— but the 'facts' as presented by the Church were barely enough for me to believe.

I'm sure it's because I am a doubting Thomas etc. Oh well.

The apologists claim that everyone already knows the history is unscrupulous and they know it.

1) Yes, most people are intellectually lazy. Only 27% of Americans have college degrees and very few people pursue intellectual hobbies.
2) Members are taught history, so they assume they know it. By presenting a white-washed history of the church, LDS, Inc. trains members to think they already know all there is to know.
3) The church denounces all unflattering critiques as "Anti-Mormon". Members who read such material risk losing their temple recommends. If they encourage others to read books like "No Man Knows my History", they risk being excommunicated for spreading apostasy.
4) The church hires FARMS to spread disinformation and downplay negative information. Members are assured that all is well in Zion and that the church leaders know of these antis trying to stop the Kingdom of God from progressing.
5) Access to LDS material was very limited in pre-Internet days. Outside the Jello Belt, most members only access to LDS info is via official church channels. The Dallas Public Library or Borders were unlikely to have much on the LDS Church.
6) Unknown unknowns Members didn't even know what to look for outside official church sources. Without Google, Wikipedia or Amazon, how do you begin to search for non-official LDS information?

It's no coincidence that 1997 marks the decline of LDS growth. The Internet has made finding unflattering information extremely easy. Type "Mormon" in ubiquitous Google and 2 of the top 5 sites are this one and an article of the satirical Broadway play. I found Affirmation via the Internet which was key to my coming out and eventually leaving. The Internet has made conversions and keeping doubting members very difficult for LDS, Inc. and their numbers have been showing it for well over a decade now.

Most excellent post- agree totally!

Here's the deal as a never Mormon-The LDS Church's extreme secretiveness actually harms its reputation and makes nonMormon's feel uneasy and extremely skeptical of this strange religion. If the Mormon's would just own up to the past and open the doors (literally in the Temples) to all people regardless of religion, the Church's reputation would not be one of peculiar beliefs and peculiar people.

I have asked many Mormons about polygamy and I've been told two things by every single one:

1. The Mormons were forced to engage in polygamy for survival because so many males had died and there were too many women.

2. Polygamy was a calling from Heavenly Father and Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc...had no choice but to follow.

I've never had a Mormon seem surprised by the question but the answer is well rehearsed and cookie cutter.

Hiding is effective.

Parowan is a town near me. Nobody I ask knows its original name.

Fort Louisa.

John D Lee said it was because Louisa Beamon was the first woman to enter the new order of marriage with JS.

Parowan.org does not mention it.

Wikipedia either.

But Google it and you'll see.

History right under their feet, literally, and while they "know" the church is true, they don't even know what town they live in.

Runtu - most excellent post and analysis. Very revealing. I would argue somewhat though that had the "truth" been more available and mainstream since 1970 as you suggest I highly doubt that the conversion rate would not have suffered as a result.

In other words, perhaps you and I would have yawned as TBM lifers when thinking about the rock-in-the-hat trick (having been brainwashed since birth) but I highly doubt that grown up investigators would convert at the same rate if this were the lead story in the pitch.

What do you think?

I think a urim and thumim or rock in a hat are equally crazy.

I disagree, because JS took the U and T from the Old Testament, it was a real thing, not sure what, assume it was for means of translation? Anyone know? At least it sounded legitimate because I had heard of it before, but STONE IN HAT? OMH!!!

I've long suspected that innoculation is the reason behind the Bushman's book and the recent book about the MMM.

Both books looks at the facts and reveal much that isn't covered in SS about church history, although they never look over the edge of the cliff and examine the implications.

However, apologists can point to them and declare the church innocent of "hiding" anything. And TBMs can declare that they KNOW all about "that stuff" and still believe, so why can't you?

Your post is RIGHT on the money, as I posted originally below somewhere.

Not only apologists but church leaders through their spokesmen can say " You KNEW that ,we told you that way back in 93,( for example), with the R Nelson stone in the hat PARAGRAPH in the Ensign".

