This is I feel a legitimate question, and I would like to know your opinions. Does the church censor information that may be harmful to the church, but true nonetheless, and is it justified in doing so? For example, how often is polygamy mentioned in the teaching manuals about Joseph Smith (33 wives, plus some that were already married to other men) or Brigham Young? What about a lot of the LDS films that are produced that depict Joseph Smith being murdered in Carthage? In real life Joseph Smith was snuck a pistol while in carthage, and when the mobs came he shot six shots and wounded three of the mob, yet this is not depicted in the films (though of course he had every right to defend himself). Nor do most members of the church know that one of the main reasons why the mobs attacked him in Carthage was because he had a newspaper printer shut down and burned that spoke negatively about the church, and this was the breaking point for the townspeople, and therefore attacked him (though I still believe they were unjustified and will most likely go to hell) In the film Legacy, the woman on whom the film was based was actually one of her husband's many wives. Or what about the fact that the Kirtland Safety Society was not approved by the Federal Government, and after its failure Joseph had to go into hiding to avoid being arrested for his illegal activities? Is the church justified in ommitting these details in church manuals, histories and films?

Cobraman wrote:This is I feel a legitimate question, and I would like to know your opinions. Does the church censor information that may be harmful to the church, but true nonetheless, and is it justified in doing so?

I'm going to guess that you're equating not mentioning something as "censoring" it.

For example, how often is polygamy mentioned in the teaching manuals about Joseph Smith (33 wives, plus some that were already married to other men) or Brigham Young?

Guess I was right.

What about a lot of the LDS films that are produced that depict Joseph Smith being murdered in Carthage? In real life Joseph Smith was snuck a pistol while in carthage, and when the mobs came he shot six shots and wounded three of the mob, yet this is not depicted in the films (though of course he had every right to defend himself).

Joseph having a pistol is taught in primary manuals, for Pete's sake!

Nor do most members of the church know that one of the main reasons why the mobs attacked him in Carthage was because he had a newspaper printer shut down and burned that spoke negatively about the church, and this was the breaking point for the townspeople, and therefore attacked him

That's an enormously simplified version of events that were much, much more complicated.

And I have never been in a class at Church that discussed the events leading up to the martyrdom that didn't mention the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor.

Or what about the fact that the Kirtland Safety Society was not approved by the Federal Government, and after its failure Joseph had to go into hiding to avoid being arrested for his illegal activities?

Since the legality of the KSS is still debated among scholars, it would be unwise to mention such a tenative thing in any Church-sanctioned manuals, especially since it has no benefit in spiritually edifying and uplifting the Saints (which is the purpose of Church classes).

Is the church justified in ommitting these details in church manuals, histories and films?

It depends which ones you mentioned. Some of them the Church doesn't make much mention of (and in my opinion, has no reason or obligation to), some of them aren't true, and some of them they do mention.

"Joseph having a pistol is taught in primary manuals, for Pete's sake!"

I would like a source. I went through primary, seminary, BYU religion classes, a mission, taught in Elders Quorum, and some how that little detail slipped by me. (and who's Pete?)

"And I have never been in a class at Church that discussed the events leading up to the martyrdom that didn't mention the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor."

Well I have never been in one that has. I think you forget that I have gone to church my whole life and have the exact same experiences that you do.

"some of them aren't true"

Which of the ones that I listed aren't true?

"I'm going to guess that you're equating not mentioning something as "censoring" it."

Okay, what is your definition of censorship then? If I was in a court of law and failed to include details of a similar magnitude in relating an event I would be censoring my testimony, and therefore would be an illegitimate witness.

Cobraman wrote:"Joseph having a pistol is taught in primary manuals, for Pete's sake!"

I would like a source. I went through primary, seminary, BYU religion classes, a mission, taught in Elders Quorum, and some how that little detail slipped by me. (and who's Pete?)

"And I have never been in a class at Church that discussed the events leading up to the martyrdom that didn't mention the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor."

Well I have never been in one that has. I think you forget that I have gone to church my whole life and have the exact same experiences that you do.

This is from the Doctrine and Covenants/Church History primary manual, available online here.

"Some enemies of the Church believed that if they got rid of Joseph Smith, the Church would fall apart. These men started a newspaper in which they told many vicious lies about Joseph Smith. The members of the Church were angry about these lies. Joseph Smith, who was mayor of Nauvoo at the time, called a meeting of the city council, which was composed of both Church members and nonmembers. The city council declared the newspaper a “public nuisance” and ordered the town marshal to destroy the printing press used to print the newspaper.

