Original Book Of Mormon

[Midwest LDS]

I am sorry that you find it disturbing but it really isn't meant to be deceptive @Blossom76. The purpose of the the Restoration video is to introduce viewers to the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, not introduce them to every piece of doctrine he revealed. The church is very open about polygamy, you can find articles discussing it everwhere, and I think whether or not individual people know about it has more to do with individuals than the church as a whole. As I mentioned in an earlier post, members of my ward wouldn't have been surprised or unable to answer a question about Joseph Smith and polygamy. By the way I appreciate your questions, I enjoy discussing our faith.

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

I am sorry that you find it disturbing but it really isn't meant to be deceptive @Blossom76. The purpose of the the Restoration video is to introduce viewers to the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, not introduce them to every piece of doctrine he revealed. The church is very open about polygamy, you can find articles discussing it everwhere, and I think whether or not individual people know about it has more to do with individuals than the church as a whole. As I mentioned in an earlier post, members of my ward wouldn't have been surprised or unable to answer a question about Joseph Smith and polygamy. By the way I appreciate your questions, I enjoy discussing our faith.

Thank you, and just to be clear, I have no issue with polygamy being part of the history of the LDS church.  I do however have an issue with an LDS movie just 'not including' any of Joseph's other wives in a movie that covers the timeline of his life, it is deceptive and I can understand how the women in my ward don't know Joseph Smith was a polygamist (they were quite upset by the idea too I might add).  They don't have to explain polygamy in the movie, but at least ONE of Joseph's other wives should have been included in that movie, they were a part of his life after all.

This movie and others like it are the movies that missionaries ask investigators to watch, these are the movies women in my ward show their children.  Yes the church is open about polygamy IF you ask, IF you go looking for it.  If you don't, you can live your whole life and never know. I'm just not comfortable with that.

I don't think it's right, and had you seen the looks on the faces of the women at my ward I'm sure you would agree with me.  And these were life long members too, they looked at me like I was the devil himself.  I felt awful. At Church we (just the women in Relief Society) were discussing the political push for same sex marriage in Australia and one of the women brought up the fact that it would open the door for other 'disgusting' marriage practices like polygamy, I just stood up for Joseph Smith and said 'how can you think its disgusting when the prophet himself lived plural marriage' didn't go down well at all.

[estradling75]

52 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Suffice it to say I had a very different understanding of your words.

And I feel the chill of your warmth and understanding...  As you continue double down on your error after I explicitly deny your understanding on what was in my heart and head

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank you, and just to be clear, I have no issue with polygamy being part of the history of the LDS church.  I do however have an issue with an LDS movie just 'not including' any of Joseph's other wives in a movie that covers the timeline of his life, it is deceptive and I can understand how the women in my ward don't know Joseph Smith was a polygamist (they were quite upset by the idea too I might add).  They don't have to explain polygamy in the movie, but at least ONE of Joseph's other wives should have been included in that movie, they were a part of his life after all.

This movie and others like it are the movies that missionaries ask investigators to watch, these are the movies women in my ward show their children.  Yes the church is open about polygamy IF you ask, IF you go looking for it.  If you don't, you can live your whole life and never know. I'm just not comfortable with that.

I don't think it's right, and had you seen the looks on the faces of the women at my ward I'm sure you would agree with me.  And these were life long members too, they looked at me like I was the devil himself.  I felt awful. At Church we (just the women in Relief Society) were discussing the political push for same sex marriage in Australia and one of the women brought up the fact that it would open the door for other 'disgusting' marriage practices like polygamy, I just stood up for Joseph Smith and said 'how can you think its disgusting when the prophet himself lived plural marriage' didn't go down well at all.

It's really tough as an investigator because it's all new to you. You also don't know what subjects are taboo or uncomfortable for lifelong members.  

[estradling75]

13 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

This movie and others like it are the movies that missionaries ask investigators to watch, these are the movies women in my ward show their children.  Yes the church is open about polygamy IF you ask, IF you go looking for it.  If you don't, you can live your whole life and never know. I'm just not comfortable with that.

