MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

No. But you did give it the old college try, and you're to be commended for your effort.

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.

There is no contradiction.

I said that there is and has been no official Church policy to suppress historical evidence and/or falsify history. I said that the Church, meaning the Church's archives, is more open now than in the past.

The two statements are about different things. As such, they cannot and do not contradict each other.

Logic 101, first or second week.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I knew I would finally get it out of you. Yes, it took 26 pages, but you finally admitted what everyone already knows

I hadn't realized that you so desperately needed me to "admit" what everyone already knows.

If there are any other truisms, tautologies, or things-people-know-from-the-time-they're-children that you need me to confess, just let me know. Now that I understand you a bit better, I'll be happy to fess up to the fact that the sky is blue, that Democrats and Republicans don't always agree, that circles are round, that not everybody loved Ronald Reagan, that New Zealand isn't in Europe, that all men are mortal, that Socrates is a man, and lots of similar things.

[_TAK]

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

No. But you did give it the old college try, and you're to be commended for your effort.

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.

There is no contradiction.

I said that there is and has been no official Church policy to suppress historical evidence and/or falsify history. I said that the Church, meaning the Church's archives, is more open now than in the past.

The two statements are about different things. As such, they cannot and do not contradict each other.

What apologetic nonsense...

Fine, there is no “official Church policy” as delineated on a particular page in a particular a manual for a particular set of LDS leaders or historians. Regardless, the Church has demonstrated a practice of hiding and distorting it's history much like you are attempting to distort now.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What apologetic nonsense...

Repeat that fifty times daily if it makes you feel better about yourself.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, I've now checked a bit on the alleged quotation from Elder Oaks to the effect that "everything . . . may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity" of Mormon doctrine and Mormon testimonies, which is being used here to support the notion that Mormon leaders endorse the suppression of historical evidence and the falsification of LDS history.

I have to admit that the quotation smelled funny to me from the start.

An internet search finds it on many, many anti-Mormon websites, but they all seem to go back to the notes to the introduction to Robert Anderson's attempted psychological reduction, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999), which is the source quoted here on this thread, as well.

Anderson quotes the alleged comment from an audiotape from a 1992 Pacific Northwest Sunstone Symposium, which, in turn, quotes the supposed remark from . . . who knows? The trail goes cold at this point.

So I'm unable to see the context of the purported quotation, let alone, thus far, to verify its accuracy or authenticity.

And it still smells funny to me, as it has to several friends with whom I've shared it -- including the cruel cackling monsters on the sinister Skinny-L list. (Cue thunder, howling of wolves, and neighing of frightened horses.)

[_Tom]

I would recommend contacting Jack and Linda King Newell for further information. They were present at the June 1985 meeting with Elders Oaks and Maxwell.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I would recommend contacting Jack and Linda King Newell for further information. They were present at the June 1985 meeting with Elders Oaks and Maxwell.

We'd be talking about nearly quarter-century-old (and perhaps biased) hearsay, of course.

That's a pretty slender reed to hang much on, I should think.

[_Tom]

I would recommend contacting Jack and Linda King Newell for further information. They were present at the June 1985 meeting with Elders Oaks and Maxwell.

We'd be talking about nearly quarter-century-old (and perhaps biased) hearsay, of course.

That's a pretty slender reed to hang much on, I should think.

Again, I would recommend contacting Jack and Linda King Newell for further information. For all we know, they recorded the meeting or took copious notes during the meeting.

[_TAK]

Daniel Peterson

So I'm unable to see the context of the purported quotation, let alone, thus far, to verify its accuracy or authenticity.

Context and Conjecture! The two legged stool of LDS apologetics..
Any way you put it there is no way in h*ll the Church leadership would ever expose Brigham Young as a murder. Never.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Context and Conjecture! The two legged stool of LDS apologetics..

That's right. That's all there is. How in the world Jack Welch managed to make his new book on legal cases in the Book of Mormon extend to nearly five hundred pages, with nothing but "Context and Conjecture!" to work with, is a thing of wonder.

Any way you put it there is no way in h*ll the Church leadership would ever expose Brigham Young as a murder. Never.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who finds this expression of your faith touching.

Perhaps I should just let sleeping dogmatists lie.

The truth of the matter is that there is literally no way that this is not damning in some way. Actually, I lose either way. Why not admit defeat? There'd be more dignity in it.