I agree 100 percent that that was the reason for Bushman's and the MMM books as you state above. They do not want to appear as the liars they are, so "We told you all of that !"

But not before the 80's and the internet, that being the point. Not even much before the 90's. They only lied for 150 years or so.

The lastest stuff is about the American Indians not actually being blood descendents of Lehi. "Lamanite is just really a political or cultural term, has nothing to do with DNA or descendency". OK, then, whatever you say, boys, then in 10 years you can say "We have always known that, we told you long ago."

But they waited too long, and I don't think it would have worked ever, under any circumstances. As someone on here commented, "How many converts do you think they would have in the early 1900's with the lead story being the stone in the hat"???

Most missions do not even have their missionaries tell the first vision story any more. I know this for a fact. It is obvious why. They just start with Moroni appearing in the bedroom. Good try, but no one is buying it anymore, except maybe really poor people that think they might get some welfare help, and as soon as they realize that won't be happening, they leave.

I have noticed that very few TBM's know much about the true history of the mormons. If you ask them about MMM,,Joe's plural wives,,why Joe was in jail and got shot,,blacks in the priesthood,,things about the temple,,whatever. You get a canned and standard answer. They never want to talk about it or listen to other views. I call it mormon mentality.

We need a Mormon version of Paul Harvey.

At first, I attempted to persuade church leaders that honesty was our best option. I was told that the decision already had been made by leaders such as Boyd K. Packer and Elder Dallin Oaks: Some facts, some doctrines, are embarrassing and must be concealed.

Only faith-inspiring facts and doctrines may be discussed. Anything that is not immediately faith-promoting is considered to be "advanced history" (Packer's term) and must be concealed with all of the zeal of a corporate lawyer hiding documents that could incriminate his company.

----
On one occasion, he called me in and he, together with Elder F. Burton Howard of the First Quorum of the Seventy, directed me to stop disclosing our doctrines and history publicly even though these teachings were taken from church publications, church records and public documents.

Howard, a lawyer, told me the public had no business knowing what President Joseph F. Smith said in his sworn testimony to Congress about polygamy in 1904. He said that any member of the church who would reveal that Smith's testimony was false was unworthy of a temple "recommend."

The calculated fraud of it all. It's everywhere - Sunday School manuals and pictures used in seminary that is taught to kids show Emma and Joseph alone, no teenage "helpers" living with them who Smith later married. Gold plates sitting on the table with Smith reading them when no one ever saw them with their physical eyes except Smith -supposedly. Martin Harris's wife whose husband was about to sell her home and give the money to Smith for his Book of Mormon publication was literally demonized for doubting, and for wanting proof this wasn't just a scam. She hid the 116 pages and asked whether Smith could translate these again. Of course he couldn't, but told the idiot Martin Harris that it's OK because the same story is repeated elsewhere on the plates. Harris's wife probably burnt the 116 pages in disgust. She was intelligent and cautious yet she is painted as an evil servant of Satan while the gullible simpleton Martin is the hero for wanting to give up the home he shared with his wife to give the money to Smith - a convicted "impostor" guilty of scamming money from people by treasure digging - another bit of history the CULT will not allow people to even speak of in church.

This cult is a den of liars. They make out those with the truth are evil, and praise lying and fraud. No church that follows Christ, let alone with Christ at it's head would behave in such a manner.

Excellent post.

I specifically remember a painting of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey sitting at a table together with a curtain dividing them and on the table were sitting the golden plates. This was a picture that I remember seeing in lesson manuals as a kid. Whenever we learned about Joseph translating the BoM this picture was used as a visual aid. How is that not deliberately misrepresenting the facts? From that picture, I, as a child, got the impression that they translated the golden plates in that exact way, with the plates right in front of JS. So, of course, when I read about the seer stone in a hat, in Rough Stone Rolling, I was shocked. And of course I felt like I had been lied to, because I was lied to. For the church to claim they don't hide the truth is just another lie you can add to the long list of lies they try to sell the members. And it's shameful that Packer can say what he said about some facts not being useful and yet still claim that the church is forthcoming about its past.

