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

[_beastie]

I joined the church when I was nineteen years old. This was pre-internet, pre-amazon. I went to my college library and there were only two small books - extended pamphlets, really - about the church, and they were both steeped in EV anti-mormonism, so I ignored them. But I was trying to be an "informed" consumer, so to speak.

Once I agreed to be baptized, the elders warned me that "satan" would be out to get me, now, and would probably place anti-mormon information in my way. Anti-mormonism is often associated with Satan in the LDS church, and members are warned against even opening the door one tiny bit to Satan.

[_karl61]

This is too funny: they are waiting for a good argument from a critic over at MA&D on wades thread but they are going to wait along time because most of the critics have been banned.

[_karl61]

LOL:

here is LOP on wades thead.

"While I appreciate the effort, I realize it will take a little while to get some good responses from the critics. The same idea was advanced in a MMM discussion wherein it was asked "what should the Church say, if Elder Eyring's comments were not good enough?" The answers never really came."


because the people that would like to respond are banned.

[_moksha]

Now here is something interesting: Both Pahoran (PA HOR AN) and Scott Lloyd have challenged poster Bishopric to produce any official Church document that says Joseph Smith did not consummate his plural marriages.

You might want to take note of this for future reference, the next time there is a denial issued about Joseph Smith consummating his polygamous marriages.

[_Gadianton]

I guess I have something in common with the brethren. If there really is a God, and especially if the Bible is true, then LDS history is workable. All the crazy-ass game playing that God put Smith up to isn't off track much from his psychotic Old Testament behavior. In the end, if the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith did see God, then MMM, polygamy, treasure hunting, and the rest doesn't really matter, so I can see why the church would see it as extraneous to general church-going. I mean, if two missionaries get you to buy into the insane idea that a "holy spirit" can give you knowledge that a work of 19th century fiction is really an absolutely true ancient holy book made by the indians, then what does polygamy matter? It's just a puzzle that ultimately God will have to explain. The fact that learning those things might shake a 'testimony' just goes to show that the most important issues were taken for granted, "Oh yeah, I read that book and I think it was true, I felt good about it". So it looks like I agree with the brethren again, that most of those people never had testimonies to begin with (I am a testimony elimitivist remember). Even if church history were "clean", I wouldn't find it a smidgeon more believable. Does anyone here think JW or 7th Day adventist doctrine is more likely to be true than Mormonism given less controversial history than Mormon history?

So while yeah, church history is a big lie, the brethren are right in thinking it ultimately doesn't matter. And as an apostate, everything any member needs to learn they already know. As an apostate, the dirty history is merely a tactical advantage. It's fun to throw in the face of sqeaky clean Mo's who try to get self-righteous and take moral high-ground in conversations. But the truth of the church is no more or less likely because of its history. For Mormons, all you need to know is that the Book of Mormon is true. For me, all you have to know is that angels don't visit farmboys, the notion absurd and deserves no serious consideration.

[_beastie]

That's true, Gad.

Part of what appealed to me about Mormonism, as a nineteen year old, was that the LDS church provided a way for me to justify disregarding the outrageous parts of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. We only had to believe in it if it were translated correctly. And, believe me, I thought most of the Old Testament must have been translated incorrectly. I knew other LDS who used that freely, as well. Internet Mormons are less apt to use it when discussing issues with EVs, but perhaps they use it, too, in "real" life.

But if you're not willing to use that ace card, then, yes, the outrageous stuff in the Old Testament makes Mormonism look mild. Ok, maybe God told Nephi to kill ONE person, but at least he didn't order him to commit genocide. Yeah, Joseph Smith married other men's wives, but at least he didn't get drunk and sleep with his daughters. I've always thought that LDS prefer debating EVs because the Bible is one of their strongest arguments.

When I first left the church and was still a theist, I immediately labeled most of the Bible as myth. But that's a slippery slope for someone trying to believe he/she is "christian", because the obvious question is: why stop at the Old Testament? Why isn't the Jesus story myth, too? But there are mainstream Christians who walk that balance beam. I talked to my episcopal priest and asked him if I could still be christian even though I thought the virgin birth was myth. He emphatically said YES and explained he did, too. However, neither of us went the next step and asked if one could still be christian and view the atonement as myth, which was the next logical step. But he was a very liberal priest, and I'm betting his answer would have been "yes", while mine ended up being "no, not if the word christian is going to retain its cultural meaning".

