White-washed History And Full Disclosure?, What part of LDS

[_truth dancer]

So I see value in what LDS scholars have produced, and I think the Church deserves some credit in cooperating with Bushman. Naturally, little that members synthesize in their historical arguments should be expected to copntradict the LDS worldview. For this reason, I am pleased that there are a number of non-LDS scholars who do not operate with the same perspective.

Personally, if I was a betting woman, I would bet that the church either asked Bushman to write his biography or was involved in some way suggesting it be written.

I say this because, if I were the CEO of the church's PR firm, I would have asked Bushman, a well respected believer to write a book disclosing just enough of the truth that it is out there, and include the apologetic spin, so folks who come across disturbing information would have a resource to make it all OK. With Bushman's book they have all the answers and can feel safe that there are all comfortable responses for any issue.

I've heard more than one believer use Bushman as a source suggesting there are answers to all the issues.



~dancer~

[_rcrocket]

Personally, if I was a betting woman, I would bet that the church either asked Bushman to write his biography or was involved in some way suggesting it be written.

A call for references and sources at this point. I would take that bet in a heartbeat. What is your best source for the claim?

[_guy sajer]

d) Since the Church has not disclosing certain historical fact that may suggest it isn't true, it has not been right, fair, and prudent with it's investigators and members.

Although that's strictly true, I think the apologists may have somewhat of a point that that's just too much to ask from any organization. Revealing the skeletons in one's own closet is pretty much unheard of, especially since the church is in the business of indoctrinating people.

HOWEVER, the point where the church goes way, way awry is when it A) brainwashes its members to run screaming from anything which might suggest that there may be a skeleton or two in the closet, and B) demonizes anyone who suggests there might be a skeleton or two in the closet (just look at what happened to Michael Lamborn mere days ago).

So, what someone ought to bring up to Wade is that although it's not the church's responsibility to do the critics' job for them, it's intellectually and morally dishonest to hamper the critics or prevent their members from accessing critics.

Yes, I agree, to a point. To me, the criteria is one of "materiality." In other words, information that is reasonably material to one's decision whether to affiliate with an organization, donate money to it, and generally devote one's life to it ought to be disclosed.

I have a friend who married some guy, only to find out AFTER the marriage that the guy was a cross-dresser. This was material information that would have reasonably affected her decision to marry him, and he had an ethical obligation to disclose it to her.

In similar manner, the fact that Joseph Smith was both polygamist and polyandrist is, IMHO, material, and should, therefore, be disclosed both to investigators and to members.

Plus, it is more than simply not engaging in full disclosure, it also the manner in which the Church purposively distorts/misrepresents history and past doctrines. So, it is both "sins" of ommission and commission.

[_Jason Bourne]

What about Thomas Monson's recent conference address wherein he admonished people, upon hearing anti-Mormon information, to say to themselves (paraphrasing), "I refuse to give place to the Devil" and "I am a Child of God and know better than to allow this to sully my testimony"?

Where have the brethren told us not to read this stuff? Or not read anything in particular (outside of porn)?

So, I am not aware of a systematic effort to hide and suppress history. Sure, I know about Brigham Young's suppression of Lucy Smith's biography, and selective editing of the HC, and a rather unprofessional Essentials in Church History. As well as other things. But, that is not systematic hiding the ball.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. . .

A proverb just won't work here. The archives are open to researchers.

Right. What about Boyd K. Packer's mandate that anyone researching in the archives had to sign a pledge to not divulge anything embarrassing to to the church?

Perhaps you can post a copy of such a pledge? I sign access agreements all the time to get into archives at the Church and elsewhere, relating to security and copyrights. I have never seen such a pledge as you describe.

The Church's archives system is mammoth. People come and go. There is a large reading room which can accommodate 15 or more outside scholars at a time. The only restrictions I've ever seen the Church impose which are somewhat different is a prohibition against photographing the collection contents, a restriction I have easily circumvented merely by asking for it. They don't ask me for any proof that I am a loyal member of the Church.

rcrocket

Didn't somebody do a thread recently on a New Era article about not reading anything negative about the Church?

[_karl61]

I think the "Church" should address ten issues that latter-day saint critics are concerned about in a book about the size of an institute manual. Then people at MA&D could say did you buy or read the manual published in 08. Leaving it up to FARMS and FAIR just creates a bigger hole each day.

[_Sethbag]

Yes, I did, and it was pretty clear from that article that they were actively trying to discourage teenagers from reading things critical of the church. It even included examples of kids saying that reading it made them uncomfortable, by which they could tell that it was of the devil, so they stopped. Here's a link to that thread.

[_Runtu]

Yes, I did, and it was pretty clear from that article that they were actively trying to discourage teenagers from reading things critical of the church. It even included examples of kids saying that reading it made them uncomfortable, by which they could tell that it was of the devil, so they stopped. Here's a link to that thread.

Heh. The last time I picked up the Ensign it made me uncomfortable. It must be from the devil. Actually, its demonic nature is obvious. Who else but Satan would inspire such horrible graphic design? ;)

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes, I did, and it was pretty clear from that article that they were actively trying to discourage teenagers from reading things critical of the church. It even included examples of kids saying that reading it made them uncomfortable, by which they could tell that it was of the devil, so they stopped. Here's a link to that thread.

Thanks.

Bob, you may have chimed in on the thread referenced but this one seems pretty clear that the Church does discourage members to read critical material.

Now on another note. I have wondered how the Church can balance what it feels and believes its mandate is to take the LDS Gospel message to the world vs. the more difficult issues in its history. I have discussed this with my SP. I am not sure I have an answer. Maybe a book like Bushman's is a good beginning. If they really believe Joseph had his visions what does it do to point out the warts he had? It would persuade some, and maybe even many, not to join and some to leave as we can see here. But maybe those who join and stay would be better and stronger members.

My biggest objection is this. The lessons in Church, in Seminary and in Institute portray a heroic almost God like Joseph as well as other early Church leaders. The recent film on the prophet is a great example. One cannot view the film without tearing up and thinking that Joseph Smith was a wonderful beautiful man and of course a prophet. But he film is so one dimensional and almost mythical. Talks and Ensign articles almost always focus on only the good. The church is always portrayed ans the persecuted and none of the information about things that happened in Missouri and Kirtland that the Saints did that may have contributed to the powder keg situation is even really brought forward. Only the one side is even really presented with any vigor or detail.

So when some go and read other sources they can lose belief, feel betrayed, angry and yes even like they were lied to.

Why criticize for this? I listened to a Mormon Stories broadcast of and interview with Bushman and he recognizes this is an issue and is understanding and compassionate and thinks the Church needs to figure out a better way to deal with this.