MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_beastie]

"General authorities in recent years have criticized Mormon historians for republishing in part or whole out-of-print Church publications such as the 1830 Book of Mormon, the Journal of Discourses (edited and published for thirty-two years under the auspices of the First Presidency), and statements taken from former Church magazines published for the children, youth, and general membership of the Church. It is an odd situation when present general authorities criticize historians for reprinting what previous general authorities regarded not only as faith-promoting but as appropriate for Mormon youth and the newest converts.

"Elder Packer specifically warns against historians using "the unworthy, the unsavory, or the sensational," from the Mormon past, merely because it has been previously published somewhere else, and he berates historians for their "exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told." But this raises the question of personal honesty and professional integrity. If a historian writes about any subject unrelated to religion, and he purposely fails to make reference to pertinent information of which he has knowledge, he is justifiably liable to be criticized for dishonesty…

"Boyd K. Packer demands that Mormon historians demonstrate and affirm that "the hand of the Lord [has been] in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now."…Mormon historians may share the convictions of the Nephite prophets and Boyd K. Packer that the "hand of the lord" operates throughout history and that "His purposes fail not," but they also have an obligation to examine the evidence, reflect upon it, and offer the best interpretations they can for what has occurred in Mormon history…

"The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials. (D. Michael Quinn, On Being A Mormon Historian, 1982, pp. 2, 8-10, 13-14, 16-22; revised and reprinted in 1992 in Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, pp. 69-111)

http://trialsofascension.net/Mormon/lying.html

[_Ray A]

More recent from Elder Oaks, Mormon Times, 2nd August, 2008, but speaking of "media stories':

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Quorum of the Twelve Friday instructed members to be skeptical when reading media stories about church history...

[Talks about Hofmann's "discoveries" in interim.]

In the 1985 talk, Elder Oaks provided readers some general principles to apply when reading media stories about developments in church history:

3. Bias. Readers need to be sensitive to the bias -- which may be religious or irreligious, believing, skeptical or hostile -- of the writer or publisher, Elder Oaks said.

An author's bias may be evident in the way he or she portrays sacred experiences and his or her decisions on what news stories to publish and what to omit. Bias may also be present in the fact that the news media have "ignored all of the positive evidence and then expended so many lines of negative disclosures."

4. Balance. Balance is telling both sides, Elder Oaks said.

"When supposedly objective news media or periodicals run a feature or an article on the church or its doctrines, it ought to be balanced." Readers should beware of writings that imply balance but do not deliver it, he said.

5. Truths and half-truths. "A lie is most effective when it can travel incognito in good company, or when it can be so intermarried with the truth that we cannot determine its lineage." True facts can even be used unrighteously, when they are severed from their context, where they can convey an erroneous impression.

Also, some things that are true are not edifying or appropriate to communicate, Elder Oaks said. Members should rely on the Holy Ghost, which if used, will not allow them to be mislead by lies and half-truths.

6. Evaluation. This has two dimensions: intellectual and spiritual.

"In terms of the intellectual, readers and viewers clearly need to be more sophisticated in evaluating what is communicated to them," Elder Oaks said.

In spiritual terms, Saints can rely on the promise given in Moroni 10:5, that "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." This promise, Elder Oaks said, "assures spiritually sensitive readers a power of discernment that will help them evaluate the meaning of what they learn."

Elder Oaks' 1985 talk also contained the caution that "criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward church authorities, general or local."

"Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."

Elder Oaks concluded his remarks by stating that church members have been given the "precious gift" of the Holy Ghost, whose mission is to "testify of the Father and the Son and to lead us into truth.
I pray that these teachings from the scriptures and from other church leaders will be helpful to all who seek to read, to understand, and to explain the various accounts of the past that we call church history." (Emphasis added)

As far as I'm aware, other apostles haven't been as forthright as Oaks and Packer in this regard, and whether they share these views one can only speculate.

A Wiki entry on the bio of Leonard J. Arrington:

At the same time, Arrington experienced numerous personal and professional frustrations, as he constantly combated a church hierarchy which did not regard the work of his department as "faith-promoting." Balancing his commitment to his profession and his loyalty to his church, Arrington frequently clashed with church authorities. Finally, the Church appointed G. Homer Durham as managing director of the division, and Durham worked constantly to ensure that the department produced "faith-promoting" history. This approach ultimately led to Arrington's release as Church Historian, Durham's appointment to that position, and the transfer of the entire Historical Department to Brigham Young University in 1982.

This is no reflection on the MMM book. I haven't read it. I'm only pointing out some "faithful approaches to history". Most of these debates reached their zenith in the mid-1980s in a series of Dialogue articles both pro and con.