 

Do you think that there are life long members of the Catholic faith who might find themselved shocked by a piece of Catholic history that they never before heard?  I am pretty sure we could find some.  The simple reality is that for any church the individuals are only going to understand as much as they have the willingness and drive to learn.

 

[zil]

31 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I don't think it's right, and had you seen the looks on the faces of the women at my ward I'm sure you would agree with me.  And these were life long members too, they looked at me like I was the devil himself.  I felt awful. At Church we (just the women in Relief Society) were discussing the political push for same sex marriage in Australia and one of the women brought up the fact that it would open the door for other 'disgusting' marriage practices like polygamy, I just stood up for Joseph Smith and said 'how can you think its disgusting when the prophet himself lived plural marriage' didn't go down well at all.

Maybe @askandanswer or (apparently) @priesthoodpower (both from Australia) can tell us if this is a regional thing or an Australia thing.  It's certainly not a Utah or upstate NY (where I grew up) thing, probably not an America thing.  I cannot speak to non-US wards because of those, I've only attended a Russian ward once or twice and didn't understand everything that was said.

That said, I fail to see how any member who's read / studied D&C 132 or Church history can not know about plural marriage...  For that matter, D&C is taught every 4th year, so for it not to be mentioned in Sunday School would require the teacher to deliberately skip all mention of it during at least one week.

[askandanswer]

Certainly the church's practice of polygamous marriage is well known by the members of the wards that I have lived in in Australia. On the other hand, I think many members would be surprised, but uncaring, to learn that Joseph Smith had polygamous marriages. The state of Australia where @Blossom76 comes from is widely considered to be more conservative than where most of the population live, in Victoria and New South Wales.  

[Blossom76]

 

 

Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration

This is the movie I am talking about, not to be confused with another 20 minute movie called 'The Restoration' 

[zil]

12 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

the church's practice of polygamous marriage is well known by the members of the wards that I have lived in in Australia. On the other hand, I think many members would be surprised, but uncaring, to learn that Joseph Smith had polygamous marriages.

How peculiar that they would know "the Church" practiced plural marriage and not recognize that the founder and leader of that Church - the one through whom all revelation came up until his death - did.

[askandanswer]

I haven't made many movies lately, but my suspicion is that when a movie maker makes a movie, he has a specific purpose in mind and s/he is likely to make choices about how to make that movie and what to put in and leave out, based on what s/he thinks is mostly likely to contribute to the achievement of the purpose. If the maker of this movie thought that it might detract from his purpose by including the multiple wives of Joseph Smith, then it makes good sense to leave it out. I'm not saying this is why the movie left out the multiple wives of Joseph Smith, I'm just saying its a possible reason. I haven't watched the movie, but I suspect it doesn't show what Joseph was doing at 11:35 am on July 21, 1835. I don't consider the movie to be deceptive simply because it leaves this out. 

[askandanswer]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

How peculiar that they would know "the Church" practiced plural marriage and not recognize that the founder and leader of that Church - the one through whom all revelation came up until his death - did.

I think it's as @Blossom76 said - many church members here more commonly associate the practice of polygamy with Brigham Young rather than Joseph Smith. But yes, you are correct in suggesting that we here in Australia are indeed a peculiar people.

[Grunt]

I was talking to a missionary who said polygamy shook her faith horribly when she first started her mission.  I didn't ask details, but I assume it was something an anti hit her with.  She worked through it.  I'm often surprised what people in the church don't know about their own history.  Maybe it's just because I've been researching so much.  

That said, why would it be something regularly talked or spoken about?  I mean, it's certainly not hidden, but I don't know why it would be taught unless just to prepare people for the accusations.  It has nothing to do with the plan for salvation.  It has nothing to do current church doctrine.  

Additionally, why read the 1937 version of The Book of Mormon?   Assuming @Blossom76 accepts modern prophets, it would make sense to read the most current version.  I would put forth that if her husband has a sincere desire to try this, he try it correctly.

