Elder Ballard: "There has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody"

[Not Buying It]

"If you'd done more research you'd have known we weren't telling you things" is a slimy response to the accusation that they Church has been hiding things. Are most members too uninterested in Church history to do much digging? Sure. Does that justify misleading them by withholding facts that might reduce their commitment to the Church? Not for an organization that claims to be led by God himself and claims to have the most truest true truths of all churches on earth.

If I happened to have a copy of an Improvement Era from 1970 I might have had a chance to hear that there was more than one version of the First Vision, but my next chance at exposure from official sources would have been in the 90s, when President Hinckley dismissively said "so what?" as more members became aware of the multiple versions through unapproved sources, a response designed to keep the uninterested from getting interested and to marginalize and belittle those who were interested. In between there were decades of three hour a week instruction where the First Vision was taught dozens of times and mentioned hundreds of times without any mention of multiple versions.

Con men and charlatans keep information from you. Maybe the people they swindle and cheat should have done more research. If the Church's best defense is to put themselves in that league, well, that says a lot, doesn't it?

[Hagoth]

If I happened to have a copy of an Improvement Era from 1970...

You have to have saved that issue because the online archive only goes back to 1971. Why is that? I suspect that was about the time the Correlation Committee started cracking down on the content to make certain wacky stuff like alternate first vision stories didn't slip through the cracks.

[StarbucksMom]

This is great news, especially for those of you who might be attending/teaching Sunday Scool. It's open season. Not only did Ballard say they aren't hiding history/info, but he also said in a talk that "“It is important that you know the content in these essays like you know the back of your hand.” So, one of Jesus' 12 apostles on the earth today said we should basically memorize the essays, and also that no one has to hide anything, because the church doesn't!! Yay!

As long as you are using the essays/lds.org/Fair (remember how Fair recently bragged--paraphrase--"try a fun activity! Go to lds.org and search Fair--we come up! We're officially an official source for the church!")---you can teach/talk about these things in church. If anyone gives you a hard time, play the apostle card. "Sorry bishop, but I am following the counsel of Elder Ballard, a prophet, seer and revelator of today's church."

[blazerb]

This is great news, especially for those of you who might be attending/teaching Sunday Scool. It's open season. Not only did Ballard say they aren't hiding history/info, but he also said in a talk that "“It is important that you know the content in these essays like you know the back of your hand.” So, one of Jesus' 12 apostles on the earth today said we should basically memorize the essays, and also that no one has to hide anything, because the church doesn't!! Yay!

As long as you are using the essays/lds.org/Fair (remember how Fair recently bragged--paraphrase--"try a fun activity! Go to lds.org and search Fair--we come up! We're officially an official source for the church!")---you can teach/talk about these things in church. If anyone gives you a hard time, play the apostle card. "Sorry bishop, but I am following the counsel of Elder Ballard, a prophet, seer and revelator of today's church."

Hurray! I still don't know if I'll have the intestinal fortitude to stand up in gospel doctrine and declare what I know. I stuck my head out a little this year and got beaten down.

I have conflicted feelings about the question, "Whose fault is it?" The fact is, I knew more that I ever said. I did not share the less-than-faith-promoting stories I knew. I know more now. So, part of the fault is mine. I didn't tell people. But I think the church bears some of the responsibility because there is not a place at church for sharing the difficult stories. The church continues to put less-than-honest stories in its manuals. I have decided that, regardless of family sensitivities, I feel better skipping classes with difficult stories than attending and either causing a ruckus by sharing parts of stories that are not told or keeping quiet with the attendant guilt.

[wtfluff]

If I happened to have a copy of an Improvement Era from 1970...

You have to have saved that issue because the online archive only goes back to 1971. Why is that? I suspect that was about the time the Correlation Committee started cracking down on the content to make certain wacky stuff like alternate first vision stories didn't slip through the cracks.

Why am I giggling at the moment? Absolutely classic: "There was that one article, back then, in a church magazine one time... It's conveniently not part of the online archive, BUT: You should have known about it!"

Literally: We don't hide anything, but I'm going to reference something that literally no-one has access to. Absolutely classic!

Personally, I'd like to be in the presence of a believer who says something along the lines of the church not hiding anything, and I'd like to ask the question: "Oh really? Why don't you tell me all about the endowment ceremony then?"

[Not Buying It]

Hurray! I still don't know if I'll have the intestinal fortitude to stand up in gospel doctrine and declare what I know. I stuck my head out a little this year and got beaten down.

