A new forum for all discussions regarding the Church's history.

[Elphaba]

The Joseph Smith papers will be amazing. What an undertaking. They're suggesting it will be 30 volumes now. What an amazing resource it will be.

Thirty volumes! Oh, my!

I cannot wait to get my hands on at least one volume!

I have never been more excited about Church documents than I have been about these.

Well, maybe the "Massacre at Mountain Meadows," where the writers had first-hand documents to work with. I've been waiting for this book forever, and hope it gives significant additional insight.

It is a very good time for people who are interested in the Church's history, as there is suddenly so much to read and study.

Elphaba

[skalenfehl]

Very intriguing new forum. Discussing church "history" is a good thing. After all, our history goes all the way back to Adam, but I'm sure the intention was to date it from Joseph Smith's era and the restoration of our church. Discussing history is one thing. Discussing how we feel about issues throughout this history is another. I look forward to reading what comes from this. Thank you, Elphaba.

[pam]

Thirty volumes! Oh, my!

I cannot wait to get my hands on at least one volume!

I have never been more excited about Church documents than I have been about these.

Well, maybe the "Massacre at Mountain Meadows," where the writers had first-hand documents to work with. I've been waiting for this book forever, and hope it gives significant additional insight.

It is a very good time for people who are interested in the Church's history, as there is suddenly so much to read and study.

Elphaba

When does that book come out or is it out already?

[WANDERER]

The apostle Paul was an anti ...a very strong one. Something to think about.

[Elphaba]

When does that book come out or is it out already.

Apparently you can buy it at Amazon, in hardcover, right now.

There are also some interesting reviews of the book in the customers' feedback section.

However, one of the customer's said something that really bothers me if it is true. He said the authors had two LDS apostles review it before the they released the book. I find this extremely troubling, if it is true.

Here is the link.

Elphaba

[Truegrits]

~~~Elphaba~~~

However, one of the customer's said something that really bothers me if it is true. He said the authors had two LDS apostles review it before the they released the book. I find this extremely troubling, if it is true.

If the authors asked them to review it, why do you find that troubling? (Assuming it is true?)

[Elphaba]

That sounds fair enough... but I think you do have to make the distinction very clear between what is and what is not "anti" behaviour. People are going to want to ask the questions that antis ask, and they should be allowed to do this. I am worried that someone who really isn't an anti is going to be labelled as one. This has happenned to me too many times (which is why I won't be participating in these discussions) and I don't care to see anyone else have to put up with that.

I agree with fent. I have also seen people genuinely interested in the Church get hammered for their questions, because members of the specific board think they are "antis." In my experience, some of them are "antis," but the majority are not. I also think lds.net is far more welcoming to people asking their questions than other boards I've visited. However, I know this is not true for everyone here.

The thing is, that's just the way it is, and it is not going to change. Everyone is not always going to agree. However, I see this as a good thing, as it can make for a lively, and illuminating discussion where we can always learn something new.

For those who don't want to participate, you are under no obligation to do so.

And for those of us who do participate, we need to keep in mind that people are not always going to agree with us.

As I said earlier, that is just the way it is. Hopefully, however, you will at least take a peak at the threads. Maybe something will catch your eye, the gun will fire, the discussion will begin, and we'll see who makes it to the finish line; that is, if there is one.

Elphaba

[pam]

~~~Elphaba~~~

If the authors asked them to review it, why do you find that troubling? (Assuming it is true?)

I'm interested in that as well. I wouldn't find that troubling.

[Bethie]

I read in a newspaper somewhere that an entry in one of Joseph Smith's journals said he wanted his son Joseph to be the next leader of the Church if something

happened to him. Has anyone else heard of that? Was it just a rumor?

[BenRaines]

He most likely said that is what he wanted. Looks like the Lord had other plans.

Ben Raines

[Moksha]

I agree with fent. I have also seen people genuinely interested in the Church get hammered for their questions, because members of the specific board think they are "antis."

Elphaba

Yes, but are these hammerers themselves MAD?

[candyprpl]

I read in a newspaper somewhere that an entry in one of Joseph Smith's journals said he wanted his son Joseph to be the next leader of the Church if something

happened to him. Has anyone else heard of that? Was it just a rumor?

I did read somewhere that in his son's patriarchal blessing he was told that. Don't know where I read it or if it's true.

I do agree with you Ben -- still wondering if anyone knows anything else about this. I like to put rumours to rest.

[BenRaines]

Patriarchal blessings are based on our faithfulness. Not an absolute. Saints were to build Zion in Missouri too but according to Doctrine and Covenants it didn't happen for them at that time due to their unrighteousness and not being ready.

Ben Raines

[Palerider]

Patriarchal blessings are based on our faithfulness. Not an absolute. Saints were to build Zion in Missouri too but according to Doctrine and Covenants it didn't happen for them at that time due to their unrighteousness and not being ready.

Ben Raines

thats why we kicked them Mormons outta here and ran them off to utah.....:D

[pam]

Pale is your last name Boggs?

[Palerider]

Pale is your last name Boggs?

nope

[HiJolly]

Pale is your last name Boggs?

No, but he IS sitting on a pale horse...

HiJolly

[Palerider]

no, But He Is Sitting On A Pale Horse...

Hijolly

:d.....lol!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MorningStar]

This gets tricky because I think there is a difference between church history and the personal history of our church leaders and other members. A lot of things are just horrible rumors and I've seen too many people speculate about the sins they may or may not have commited.

[Guest bren1975]

Recently I was sent nervously into research on Joseph Smith and the polygamy issue. It was due to online discussions and challenges. I've never handled the subject very well, and usually left it alone.

However, lately, through reading the good as well as the unsavory history, I've come to understand Joseph Smith and the position he as in, regarding polygamy. I now have a much better appreciation for what he experienced and understand it much better. It really helped me. It's still a difficult subject, but I understand what he did and why he did -- MUCH better. It now makes sense. My testimony of his true positon of a prophet is stronger.

[candyprpl]

Recently I was sent nervously into research on Joseph Smith and the polygamy issue. It was due to online discussions and challenges. I've never handled the subject very well, and usually left it alone.

However, lately, through reading the good as well as the unsavory history, I've come to understand Joseph Smith and the position he as in, regarding polygamy. I now have a much better appreciation for what he experienced and understand it much better. It really helped me. It's still a difficult subject, but I understand what he did and why he did -- MUCH better. It now makes sense. My testimony of his true positon of a prophet is stronger.

Where did you get your information? And what did you learn?

[Guest bren1975]

Where did you get your information? And what did you learn?

I don't remember my sources. They were all online.

Some of the questions raised, concerned polyandry. Meaning women having more than one husband. During and for a short time after the life of Joseph Smith, some women who were married to other men were sealed to Joseph. They usually lived with their civil husband, while being sealed eternally to Joseph. He sometimes approached married women with this proposal.

After reading about these women, I learned that they were all married to non-LDS men, or men who were not strong in their testimonies. The doctrine of eternal marriage was still new to the time and there was the fear that these good women would be withheld from the Celestial Kingdom, because their husband was not worthy. (As we know, celestial marriage is required in the Celestial Kingdom.) Joseph, IMO, wanted to ensure for these women, exaltation. He, again IMO, felt this was a generous, unselfish thing, to have these women sealed to him, so that nothing but their own worthiness would stand in their way.

A few of Joseph wives were very young. That was also a problem for me. However, I came to see that God knows each of us and knows our future. Very possibly, these young women might have taken a wrong path that would threaten their eternal welfare. Being sealed to Joseph, even though he was killed soon after, may have altered their lives in such a way to ensure them much happiness eternally. Meaning, it may have saved them from a poor choice at some point, and saved them from greater grief than living a life as Joseph's widow. Joseph didn't choose these women. He was willing to fulfill God's command by marrying elderly women, which would have been easier for Emma. But God chose the women. God knew each one and knew, through his infinate love, what would benefit each one eternally.

The secrecy issue also looked bad. However, Joseph was constantly concerned for his life. He had numerous enemies, all looking for an excuse to get him. So polygamy was very threatening to him, if the wrong people found out. He HAD to keep it secret, or else likely lose his life before it was time.

I believe Joseph did the best he could. He was in an almost impossible situation. Obey God, or please everyone else. Can you imagine his struggle? He had to obey God. He had the faith and courage to go ahead, inspite of all.

[HiJolly]

However, lately, through reading the good as well as the unsavory history, I've come to understand Joseph Smith and the position he as in, regarding polygamy. I now have a much better appreciation for what he experienced and understand it much better. It really helped me. It's still a difficult subject, but I understand what he did and why he did -- MUCH better. It now makes sense. My testimony of his true positon of a prophet is stronger.

That was my experience also.

HiJolly

[Elphaba]

After reading about these women, I learned that they were all married to non-LDS men, or men who were not strong in their testimonies.

Just a minor clarification. The following excerpt from your post is not true of all of Joseph's polyandrous marriages. For example:

1. Patty Bartlett remained with her husband David Sessions, who was was a member of, and strong in the Church, until his death.

2. Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs remained with her husband, Henry Jacobs, who was also strong in the gospel, so much so, he served in a number of missions. Zina Diantha eventually left him to live with Brigham Young. But it wasn’t because he wasn’t LDS or strong in the gospel. In fact, this breakup caused him a lot of heartbreak.

3. Sylvia Sessions remained with her husband, Windsor Lyon, who was strong in the gospel, until his death.

Like I said, this is just a clarification.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I'm interested in that as well. I wouldn't find that troubling.

First, let me say I cannot find any other source that supports this claim; thus, I do not believe any apostles were given the book in advance to approve it. They may have been given an advanced copy, but that is a very different thing. So let me put that to rest.

The reason that it would bother me greatly is that Massacre at Mountain Meadows is supposed to be a scholarly treatment of what happened at Mountain Meadows, not a faith-promoting one. And if Church apostles were to give their approval, or disapproval, that would ruin the book's credibility.

These historians had unprecedented access to thousands of documents that neither Brooks, Bagley, or any other author who wrote about the massacre had. This book has also been heralded as the defining work about the massacre.

But even if everything written in it were true, if a Church apostle insisted approval rights, the book would never be taken seriously.

So, to be clear, I do not believe any of the Church apostles demanded to approve the book. I do suspect they were given advance copies, but unless I see otherwise, that's it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay, I've just written a few paragraphs about how I feel about the book so far. Then I realized it's not really appropriate, given I have not read the entire book, so I deleted them from the post, but have saved them. I will say that I am a third of the way through, and have yet to have an "Ah Ha" moment.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in my thoughts so far, PM me. And if I have any "Ah Ha" moments, I'll let you know.

Elphaba

Edited August 16, 2008 by Elphaba
You expect me to write this wordy post and not have one single error?