From Dave's Mormon Inquiry

Bushman's Essay
Since I can't find an online version of the essay, I'll summarize it briefly, with page numbers referencing the essay as published in the 1992 Signature book. First, Bushman disposes of the what might be called the "facts are facts" view of history:

I doubt if any historian today thinks of history as a series of bead-like facts fixed in unchangeable order along the strings of time. The facts are more like blocks which each historian piles up as he or she chooses, which is why written history always assumes new shapes. I do not mean to say that historical materials are completely plastic. The facts cannot be forced into any form at all. Some statements can be proven wrong. But historians have much more leeway than a casual reading of history discloses. (Original emphasis) (p. 4)

Dave commenting about Elder Packer:

The Mantle and the Intellect
Since you can read the talk yourself, I'll just list the "Four Cautions" put forth by Elder Packer. I think they do a good job of conveying what he has in mind by the term "faithful history." [Note: I'm taking them word-for-word from the text of the talk.]

1. There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work.
2. There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
3. In an effort to be objective and impartial, and scholarly a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary.
4. The final caution concerns the idea that so long as something is already in print, so long as it is available from another source, there is nothing out of order in using it in writing or speaking, or teaching.

Equating objectivity and impartiality with "giving equal time to the adversary" probably rubs some people the wrong way. I suppose it's worth remembering that Elder Packer was addressing CES instructors, suggesting that objectivity and impartiality are more acceptable for the rest of us non-CES folks. In that section he also states: "Those who have carefully purged their work of any religious faith in the name of academic freedom or so-called honesty ought not expect to be accommodated in their researches or to be paid by the Church to do it." This, too, suggests his direction is tailored to the CES audience. He's not making a general denunciation of objectivity and impartiality, just reminding CES instructors who is paying them.

[_beastie]

I was already somewhat familiar with the problems Leonard Arrington had confronted in his attempt to “open” LDS archives and the treatment of problematic historical information. It seems he was just a little ahead of his time, and now it appears the brethren may be more open to that idea. At any rate, I’ve never read his book but found a couple of quotes that seem pertinent:

Kimball began by saying that the Story of the Latter-day Saints had raised some concerns. Benson admitted that he had read only portions of the book but that at least one of the Twelve had read all of it. Calvin Rudd, an institute teacher, had given him a two-page list of his concerns in very general terms: the book would make young people “lose faith”, it “demeaned” Joseph Smith, it gave only sixteen lines to the founding of the church. For five or ten minutes Benson continued his “grave warnings” about “the problems and dangers and risks” of the existence of such a book. I responded. Then Petersen expressed his concerns very strongly and openly. I again responded. Then both Benson and Petersen took another turn. I defended myself by making four points: they might not like the book, but given the responses I had received, they were in the minority – most readers did not feel it damaged their faith; since the book would be read by non-Mormons and scholars as well as by Latter-day Saints and general readers, the historians had tried to provide evidence fore events based on facts instead of only prophecy; criticism of contextualism had missed the point of the book, that “the Lord was preparing the people to receive the restored gospel”; certain well-known historical events could not be ignored (the Mountain Meadows massacre, different versions of the First Vision, African Americans in the church, the polygamy underground) and it was best to treat them in a place where LDS scholars could control the tone and the proper presentation of evidence.

Kimball then asked me if I would agree to have the manuscripts read before publication by a person assigned by him from the Twelve. I said I “welcomed” such an arrangement but [b]felt it wise to keep this private “for the purpose of not diminishing our credibility as historians and raising the cry of censorship.” Kimball agreed, but those at Deseret Book, when informed, shared the information freely.

Note: Arrington immediately recognized that submitting the manuscript to the Twelve would “diminish our credibility as historians and raise the cry of censorship.” Yet, in discussing the fact that the similar submission of this manuscript is problematic, we’re dismissed as raising a trivial argument.

page 147
(later, when Arrington discovered other apostles were displeased with the work, while Kimball liked it)

Hunter confined his support, however, to a privately expressed personal assurance. Kimball, for all his pleasure with the book, was not willing to curb Benson and Petersen, either in their public disapproval of the book before audiences of church members or in their private instructions to entities at BYU and Deseret Book. Even though those at Deseret Book were “definitely” willing for the History Division staff to continue writing in the same vein, they were relying on the report of Kimball’s approval. It would be interesting to know why Kimball did not make the approval public, at least within the Twelve. Of course he was very busy and his health soon deteriorated sharply. More likely, he never got accurate information about the methods being used to suppress our history. Sometime later, Kimball’s sister-in-law told me that Kimball had been alarmed about the scandalous way Jim Allen had been treated by some religion instructors at BYU for having been the principal author of Story of the Latter-day Saints. Kimball, she said, openly wept at this recital, and declared this was not a Christian way to treat someone who had honorably preformed an approved assignment. A strong believer in free moral agency, Kimball told his sister-in-law and her husband that Benson and Petersen did not have the authority or the right to interfere with the sale of the book.

I realize that the general authorities who were alarmed by our publications did not think it appropriate to discuss matters directly with me, and I can understand why. I thought candor and openness were healthy; they thought it forthright history was dangerous to the faith of the weak and provided ammunition for those who made anti-Mormon arguments by taking facts out of context. I thought that providing context for problem quotations and episodes was the best solution; they believed such explanations would never catch up with the use of snippets by the opposition.