For me, I lost faith in Mormonism NOT due to all its history, although its history made me doubt. I lost faith because God wouldn't tell me Joseph Smith was a true prophet, the way the church claims he will. After accepting that answer was NO, then all the history simply made sense. It all makes sense once you realize it isn't true. As long as you're still desperately trying to make it be true, it doesn't make much sense at all, and you just have to hope god explains it all one day.

[_Dr. Shades]

Since then, at no time, has any priesthood leader ever attempted to dissuade me from my research, writing and review of anti-Mormon literature, although they all know I consume it. I have sat in many priesthood leadership meetings. At no time have I ever heard a priesthood leader counseling a member to not read anti-Mormon literature other than to suggest that one's time would be better spent with edifying reading. But never have I heard the suggestion that one's standing as a priesthood holder would be affected one whit by the reading of anti-Mormon literature.

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"?

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. . .

The Church's Historian's office (currently headed by Elder Jensen) within the Family History Department is not tasked with the job of publishing the Church's history, but preserving it. The publication of history, these days, is left to independent scholars. Almost all of the archives is open to independent scholars.

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?

[_moksha]

The Church's Historian's office (currently headed by Elder Jensen) within the Family History Department is not tasked with the job of publishing the Church's history, but preserving it. The publication of history, these days, is left to independent scholars. Almost all of the archives is open to independent scholars. I have never been denied access to any piece of material in Church Archives, and the archivists there don't ask for my recommend to see the material.

Preserving history would seem to be more actively assisted by publishing it, rather than merely sequestering it. Do the archivists (do they have a fellow named Lindhorst working there?) let you in without a hassle because they recognize you? Could Dr. Michael Quinn still see these archival materials? Do you have to sign any type of wavers or pledges?

[_Trevor]

History serves many purposes. It is only in the modern era that people have started to be truly demanding of a kind of scientific accuracy in history. Even then, most histories are colored by the biases of the scholars who write them. The tradition of history writing in the West is closely related to rhetoric--the art of persuasion. In general, stories about the past are designed to acculturate you to a particular community or perspective. LDS history is really no different.

In relative comparison with contemporary scholarly historiography, LDS history has generally been written within the mythos of the LDS view. It may account for many of the facts, but LDS writers select the facts and shape their accounts such that they fit comfortably within the overall LDS wordview. This means that they assume the world was working according to God's plan leading up to the expected restoration of a pure Christian gospel as taught by Jesus and his apostles in the first century. Joseph Smith restores that Gospel, which will spread until the coming of Christ and the initiation of his millennial rule.

Quinn, Bushman, and others have written histories and biographies that, while dealing with the complexity of the many issues surrounding Joseph Smith, do not significantly depart from a believers perspective. Interestingly, there work is still of great historical value. Quinn was excommunicated, while Bushman seems relatively acceptable to the powers that be. Obviously, much depends on circumstances, and how the LDS scholar interacts with LDS authorities. Quinn was not careful enough. Bushman has been very canny in the way he has informally sought guidance and approval from the GAs. I would imagine this, and the fact that he has not been employed at BYU, has worked in his favor.

I don't think critics of the LDS Church should discount the achievements of believing LDS scholars, and fail to take notice of Bushman's coup in writing his Joseph Smith biography. It is rather remarkable that he has been able to say as much as he has without attracting more negative attention from LDS authorities. I would say that his theological perspective, as a believer, still colors his interpretations, and we shouldn't expect otherwise. All the same, it is a breakthrough to see a major biography, dealing with difficult facts, issuing forth from an LDS scholar and not ending in church discipline. Some credit should go to the leaders of the LDS Church in exercising sufficient wisdom not to interfere with Bushman to the point that he could not write his biography without being punished in some way for it.

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.

[_rcrocket]

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