I have conflicted feelings about the question, "Whose fault is it?" The fact is, I knew more that I ever said. I did not share the less-than-faith-promoting stories I knew. I know more now. So, part of the fault is mine. I didn't tell people. But I think the church bears some of the responsibility because there is not a place at church for sharing the difficult stories. The church continues to put less-than-honest stories in its manuals. I have decided that, regardless of family sensitivities, I feel better skipping classes with difficult stories than attending and either causing a ruckus by sharing parts of stories that are not told or keeping quiet with the attendant guilt.

Don't feel guilty. The fact you were beaten down for even sticking your head out a little should tell you it isn't your fault. The Church has created and maintained an environment where you couldn't have shared freely without severe social - and possibly ecclesiastical - consequences.

You don't deserve any guilt for not sharing what you know. The Church bears the blame for putting you in a position where you have to think about it in the first place. No one should blame themselves for the Church's sins.

[shadow]

I should have included this in my previous post, but it didn't come to mind then.

Here's a prime example right now of how they literally try to hide church history:

Go to lds.org, and try and do a search for: "Helen Mar Kimball" and see what happens.

(Hint: They have literally trained the search engine on LDS.org to lie / attempt to hide the truth.)

I know we don't like the swears around here, but Holy Shit! That is sooooo terrible.

[NOMinally Mormon]

I haven't read the whole thread so maybe I'm repeating someone, but doesn't this sound like what happened in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? The plans to destroy earth had been posted on a remote planet, so the earthlings had no reason to complain they hadn't been told.

[Not Buying It]

I should have included this in my previous post, but it didn't come to mind then.

Here's a prime example right now of how they literally try to hide church history:

Go to lds.org, and try and do a search for: "Helen Mar Kimball" and see what happens.

(Hint: They have literally trained the search engine on LDS.org to lie / attempt to hide the truth.)

I know we don't like the swears around here, but Holy S***! That is sooooo terrible.

Yeah, the Church isn't hiding anything from anyone - as long you are looking for "Helen Maar Kimball" and not "Helen Mar Kimball".

[Spiritless]

I’m sorry, but Ballard’s statement is an outright lie. His example of the first vision is a prime example of the lying he and the other church leaders engage in. Joseph Fielding Smith cut out the 1832 version of the first vision out of Joseph Smith’s journal and hid it in his office safe for over 30 years. Then when it became public that it was there, he taped it back in. That’s hiding church history Balard!

[crossmyheart]

I haven't read the whole thread so maybe I'm repeating someone, but doesn't this sound like what happened in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? The plans to destroy earth had been posted on a remote planet, so the earthlings had no reason to complain they hadn't been told.

Brilliant- and you know that is exactly what they are doing.

[blazerb]

I haven't read the whole thread so maybe I'm repeating someone, but doesn't this sound like what happened in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? The plans to destroy earth had been posted on a remote planet, so the earthlings had no reason to complain they hadn't been told.

I forgot to look behind the "Beware of Leopard" sign for all those church history books.

[Rob4Hope]

I suggested to an apologist friend that we should go over the history of Joseph's teenage polygamy in a series of lessons with the Young Women and Relief Society classes during church. He simply thought that would not be a good idea at all, but not because we were hiding anything. His final answer was that everyone needs to come to a personal testimony of plural marriage and we cannot reasonably expect apostles to talk about this openly. Not because it's scandalous or anything. But simply because it's spiritual or not appropriate or something like that.

Dude...I'm a little behind and just catching up on this thread. What your apologist friend said..my gut reaction is "What a load of SH!T!".

You don't talk about this stuff BECAUSE it's scandalous! And this guy is, in my reading, basically saying its "too sacred" to talk about? My knee-jerk reaction is and probably will always be, for such apologists approaches to handle things, a big "YEH, RIGHT!!!!.....BULL STEIN!"...

[Corsair]

I suggested to an apologist friend that we should go over the history of Joseph's teenage polygamy in a series of lessons with the Young Women and Relief Society classes during church. He simply thought that would not be a good idea at all, but not because we were hiding anything. His final answer was that everyone needs to come to a personal testimony of plural marriage and we cannot reasonably expect apostles to talk about this openly. Not because it's scandalous or anything. But simply because it's spiritual or not appropriate or something like that.

Dude...I'm a little behind and just catching up on this thread. What your apologist friend said..my gut reaction is "What a load of SH!T!".

You don't talk about this stuff BECAUSE it's scandalous! And this guy is, in my reading, basically saying its "too sacred" to talk about? My knee-jerk reaction is and probably will always be, for such apologists approaches to handle things, a big "YEH, RIGHT!!!!.....BULL STEIN!"...

This is part of a better strategy for dealing with people that disagree. It's quite difficult to "prove" the church true or false with any finality. Instead, I look for the chance for my opponent to state his position and own it. At the point that this guy encouraged me to come to a personal testimony of plural marriage, I smiled and largely ended the conversation. This is a guy who meticulously read through Brian Hales' three volume "Polygamy" books, read everything from Nibley he could find, and loves John Sorenson's "Mormon's Codex". He put the final burden of proof for polygamy back on my testimony.