Page 149

Hmmm, so Arrington apparently had the WILD idea that there were some within the church leadership who WERE attempting to “suppress our history”. Crazy apostate. Or something.

[_Ray A]

For those interested in customer reviews of the book:

Amazon

[_Trevor]

For those interested in customer reviews of the book:

Amazon

I love it when A. Pulsipher, evidently a grandnephew or grandniece of Juanita Brooks, calls Will Bagley "an opportunistic charlatan." LOL. Now there is a measured assessment. ;-)

[_TAK]

For those interested in customer reviews of the book:

Amazon

I love it when A. Pulsipher, evidently a grandnephew or grandniece of Juanita Brooks, calls Will Bagley "an opportunistic charlatan." LOL. Now there is a measured assessment. ;-)

Interesting that he wrote the review on Aug 1, 2008 well in advance of the general release so I wonder if he is an insider.. also he did trash reviews on Bagley and Denton.. me thinks he has an agenda..

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hmmm, so Arrington apparently had the WILD idea that there were some within the church leadership who WERE attempting to “suppress our history”. Crazy apostate. Or something.

I would, of course, never deny that there has been an uneasy history, on occasion, between some professional LDS historians and some Church leaders. I'm reasonably sure (not just because I've been following the issue carefully and reading extensively about it since at least the early 1980s, but because I knew Leonard Arrington, know Jim Allen and Tom Alexander and other prominent Mormon historians very well, and considered Davis Bitton a close friend) that I know quite a bit more about this topic than you do. And I've long been on the side of greater historical openness.

What I object to is any suggestion that there is anything remotely like an official Church policy of suppressing historical data or falsifying Mormon history. The irony is that the Church is more open on historical matters now than it has probably ever been.

[_TAK]

DCP

What I object to is any suggestion that there is anything remotely like an official Church policy of suppressing historical data or falsifying Mormon history. The irony is that the Church is more open on historical matters now than it has probably ever been.

LOL~ You just can't make this stuff up !!!

Do you see the contradiction of those two statements ?? There's no "official Church policy " (taken from the LDS Apologist page of "No Doctrine"..) and the second, the Church is much better now.

If it better now then there must have been a practice/policy in the past!

[_beastie]

I would, of course, never deny that there has been an uneasy history, on occasion, between some professional LDS historians and some Church leaders. I'm reasonably sure (not just because I've been following the issue carefully and reading extensively about it since at least the early 1980s, but because I knew Leonard Arrington, know Jim Allen and Tom Alexander and other prominent Mormon historians very well, and considered Davis Bitton a close friend) that I know quite a bit more about this topic than you do. And I've long been on the side of greater historical openness.

What I object to is any suggestion that there is anything remotely like an official Church policy of suppressing historical data or falsifying Mormon history. The irony is that the Church is more open on historical matters now than it has probably ever been.

I knew I would finally get it out of you. Yes, it took 26 pages, but you finally admitted what everyone already knows – the church has had an “uneasy history, on occasion, between some professional LDS historians and some Church leaders”. And who cares whether or not it was an official doctrine or simply the opinions and practices of influential leaders? (which is how I’ve repeatedly stated the situation – I’ve never stated it was some sort of “official policy”).

Now that you’ve finally – after 26 painful pages full of derision and mocking – conceded each of my three primary points, which are –

1 – the conflict of interest (spare me parsing about “possible” versus “actual”)
2- the past “uneasy history between some professional LDS historians and some Church leaders”
3- as of this moment, other qualified researchers do not have access to the previously inaccessible material that the church leaders opened to the authors

Now, the final conclusion is:

Reasonable people appreciate how these three elements work together to undermine confidence in this work, and that undermined confidence can only be adequately resolved by allowing other qualified researchers access to the previously inaccessible material.

Let me state, once again, although I’ve stated it many times on this thread, these three points do not necessarily mean that this work (or any other work by LDS) is “dishonest and a distortion”. It may be quite accurate. And it may also be true that the church has decided to be more open (a possibility I already recognized via Bushman). But the undermined confidence is still present. It’s like a drunk who finally gives up booze after putting his wife through hell for thirty years. Like must drunks, he’s lied and hidden about in the past, so she is understandably not fully confident in his new sober status. If he shows up at home one day smelling of booze, even if he assures her that he wasn’t actually drinking, but a friend who was drinking spilled something on him, she’s going to be suspicious, and justifiably so. She wants to administer a breathalyzer. He objects, saying, “but I gave you my WORD that it wasn’t me drinking, lots of other men’s wives don’t give THEM breathalyzers!!” Maybe he was telling the truth, and the breathalyzer will simply verify that, but the breathalyzer is really the only way to adequately mitigate the wife’s very reasonable, and reality-based, suspicions.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The irony is that the Church is more open on historical matters now than it has probably ever been.

I agree, and I think that guys like Mike Quinn (including yourself in promoting greater openness), along with the Internet (including bb's like this one, among innumerable others) have played a role in that. The days of 'hiding' or 'manipulating' history or sequestering controversial items in the FP vault are on the wane ... at least that's my hope.