[NeedleinA]

12 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

 Its deceptive and raises concerns (what else is being hidden by deception?)

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

 I find that deceptive

53 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

it is deceptive

Okay... besides the Rotten Tomatoes Movie reviews that have been shared (everyone is a movie critic), and now that we have uncovered systematic institutional church-wide deception via church videos (thanks), what does all that actually mean?
What is the next step? What is the point?

"I don't like your movies, therefore,  deception must be elsewhere", am I missing something?
"Sister so-and-so didn't know. Bro whats-his-face had no clue either."  This simply reflects poorly on their personal study habits if anything. We are currently surrounded by many life-long members who actually did study like we are taught to. Seeing the "looks on the faces" of some people doesn't negate the fact that the information is available to those who actually choose to learn.
 

[Midwest LDS]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank you, and just to be clear, I have no issue with polygamy being part of the history of the LDS church.  I do however have an issue with an LDS movie just 'not including' any of Joseph's other wives in a movie that covers the timeline of his life, it is deceptive and I can understand how the women in my ward don't know Joseph Smith was a polygamist (they were quite upset by the idea too I might add).  They don't have to explain polygamy in the movie, but at least ONE of Joseph's other wives should have been included in that movie, they were a part of his life after all.

This movie and others like it are the movies that missionaries ask investigators to watch, these are the movies women in my ward show their children.  Yes the church is open about polygamy IF you ask, IF you go looking for it.  If you don't, you can live your whole life and never know. I'm just not comfortable with that.

I don't think it's right, and had you seen the looks on the faces of the women at my ward I'm sure you would agree with me.  And these were life long members too, they looked at me like I was the devil himself.  I felt awful. At Church we (just the women in Relief Society) were discussing the political push for same sex marriage in Australia and one of the women brought up the fact that it would open the door for other 'disgusting' marriage practices like polygamy, I just stood up for Joseph Smith and said 'how can you think its disgusting when the prophet himself lived plural marriage' didn't go down well at all.

I see where you are coming from @Blossom76. Actually I do think this is something us as church members can do better at. The Church as a unit does great (polygamy is discussed in seminary, institute, sunday school lesssons, college courses, the internet etc.) But like many other humans, we tend to avoid subjects we are uncomfortable with and a lot of members do seem to be uncomfortable with polygamy. The problem with that approach as members is that it creates openings for Satan to destroy people's faith because they never hear about it in context and when they run into the info from a third party they think they've been deceived (this is a general observation that I've seen not describing you specifically). When I was a missionary it was standard practice to talk about a lot of difficult church subjects such as polygamy to help protect our investigators from that very threat. That's where it becomes problematic to say the Church as a whole is failing, because my experience is very different from yours. That's not surprising because we have such a world wide church I think both of our experiences are typical just in different ways. It also helped that the concept has never bothered me (I don't want to live it, but I'm no more offended by Joseph having multiple wives than Abraham or Moses), so I've always tried to talk about it with others in my Sunday School lessons and talks. I think what you have ran into is more of a failing of us as regular members than the Church as a whole. 

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I see where you are coming from @Blossom76. Actually I do think this is something us as church members can do better at. The Church as a unit does great (polygamy is discussed in seminary, institute, sunday school lesssons, college courses, the internet etc.) But like many other humans, we tend to avoid subjects we are uncomfortable with and a lot of members do seem to be uncomfortable with polygamy. The problem with that approach as members is that it creates openings for Satan to destroy people's faith because they never hear about it in context and when they run into the info from a third party they think they've been deceived (this is a general observation that I've seen not describing you specifically). When I was a missionary it was standard practice to talk about a lot of difficult church subjects such as polygamy to help protect our investigators from that very threat. That's where it becomes problematic to say the Church as a whole is failing, because my experience is very different from yours. That's not surprising because we have such a world wide church I think both of our experiences are typical just in different ways. It also helped that the concept has never bothered me (I don't want to live it, but I'm no more offended by Joseph having multiple wives than Abraham or Moses), so I've always tried to talk about it with others in my Sunday School lessons and talks. I think what you have ran into is more of a failing of us as regular members than the Church as a whole. 