There was no way that this apologist was going to somehow admit that polygamy was a bad idea and it makes Joseph Smith into an adulterer. That's not how realistic, real-world debate ends. Instead, one sign of victory is when your opponent appeals to you to have a spiritual experience about it. If there was a systematic, logical, detailed explanation for polygamy we would have it. Instead, the actual explanation that both apologists and apostates can largely agree on is simply this: Joseph Smith, the early church leader, and the early saints were convinced that they were following God's commandment. The fact that we disagree today hardly matters.

[Rob4Hope]

I suggested to an apologist friend that we should go over the history of Joseph's teenage polygamy in a series of lessons with the Young Women and Relief Society classes during church. He simply thought that would not be a good idea at all, but not because we were hiding anything. His final answer was that everyone needs to come to a personal testimony of plural marriage and we cannot reasonably expect apostles to talk about this openly. Not because it's scandalous or anything. But simply because it's spiritual or not appropriate or something like that.

Dude...I'm a little behind and just catching up on this thread. What your apologist friend said..my gut reaction is "What a load of SH!T!".

You don't talk about this stuff BECAUSE it's scandalous! And this guy is, in my reading, basically saying its "too sacred" to talk about? My knee-jerk reaction is and probably will always be, for such apologists approaches to handle things, a big "YEH, RIGHT!!!!.....BULL STEIN!"...

This is part of a better strategy for dealing with people that disagree. It's quite difficult to "prove" the church true or false with any finality. Instead, I look for the chance for my opponent to state his position and own it. At the point that this guy encouraged me to come to a personal testimony of plural marriage, I smiled and largely ended the conversation. This is a guy who meticulously read through Brian Hales' three volume "Polygamy" books, read everything from Nibley he could find, and loves John Sorenson's "Mormon's Codex". He put the final burden of proof for polygamy back on my testimony.

There was no way that this apologist was going to somehow admit that polygamy was a bad idea and it makes Joseph Smith into an adulterer. That's not how realistic, real-world debate ends. Instead, one sign of victory is when your opponent appeals to you to have a spiritual experience about it. If there was a systematic, logical, detailed explanation for polygamy we would have it. Instead, the actual explanation that both apologists and apostates can largely agree on is simply this: Joseph Smith, the early church leader, and the early saints were convinced that they were following God's commandment. The fact that we disagree today hardly matters.

Yep. They double-bind it. "Jopseh smith, the early church leader, and the early saints were convinced that they were following God's commandment" (this is what you said).

And then they say: "And the way we know we were following God's commandment is because he revealed it to his prophet, Joseph Smith." But, JS was the guy who said God revealed it, and we have been taught that God reveals it to JS. Circular argument ad-nauseum!

Good thing we don't think for ourselves. Gees, if that happened, maybe we might question the blind alley's destination...you know?

[2bizE]

Just a thought... could Ballard be suffering from dementia? Perhaps he cannot remember things he has said. Happened to TSM and Ronald Reagan.

[Corsair]

Just a thought... could Ballard be suffering from dementia? Perhaps he cannot remember things he has said. Happened to TSM and Ronald Reagan.

It's more of "organizational" dementia.

[asb]

Maybe someone has pointed this out before, but I was curious to see just what that 1970 article said. Found it at https://archive.org/details/improvementera7309unse. The story is mostly about Moroni's visit, but the first few paragraphs are about the First Vision. The writer mentions four accounts of the vision, and has this to say about the 1832 version:

Next in importance [after the 1838 account] is the earliest known manuscript record of the early visions. Through the invaluable work of Dean Jessee, of the Church Historian's Office, it has been known that this account was written in either 1831 or 1832. However, he has recently discovered that the recorder (Frederick G. Williams) did not begin to write for the Prophet until the later date. This earliest manuscript history is therefore fixed at 1832. This early attempt at official history is more detailed than any other account except the "History of Joseph Smith."

So no details at all about the contents of 1832 account, not even a hint that there might be fundamental differences from the "official" version. The article treats the 1835 and 1842 accounts similarly.

Indeed, the article mentions a couple of "alternative" FV accounts, but only trivially and in passing in an article that isn't really even about the First Vision.

So, a couple of paragraphs from nearly 50 years ago are supposed to have constituted full transparency from the church on First Vision??

[RubinHighlander]

I haven't read the whole thread so maybe I'm repeating someone, but doesn't this sound like what happened in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? The plans to destroy earth had been posted on a remote planet, so the earthlings had no reason to complain they hadn't been told.

+1 for this analogy!