...

"Only four men remained in Carthage Jail: the Prophet Joseph Smith; his brother Hyrum; and John Taylor and Willard Richards, two of the Apostles. These four men had two guns that had been given to them by friends who visited them. ... The brethren tried to bar the door shut and use their few weapons to drive off the mob. Joseph Smith fired a pistol and John Taylor used his heavy cane to try to knock down the guns of the mob as they were pushed into the room through the door, but there were too many people in the mob for the brethren to defend themselves."

Okay, what is your definition of censorship then? If I was in a court of law and failed to include details of a similar magnitude in relating an event I would be censoring my testimony, and therefore would be an illegitimate witness.

Generally, in my experience, censorship is considered the suppression of information. The Church has not suppressed anything you mentioned. Failing to mention something because you don't consider it important does not, in my mind at least, qualify as censorship.

What about the multiple wives thing?

Cobraman wrote:What about the multiple wives thing?

I'm pretty sure the Church has been printing D&C 132 for quite a while.

Not that I mind Joseph having a pistol to defend his life and the life of his friends, but the truth of the circumstances does kind of fly in the face of the "going as a lamb to the slaughter" epic we are taught about the martyrdom from the time we are little tykes.

Hill Cumorah CC wrote:Not that I mind Joseph having a pistol to defend his life and the life of his friends, but the truth of the circumstances does kind of fly in the face of the "going as a lamb to the slaughter" epic we are taught about the martyrdom from the time we are little tykes.

Yes, I'm sure he had a fighting chance with that prone-to-misfire six-shooter against a mob of several hundred armed men.

Joseph wrote:

Hill Cumorah CC wrote:Not that I mind Joseph having a pistol to defend his life and the life of his friends, but the truth of the circumstances does kind of fly in the face of the "going as a lamb to the slaughter" epic we are taught about the martyrdom from the time we are little tykes.

Yes, I'm sure he had a fighting chance with that prone-to-misfire six-shooter against a mob of several hundred armed men.

As much as he may have been outnumbered and as much as you would like to somehow reconcile the true history to what is taught to Primary children throughout the world, the fact remains that Joseph's actions were far from "going as a lamb to the slaughter". For an example of that see the account of Alma and Amulek amoung the people of Ammonihah, though the Lord did ultimately rescue them, they allowed themselves to be beat, spit upon, stripped naked, and starved without answering a word. THAT my friend is being led as a lamb to the slaughter.

By 'going as a lamb to the slaughter', I am sure it was meant that he knew he (an innocent person, wrongly accused) wouldn't stand a chance against such a powerful mob.

Joseph wrote:

Cobraman wrote:What about the multiple wives thing?

I'm pretty sure the Church has been printing D&C 132 for quite a while.

I'm specifically referring to Joseph's 33+ wives (every member knows Young was a polygamist), and the controversy about him being married to teenagers and women who were already married to other, still living men.

Hill Cumorah CC wrote:As much as he may have been outnumbered and as much as you would like to somehow reconcile the true history to what is taught to Primary children throughout the world, the fact remains that Joseph's actions were far from "going as a lamb to the slaughter".

I respectfully disagree. I consider surrendering yourself when you have the option not to, knowing that by doing so you will be killed -- so thus willingly allowing yourself to be killed -- is very much the definition the "going as a lamb to the slaughter," despite any of the lamb's brief, last minute struggles as the knife comes down.

Cobraman wrote:I'm specifically referring to Joseph's 33+ wives (every member knows Young was a polygamist), and the controversy about him being married to teenagers and women who were already married to other, still living men.

Since the nature of Joseph's marriages is still debated (he obviously didn't live with any besides Emma, and he was likely not intimate with more than a very few), I do not think it would be prudent to bring that up in a Sunday school class. However, it is common knowledge that plural marriage was revealed to and instituted by Joseph Smith, and the plural marriage revelation is in the scriptures.

However, just because the Church doesn't laud Joseph's teenage and previously-married wives doesn't mean they are censoring that information. If that were the case, I wouldn't have learned about it in either my LDS history or D&C classes at BYU, nor would I read it in books written by Latter-day Saint historians.

The lesson is on gospel principals not the history of the church which is often disputed.

Joeseph taught, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”

I would suggest you read this talk.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=fad32150a447b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Of course there's censorship... Adam-God doctrine, Blood Atonement, Mountain Meadows etc.

here's Gordon Hinckley's response when asked about the whole doctrine that God was once a man:

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."


Some of these more controversial doctrines are hidden and avoided if at all possible.