Well said. 

The church and it's members are sometimes in a tough situation-if we spill everything on the first meeting investigators won't go to the second one. Imagine if you are on a first date and you say, "Oh yeah, I've been divorced four times." the first moment your date opens the door.

So the church and it's members need to find a balance between throwing it all on someone within five minutes and being open and honest. 

[bytebear]

Long thread.  Lots of stuff going on, but I'm going to throw out some ideas.

First, polygamy wasn't "taught" but I grew up in the church in Utah, and it was hardly a secret.  But Joseph Smith's polygamy is an enigma.  Brigham Young had a lot of wives, and a lot of kids from them.  I doubt a Mormon could name off the top of their head one wife let alone several.

As was stated earlier, Joseph Smith, as far as has been proven, never had children with anyone but Emma.  And many (most?  All?) of his sealings were not carnal.   Even the "gotcha" ones to 14 year old girls were considered dynastic in nature.  Heber C Kimball requested his daughter be sealed to the prophet, so they could be joined in the eternities.  Sealings were considered tying the spiritual blood lines if you will, more than actual marriages.  Men were even sealed to Joseph as sons or brothers.  Everyone wanted to be sealed to Joseph, even more so after his death.

I will say growing up, we all knew the boilerplate anti-Mormon stuff.  And it's still boilerplate and hasn't changed much.  I think as a global church, members don't hear as much about it any more, so the "gotcha" doctrines just aren't discussed as much.  Back in the 80s it was really really prevalent.  Think Westboro Baptist church at a gay pride parade.  So we all knew the routine, the punch counter punch, if you will.  and some people still get that gut reaction when they see a really common anti-Mormon concern brought up. 

So, as to the Book of Mormon, you gotta figure that the book went through at least three transcriptions:

1. Mormon/Moroni transcribes and abridges the original (or possibly copy) of Nephi's writings.
2. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry transcribe the Golden plates to English in the original manuscript (which was damaged when it was sealed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo house, and we only have fragments)
3. The printers manuscript which we now have almost the full text of)
4. The original 1830 edition.
5. Subsequent editions.

Joseph Smith was constant reworking the manuscript and correcting errors.  And there are errors from one stage to the next.

In 1981 the church published all the scriptures in tandem, tying all of them together with footnotes and what not.  It was this edition that the church finally went back to earlier sources, and tried to correct as much as they knew.  An example is a verse where half of the text went missing sometime in the late 1800s and just never got put back in.  No one can claim it was an attempt to change doctrine.  It just slipped through the cracks. Other changes like "son of God" may have been on the original manuscript, or maybe Joseph Smith thought it was a better clarification of the verse.  Doesn't really matter either way, as it reads no different doctrinally to me.  Also, I believe a lot of "and it came to pass" text was just removed for brevity.   I personally think Reformed Egyptian had a something like a pilcrow paragraph (backward P) symbol used at the start of every line which got translated to "And it came to pass..."

But the church makes every effort to ensure that the history of events is entirely transparent.  And I remember when that edition came out (I was 11), and there was a huge essay in the Ensign explaining every single textual change and why it was decided.

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

Okay... besides the Rotten Tomatoes Movie reviews that have been shared (everyone is a movie critic), and now that we have uncovered systematic institutional church-wide deception via church videos (thanks), what does all that actually mean?
What is the next step? What is the point?

"I don't like your movies, therefore,  deception must be elsewhere", am I missing something?
"Sister so-and-so didn't know. Bro whats-his-face had no clue either."  This simply reflects poorly on their personal study habits if anything. We are currently surrounded by many life-long members who actually did study like we are taught to. Seeing the "looks on the faces" of some people doesn't negate the fact that the information is available to those who actually choose to learn.
 

