What I mean is: If there was nothing improper, immoral, disturbing, or illegal about the whole history of Mormon polygamy, then the church would have published this information decades ago. It would have been a regular part of church education and lessons. Instead, the church has danced around the issues, denied major aspects of the subject, and allowed their members to formulate and believe in false assumptions about it. Like,for example, the oft-repeated myth that polygamy was instituted to provide husbands for widows---and its companion myth that women were only sealed to Joseph Smith "for eternity" after his death, and that he didn't have sex with anyone but Emma.
Funny thing is, the church has excommunicated people like Fawn Brodie and Michael Quinn for publishing the same type information that they are now admitting is true. It's only been about fifteen years ago that FAIR was planning a "hit piece" on historian Todd Compton for publishing extensive research on Joseph Smith's sexual activity in his book "In Sacred Loneliness." But now, one of the new essays cites Compton's book as a source.
I tried to discuss this stuff with my then-84-year-old mother about fifteen years ago. I mentioned Fawn Brodie's book to her, and she haughtily criticized "all that scurrilous stuff she wrote about the prophet having sex with all those women."
For almost a decade, I debated with numerous TBMs on the internet who asserted that they didn't believe that Smith had sex with any of his plural wives (because, of course, that idea wasn't taught to them, or to any of us, in church seetings.) But one of the new essays states: "Despite claims that Joseph Smith fathered children within plural marriage, genetic testing has so far been negative, though it is possible he fathered two or three children with plural wives." (Note 25.) The mere fact that the essays entertain the *possibility* of Smith siring polygamous children is their concession that those relationships included sex.
All of this is tremendous vindication for those historians who have been courageous enough to research and publish the truth over the years, and on a smaller scale, people like us who have tried to get the message out to TBMs over the last couple of decades. The publication of these essays is the church leaders' concession to the tsunami of research and information which prevents them from maintaining the deceptions and misinformation they have engaged in for decades.
It will be interesting to see how this impacts the church going forward. Will they change curriculum to acknowledge more of the truth? Will we see even more apostasy now that more members realize they've been deceived for their entire lives?
These are exciting times to be watching LDS, Inc. Change was inevitable, now it's really happening. I can't wait for the last leaf to fall from the tree.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2014 05:43PM by wine country girl.
randyj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *possibility* of Smith siring polygamous children > is their concession that those relationships > included sex.
This is the headline. I can think of several apologists with mud on their faces now.
Yes, they're better than silence and denial on the church's part. However, they're not better than complete honesty -- something the church still hasn't come close to. Not by a long shot.
The essays, will "admitting" some difficult facts, are still full of flat-out dishonesty, speculation, apologetics, and exhortations to ignore the difficult stuff and just "believe."
On an honesty/factual scale of 1 to 100, they get about a 10. Maybe 15. That's better than 0, but a long way from 100.
I so agree with the fact that the church-cult essays are more of the same as far as truthful facts being few and far between as ificouldhietokolob so well described.
Those who spin these tales for the church-cult have their work cut out in writing fiction and spinning half-truths.
As I read through these essays, or attempted to, my admiration for their ability to create fiction grew by leaps and bounds. Talent they have, and I bet they could make more money writing for another boss.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2014 02:16AM by presleynfactsrock.
How can I ever forget being a young missionary and asking my MP how to respond to these type of allegations, and being told to respond this way. Shame on me for ever allowing any entity to put words in my mouth. Shame on me for trusting what I thought at the time completely as "The True" church. Shame on them for not being forthright when they had the chance.
All the growth then (early '90s) and TSCC was more concerned about bragging about being the fastest growing religion.
This fallout is the consequence of an organization that had objectives that were self serving and used whatever tools it needed to accomplish their ends.
Now the tools they used up are turning into the weapons of their own destruction.
Real truth is like cream - it rises to the surface.
To me, this is just part of the process of revising history.
If they write enough about the version they want people to read, over time that becomes what people think really happened.
I wish the Mormon church were the only ones doing this.
The important thing is to get people to read from multiple sources to get the more accurate picture. I don't think the average person adequately understand bias when they read about topics (biographies, political issues, history in general).
As long as the Mormon church can convince people to read from approved sources, they can make up any history they want.
As long as people don't check the context and footnotes, they are doomed to be fed revisionist history.
Thanks to everyone who has been actively setting the record straight. At least in the internet age people can have more information at their fingertips.
And yet the essay is still lying, when it says that research doubts that Smith had sex with the 14-year-old (Helen Mar Kimball). What about Helen's own statement that she had been deceived into thinking that the marriage was just pro forma, but that it was a "real" marriage?
The Internet has forced them this far, and it will force them further.
I had my doubts back in high school and then my mission, but I had absolutely no access to the type of information which is available now.
There are no good answers for them. It will all have to come down to warm fuzzy feelings, and they can't answer why warm fuzzy feelings for 99.98% of the population means one thing where is means something different for them.