Thank you for this article, I'm more convinced now than ever that many, if not all of the 15, know the church is a fraud, why else would they be so eager to omit facts, gloss over others and whitewash church history to such an extent?

The church makes a similar picture (though with no curtain) available on its downloadable art website:

http://lds.org/hf/art/0,16812,4218-1-4,00.html

Picture 416.

Yeah the picture I'm thinking of was similar to that. I wonder if I can find it somewhere...

Actually, you know I think that is the picture I was thinking of. I don't know why I remembered it with there being a curtain between them, maybe I read that somewhere. Regardless, that does not represent the reality of how JS "translated" the BoM.

Great post. The reason has become very obvious to me as to why the church slips little things out here and there, like the stone in the hat R Nelson paragraph in 93. They do this all of the time. Like when they changed the intro to the BOM, I saw it written in tiny letters on the bottom of one page of the church's Sunday newspaper.

I am sure they do this so that later, when accused of lying or hiding things they can say, "We told you that, look , here it is , you just did not read it." They do not point out that these things were never told until they began coming out on the internet in mass. Before that time, to my knowledge, they just kept the dirt hidden.

Never did I teach my primary kids in 06 or 07 before I left the church, as I taught them them church history, anything about the stone in the hat. It was all U and T, even the picture I got from the library to show them. Shortly after that lesson I quit teaching because I knew I was lying to them all. Then in May 07, I left the church.

Good thread.

When I think about this, I see the whole Orwellian process at work. The facts and history are always cherry picked, revised, written by "the winner" and presented to the internal audience in a controlled way.

The insiders only want facts and history that supports their current views. Over time, the story changes and no one seems to question on the inside. They want what they hear to be true. The ones who don't go along with the selective history become outsiders.

It is the outsiders who provide the missing facts and "the rest of the story" to help give a clearer view of the facts and history that is not included.

We are the outsiders of Mormonism who help keep the facts from going down the memory hole on Mormonism.

Dissapointed too. Am currently reading American Massacre by Sally Denton.

Here's another to add to it. I was doing some work and had to map something to Carthage and got side-tracked and started looking at the jail and pictures and wanted to get the "church-spin" on it and they have decent pictures where the pedophile was offed. This is on the first page:

"Val Brinkerhoff, 2004

Joseph and Hyrum Smith were held in Carthage Jail pending a trial on false charges. On June 27, 1844, at around 5:00 p. m., a mob stormed the jail and killed Joseph and Hyrum."

Read that again - false charges. Yeah right.

Without looking (i.e. using google), what was the charge that kept Joseph and Hyrum in jail. What were YOU taught?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2011 04:30PM by exmo99.

Gordon B. Hinckley on polygamy

"It was first announced by Joseph Smith at Nauvoo in 1842. Many of those close to him knew of it and accepted it as a principle of divine pronouncement. However, it was not publicly taught until 1852."

BUT it WAS publicily DENIED, even after 1852.


THIS IS FROM JOHN TAYLOR'S 1850 Phamplet published in England. Note his reference to the "old" D&C position on polygamy:

"We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore leaving the sisters of the "White Veil," the "Black Veil," and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. "Doctrine and Covenants," page 330.

"1. According to the custom of all civilised nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies; therefore we believe that all marriages in this Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose; and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding High Priest, High Priest, Bishop, Elder, or Priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority. We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

"2. Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the Holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names, "You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping ourselves wholly for each other, and from all others during your lives." And when they shall have answered "Yes," he shall pronounce them husband and wife, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country, and authority vested in him. 'May God add his blessing, and keep you to fulfil your covenant from henceforth, and for ever. Amen.'

"3. The Clerk of every Church should keep a record of the marriages solemnized in his branch.

"4. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this Church should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband; neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents, and masters, who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants, and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin."