I know that, certainly, the leaders perpetuate more modern-day and general, acceptable values and principles, and have been trying to distance the current church with its past. For sure.

But aside from not openly teaching the history and past doctrines, it doesn't seem like they've actually HIDDEN anything. We're all quoting the Church's own history books and familysearch.org half the time - so obviously, it's there for the learning.

I've seen some members get frustrated with former members because "it was their responsibility to learn it in the first place." I do agree that a person ought to learn all they can about an organization or religion (especially when it comes to eternity) before making a decision to join it - but with the LDS Church, that's not quite how it works. You just get bam-bam-bammed with the missionary lessons, and then they just try to tie you in at Church, where none of the sketchy stuff is ever discussed (except for by a few "crazies" here and there, who everyone considers questionable).

As a member, you're definitely not ever encouraged to learn anything about the history, other than that sweet little pamphlet "Our Heritage."

I guess my question is: what's a fair way to look at this? Where does the responsibility lie?

Buyer beware. That is the saying that dishonest salespersons love to stand behind for their lack of ethics.

Where does the responsibility lie? With the organization that is creating the illusion. They create a culture of lying, misrepresenting, and deception. It's all considered honorable if it results in another baptism or sucker taking out their endowment. Then it's too late.....

Ever wonder why so many people's question after you went through the temple for the first time was, " Well, what did you think of that? Not like church huh?"

It's dishonest

It a spin.

We quote church sources most of the time because they are the ones that the church is most likely to consider reputable. There are many non-church sources that we cite as well, but most of the time when we do that the church doesn't listen.

Everything that the church has revealed, it hasn't hidden. Everything thing that it hasn't revealed, it deems unreputable. Catch the spin?

Also, everything that it hasn't revealed has been forgotten by people who only read what it has revealed. Thus, the future generations can claim that they aren't hiding anything, simply because they no longer remember it.

So yes, strictly speaking, from the definition of reputable sources only being church ones, the church hasn't hid anything reputable. However, there is so much more...

Are they a little gullible? Perhaps, but that isn't half bad as being deceitful with a milk/meat and other highly questionable marketing tactics.

Full disclosure? The morg is dead set against it. I sometimes wish there were lemon laws for religion peddling like there are for used car salesmen.

Yes they do hide things. How?

1. We know they directly tried to purchase the documents from Mark Hoffman with the presumed intent of suppressing them. We don't know what we don't know. There may be things they are hiding in that vault, but can't be sure about.

2. The LDS church has excommunicated or otherwise disciplined members such as the September Six, Grant Palmer, and Lyndon Lamborn, who refuse to keep quiet about problems with church history and doctrine. What they have to say is a direct threat to the authority of church leaders, so the church hierarchy attempts to discredit them in the eyes of other members.

3. The curriculum of the church educational system, and the priesthood and axillary organizations presents church history in such a misleading way that one would have to get really deep into things before even having the capacity to ask the questions that would lead them to the faith shaking subjects. Subjects like the Book of Abraham papyri, polyandry, and why native Americans are not descendants of Hebrews. Teachers who do not toe the line are dismissed. Why would one ever look closely enough at the wives of Joseph Smith to realize that some of them were married to other men at the same time? Just because the raw data is out there doesn't mean they are being transparent and honest with members.

Yes we have an individual responsibility to discern the truth for ourselves, but the church also is placed in a position of trust. A trust they violate by providing misleading, and even false information to their members.

To doubt or question, or dig too deep shows a lack of faith and trust, and is offensive to the spirit. It's also disobedient to read "anti-mormon" literature. In other words, if you question, you deserve to lose the spirit.

It's a culture that is afraid of any information that might challenge precious faith.

They doesn't even HAVE to hide information. It's readily available in old church manuals, history, and books. Members willingly limit their own exposure.

The church will not tell you what goes on in the temple before you join. Yes, a person can find out by looking online, but that's not the same thing. They'll tell you it's sacred (not secret). But to me it's like buying a product only to find out batteries are not included. When I took lessons about the temple (after I joined), I didn't have a good feeling about it. Then I find this website and read about the ceremonies, and I was glad I never went.

I guess it depends on what the definition of IS is.

"But aside from not openly teaching the history and past doctrines, it doesn't seem like they've actually HIDDEN anything." Not openly teaching? Okay not hiding. So when Joseph swore public oaths denying the practice of polygamy was he hiding or just not openly teaching?

I don't mean to jump on you personally but the idea that liars aren't *REALLY* lying if we know about it, just bugs me.

Before the internet age, lying was easier. Not so much now. I love the transparency that is coming to organizations, governments, etc.

If the current obfuscations over DNA, "deeper meaning" in Egyptian writing, and propositions that Tapirs make good riding stock, aren't examples of attempts to "hide", what is?

No, you're absolutely right. My intent was not at all to defend the Church - they're being dishonest by their own definition (see last year's "Honesty" chapter in the Gospel Principles Book).

I just think it's interesting that there is so much information available within the confines of the "acceptable material," and so few take advantage of it (what's even more disturbing to me is those who do, but continue to believe.)

Thanks for responses.

I don't think a reasonable "researcher" would reach a conclusion that the LDS church is NOT hiding stuff. There are people at various universities who are religion professors and some are "experts" on Mormonism. They have to dig to find the true stories relating to Mormon history because the church presents only "faith promoting" versions of history. Now maybe you could argue that other churches and organizations would do the same. Maybe, but maybe not. The Catholic church's warts from its long history are out there, and you don't really have an active effort by that organization to control search engine results. The LDS church certainly does do that.

They do it because the information is now available and it is not flattering and it is causing them a loss of membership and revenue and threatens their long term viability. No other church seems to face these uniquely Mormon type of information control problems. It is truly an interesting thing to watch.

I've been surprised at the problems other churches are having that are similar to ours. 7th day adventists have nearly identical stuff going on--turns out their prophetess's divine writings can now be traced to contemporary sources. Oops.

At a panel discussion on world religion I went to last year, I was surprised when the christian representative basically said that people are coming to the realization that things are not as they have been told. This was portrayed as a major challenge to christianity. And I thought that was just my mormon experience.

One of the first dominos to fall for me was in when the church published the Wentworth letter in the Ensign around 2003. That version showed the most modern wording of the 13 articles of faith. I knew that this couldn’t be correct and got curious to find the wording that I learned in Primary. I was stunned that conference talks from the 70s that were available on lds.org showed the newer wording. I had to go outside of church approved resources to find the history of the wording changes and authorship.
If changing the wording of a historical document does not count as hiding what does?
If changing the wording of conference talks that reference that document does not count as hiding then what does?
There are no doctrinal bombshells in the rewording. For the most part they just modernized the wording and used words that reflect a worldwide church rather than just an American church. I don’t have a problem with the changes. But neither should they. By hiding the changes they caused me to look deeper into the story and found, through non-lds sources, that JS was not the original author. This too would not have devastated my testimony, but hiding these facts from me did. If they’d hide minor changes like this I was sure they’d not be forthcoming about big changes.

Members are basically commanded to not read anything about the church that isn't church approved.

If you do, and tell your leaders about it, It's not going to be a good thing. It can lead to disciplinary action. Which can lead to divorce and losing your family and everything you have.

Even if they aren't hiding it, they are making it a punishable crime to read and discuss it.

Also, when I was in my 20's 30' and early 40's I was overwhelmed with responsibility. I had 3 kids to raise. A home to maintain, church callings, to fulfill. Time for myself came in small slivers. I was usually tired and worn out. For me its impossible to sit down and read and study anything in depth when I'm feeling tired and used up. That's one of the reason the church likes to keep everyone so overwhelmed with busy work. You don't have time to really have a life.

Right, all.

I think snowball's point, that the Church is in a position of trust, is pretty important and is why it becomes an abusive relationship on a massive scale.

Why would you question "the one true church?" No reason to.

It's there like the "fine print" in any contract/agreement. It's hard to see, but left in place for a "told you so" comeback.

If the leaders refuse to discuss it, but it is quietly published without highlight, it is just fine print in place to CYA.

This is an interesting question.

I'd say they certainly haven't told "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

I'd also say there are a number of examples where they have purposely hid or attepted to hide things. Changes in the BoM and DC comes to mind for starters. Someone else mentioned buying the Hoffman letters to hide them.

They certainly have worked hard to control what is discussed and said in church as tightly as possible with the fairly recent edict that things should only be taught that are directly out of the manual.

On the other kind I find the "I wish they would be more open about their history" kind of silly. Because to be open about the history in the end means being open that it is a fraud. How is that possible?

Of course the church isn't going to go out of it's way to convince you it isn't true. Of course it is going to defend its dogma. So the responsibility is completely on the person to find the real truth.

How effective the church has been at ingraining a culture of don't even look, don't do anything to risk your all important testimony is possibly the saddest part.

LDS Inc. constantly practices the lie of omission.
They are masters at giving you a tiny bit of the story that favors mormonism.

And how about changing those conference speeches ?
If you attend a live speech and then read the text of the speech you will see that they are different. Is this not lying ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 02:51PM by Dave the Atheist.

When I consider this question, I think of all the diaries that were donated to the morg for their use and safekeeping. All those families gave those historical documents in the belief that they would be shared and protected. Well, they certainly have not shared all those first hand accounts of life in the early church, in which the "prophets" were pretty much dictators, if the full truth were to be known.

So to a certain degree whether they are lying or not is irrelevant. Is that the point you're trying to make?

What binds members to the group at LDS, Inc. is emotion. People participate when it meets their emotional needs and when it stops meeting those needs they distance themselves emotionally, physically or both. Perhaps the pursuit of truth is tied up to some degree in meeting emotional needs. It is for some and not so much for others.

I don't think there's calculated lying going on at LDS, Inc. at least not on a daily basis. Its leaders are all bound up just like the members in the goo of social dynamics like the rest of humanity and have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees because of peer and family pressure, etc.

They certainly lie by omission on many fronts. Their vaults probably have some damning history in them that may never be open to the public. So there's definitely been some calculated withholding of information.

I would think that an adult joining the church would perhaps look at things a little more skeptically. But a child born into it would get what is taught to them, either through lessons or culture.

I was born into it, and it took me thirty-something years to hear my first piece of "real history" that cast the official story in a bad light. I lived in Utah the whole time, and was immersed in the culture, but never heard a thing about the real history. I didn't even know that JS was a polygamist all that time.

When an organization is so secretive that it can keep it's history hushed to that degree, and puts out pamphlets and videos that are only telling one piece of the story, and that piece happens to be the lie, they are definitely hiding it.

To say otherwise is like saying that a commercial on TV, with a disclaimer at the bottom that is too small, and on the screen to fast to be read, was trying to give you the full story in the advertisement. We have all learned to be skeptical of what a TV ad says, but for most of us it took a long time to figure out that our own church was doing the same thing.

They also have the advantage of being able to say, God says... TV ads don't use that one to fool you.

Where is the church sanctioned photo montage of Joseph with all of his wives? Where is the instructional illustration of Joseph with his head in a hat, "translating" the golden plates? Why isn't there a GD lesson on the various first vision accounts? Why no financial transparency?

What does the church have to hide? Quite a bit, evidently.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 06:17PM by summer.

Not to mention past lies about the causes of people being gay, lies about sponsoring institutions that tortured gays trying to make them straight.

I don't know that we teach that.

+1

Things such as personal journals were in fact hidden in the First Presidency's vault until the 70's. Many materials were made available to historians to use in a new "Church History". I remember that there were 17 volumes anticipated. Opening the vault proved to be like opening Pandora's box. Since some of the materials became public it appears to be a case of spin doctoring rather than hiding.

BY and others become an embarassment? Simply promulgate a new doctrine that the only prophet one is responsible to is the current one and stop publishing the "Journal of Discourses."

Not so much hidden as out of sight, out of mind.

I call B.S., sarah dear....:

WHAT ABOUT FINANCES?

WHAT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF RESIGNATIONS?

WHAT ABOUT (THE CONTENTS OF) THE 'FIRST PRESIDENCY VAULT'?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 07:22PM by guynoirprivateeye.

Right. I always go back to their "sins of omission."

It's not a sin of omission when they command that all copies of the "Journals of Discourses" be recovered, removed from libraries, and then completely discredited among the members in church manuals, talks, CES materials, and gossip. Or when they punish those who study and teach from them.

They lie, they obfuscate, they engage in deception. It is naive to claim otherwise.

Check the John Dehlin podcast on "immunizing the saints." Please. Then return and report.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 07:26PM by derrida.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q6brMrFw0E&fmt=18

This cartoon is accurately based on Mormon (Joseph Smith's) theology. Do Mormons show this to the members? Do missionaries tell people to watch it? Why not? If they have nothing to hide then every member of the church should be told to watch this. it sums up the religion perfectly as taught by the "prophet" Joseph Smith.

They have been deliberately hiding information and it is an official policy. Here is Bob McCue's insightful observations from his exchange of letters with Elder Holland.



We Have Entrusted Church Leaders as Our Spiritual Guides

We have entrusted you as our spiritual guides. We look to you as both judge and jury. It is not right for you to respond to that trust by giving us a one sided story and leaving us to make up our minds on that basis. This is what the so-called "faithful history" policy does. As Elder Oaks said at a CES conference at BYU in 1985,

"Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of the official Church literature or avowedly anti-Mormon literature. Neither has any responsibility to present both sides."

In this he echoes Elder Packer's "The Mantle" talk which was the keynote from which my Institute of Religion instructors taught me.

I can't tell you how disappointed it made me feel to read things of this nature coming from those to whom I had entrusted my heart and soul, and to whom I had given all of the time and other resources for which they had asked over a period of more than twenty-five years. I did not know that they expected me to act as judge in this exercise, while they presented one side of the story and the anti-Mormons presented the other. In fact, I believed them when they told me that I should not read anything that was faith threatening. How, in that case, could I possibly have acted as judge? And if I could not act as judge, who was looking after my interest in this matter? The Church led me to believe that it was doing that for me, and now I find out that it never intended to do more than advocate a one-sided position. It still makes me feel ill each time I think of this.

I respectfully suggest that you and your confreres have a moral obligation to close the reality gap that is causing the problems I have described. The longer you put off discharging that responsibility, the more people like me and my family needlessly suffer, and the more other Church members are being set up to do the same as the Internet in particular brings vast amounts of information into our lives that we did not have access to previously.

Dallin Oaks' indication that the Church does not have a duty to tell both sides of the Church's story is simply wrong. You have led the members to believe that you will look after their interests and so have put yourselves in a position analogous to, if not in fact, that of a trustee. If you have not done so, I advise you to consult your lawyers respecting the Church's potential liability by way of class action lawsuit in this regard. In my view, it is only a question of when, not if, one will be launched against the Church and perhaps its leaders personally in that regard.

You may be aware of similar litigation in Canada with respect to a Mormon fundamentalist group led by a man named Winston Blackmore in the Creston, British Columbia area. While I am not inclined to make it, it is my view that a similar claim could be made against the Church. The "faithful history" policy, which is the cause of most of the trouble in this regard and as far as I can tell is still in force, is a blight on the record of the modern Church and may end up engraving its tombstone.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 07:34PM by rodolfo.

Sins of omission.

When new members do not know to ask a question, they will not provide an answer unbidden. Withholding information is just as bad on a car lot or pre surgery discussion as it is in any organization.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 11:36PM by charles, buddhist punk.