The point is I have an issue with the fact that this movie is promoted by the church as a true historical account of the events that occurred between 1805 and 1845 and makes absolutely no mention of polygamy.  Its purposefully inaccurate and it raises doubts and creates trust issues.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

The point is I have an issue with the fact that this movie is promoted by the church as a true historical account of the events that occurred between 1805 and 1845 and makes absolutely no mention of polygamy.  Its purposefully inaccurate and it raises doubts and creates trust issues.

That bothered me too when the missionaries presented it during my meetings with them. 

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I was talking to a missionary who said polygamy shook her faith horribly when she first started her mission.  I didn't ask details, but I assume it was something an anti hit her with.  She worked through it.  I'm often surprised what people in the church don't know about their own history.  Maybe it's just because I've been researching so much.  

That said, why would it be something regularly talked or spoken about?  I mean, it's certainly not hidden, but I don't know why it would be taught unless just to prepare people for the accusations.  It has nothing to do with the plan for salvation.  It has nothing to do current church doctrine.  

Additionally, why read the 1937 version of The Book of Mormon?   Assuming @Blossom76 accepts modern prophets, it would make sense to read the most current version.  I would put forth that if her husband has a sincere desire to try this, he try it correctly.

It's the 1837 Kirkland edition that my husband got, he wanted to read the closest to the original as possible, he got it from the Community of Christ church.  I didn't think there was going to be an issue with it, turns out I was wrong about that!

[bytebear]

Did the video talk a lot about sealings?  Salvation for the dead?  I ask because, as I said earlier, polygamy as we think of it, really didn't start until Brigham Young.  Smith was sealed to a lot of women (and men as brothers/sons).  Lots of sealings going on before the practice was seen as a family affair and not a connect to Joseph thing.

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

That bothered me too when the missionaries presented it during my meetings with them. 

THANK YOU @MormonGator! I appreciate you saying so.

I don't understand why it is so hard for other members on this site (who shall remain nameless!) to see that this would naturally bother me

[bytebear]

Just now, Blossom76 said:

It's the 1837 Kirkland edition that my husband got, he wanted to read the closest to the original as possible, he got it from the Community of Christ church.  I didn't think there was going to be an issue with it, turns out I was wrong about that!

The church publishes an 1830 replication (photocopied from an original).

https://deseretbook.com/p/1830-heritage-book-mormon-zions-mercantile-83919?ref=Grid | Search-3&variant_id=12912-hardcover 

 

[bytebear]

And there's nothing wrong with reading any edition you want. or any material from the church you want.  And you can compare all you want,  and you can decide if you think the changes were done maliciously or not.  Obviously, we're going to believe they were not done maliciously, but for good or at least reasonable reasons.   And we want to share those reasons with you, so you understand our perspective.  As many people have posted, there are several essays and writings on this to peruse.

[Grunt]

4 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

It's the 1837 Kirkland edition that my husband got, he wanted to read the closest to the original as possible, he got it from the Community of Christ church.  I didn't think there was going to be an issue with it, turns out I was wrong about that!

Yes.  You have to remember that LDS receive revelation from modern prophets.  You really have to read the current edition of anything if you want accuracy.    You either accept that or you don't.  That's the faith, though.  Have you prayed on it?  As I stated earlier, I stopped praying for truth and understanding on most things.  I pray for peace on certain topics because I fully understand that my short time studying has uncovered many things that are going to take much reading and pondering to fully understand.

My prayer for peace was answered.  If you're sincere in your quest for knowledge, I bet yours will be too.  Granted, saying "I'm OK with this for now" isn't much of an answer for your husband's questions, but really this is about your journey right now.  He has his own.

[Blossom76]

7 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Did the video talk a lot about sealings?  Salvation for the dead?  I ask because, as I said earlier, polygamy as we think of it, really didn't start until Brigham Young.  Smith was sealed to a lot of women (and men as brothers/sons).  Lots of sealings going on before the practice was seen as a family affair and not a connect to Joseph thing.

The video showed Joseph Smith throughout his life with ONE wife, that is my issue, its inaccurate, and the Church would know that it's inaccurate and yet it still promotes it as a truth.