Does the Church Suppress History?

[_bcspace]

Created state vs. Creative state.

How is that complicated and what's to explain?

How about "conveniently omit"?

Loose track of your open windows? lol

[_beastie]

LOL! Now it's time to go to bed. Heaven only knows what I posted on the other thread.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow, DCP has really been taken to task:

Dr. Peterson refers to Fawn Brodie's book No Man Knows My History as an "historical novel."

Dr. Richard Bushman, writing in Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling declares Ms. Brodie to be “the most eminent of Joseph Smith's un-believing biographers" and speaks of No Man Knows My History. as a "landmark biography."

Is a biography the same thing as a historical novel, or do Dr. Bushman and Dr. Peterson disagree about what it is that Ms. Brodie wrote ?

Richard and I probably don't really disagree all that much.

No Man Knows My History was, beyond dispute, a landmark biography, and there is no question that it has been very influential, particularly among non-Mormon academics.

It also purports, on several occasions, to tell what Joseph was thinking -- which, to my mind, is more novelistic than historical.

My saying that it was important and that it has been influential -- and Richard's saying the same thing -- in no way contradicts my judgment that it is seriously flawed.

Uh, nice try there, Prof. P.!

And---holy smokes---take a look at this:

I prefer not to talk openly about Adam-God.

That said, I would never speak against researching, reflecting, and praying about anything at all.

What???? Does this not seem a form of censorship/"suppression" of doctrinal history? Geez louise. The best strategy for apologists on this topic is to just lay down and die. There is no way they can win. Their best bet would be to just cut their losses. I mean, DCP clearly understands that there is no "safe" way to discuss Adam-God; why doesn't he understand that discussing suppression of Church history can only lead to doom for the Mopologists?

[_bcspace]

What???? Does this not seem a form of censorship/"suppression" of doctrinal history? Geez louise. The best strategy for apologists on this topic is to just lay down and die. There is no way they can win. Their best bet would be to just cut their losses. I mean, DCP clearly understands that there is no "safe" way to discuss Adam-God; why doesn't he understand that discussing suppression of Church history can only lead to doom for the Mopologists?

There really is no need to fear the Adam-God issue as the fact remains that BY never taught any such thing. His opinion was that HF and HM were a type of Adam and Eve who begat the Adam and Eve who fell but that's a far cry from the usual Adam-God tripe.

[_Infymus]

There really is no need to fear the Adam-God issue as the fact remains that BY never taught any such thing. His opinion was that HF and HM were a type of Adam and Eve who begat the Adam and Eve who fell but that's a far cry from the usual Adam-God tripe.

You lying Mormon. Please show me where BY stated it was his "OPINION", and, please show me absolute proof of where BY *NEVER* taught said Adam God Doctrine, including the St. George Cult temple and the Salt Lake Cult temple.

[_Jason Bourne]

There really is no need to fear the Adam-God issue as the fact remains that BY never taught any such thing. His opinion was that HF and HM were a type of Adam and Eve who begat the Adam and Eve who fell but that's a far cry from the usual Adam-God tripe.

You lying Mormon. Please show me where BY stated it was his "OPINION", and, please show me absolute proof of where BY *NEVER* taught said Adam God Doctrine, including the St. George Cult temple and the Salt Lake Cult temple.

Infymus


I respectfully request you go back early in this thread and read my posts and then issue me an apology.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, it seems "Scotty Dog" Lloyd has painted himself into a corner:

As this thread seems to have fallen into a lull, perhaps we can return to the accusation made earlier that the Church "suppresses" aspects of its history. I have challenged that assertion; so far, I haven't seen anything by way of substantiation.

Again, the relevant dictionary definition of suppress is "to keep from appearing or being known, published, etc."

And thus, merely being selective about what is presented in, say, a particular lesson manual or a magazine article, does not warrant the loaded and pejorative term "suppression."

(emphasis added)

No fair changing the rules. This is an example of the Church not allowing something to be seen. It obviously wasn't too sacred as 5,000 people were in attendance, nor was it confidential. And just because it seems obscure to you, it is still, no less, an example.

The point is, we don't know why the Church has not made these minutes public, whether it is to suppress history or for some other reason. Can you prove that suppression of history is the reason?

D'oh! I assume that, one of these days, apologists such as Scotty Dog will wake up and understand what it means to either A) fully comprehend what dictionary definitions mean, or B) accept the fact that these definitions can, are, and should be applied to the LDS Church.

And by the way: I thought of another instance of LDS suppression of embarrassing history. Perhaps some others here will recall that, during their "reign," the Tanners unearthed evidence that the progeny of Elijah Abel had been ordained (!) Now, this seems like a key bit of evidence which the Church could have used to absolve itself of charges of racism. And yet... Who was it who dug up the information? Did the Church keep this information from "being known, published, etc."? Yes, that does seem to be the case.

Also by the way: here are some of the other definitions of "suppress" (see how many of them apply):
1. To put down by authority or force: SUBDUE
2. to keep from public knowledge: to keep secret
3. to inhibit the growth or development of: stunt

All of these apply, in various ways, to the LDS Church---and not just in terms of history. I would argue that the Church has "suppressed" all kinds of information. (The CHI, the Temple ceremony, information at the SCMC.) It could even be said that Mormonism is, in certain ways, a "culture of suppression."

[_guy sajer]

BC, one more question---

When did you learn about Joseph Smith's polyandry?

I seem to recall sometime during my mission or perhaps shortly after; more than 2 decades ago.

BC, do you agree with Elder Oaks that:

"we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.

On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place. " and that

"[W]e’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t."

More specifically, do you agree , as Elder Oaks stated, that the church intentionally presented an adoring history that did not deal with anything unfavorable in order to reduce potential doubt among members?

And do you agree that there is any need at all to become more "forthright" as Elder Oaks suggests?

Why the hell do all of you continue to try to reason with bc space when it is clear that he is waaay beyond reasoning? Nothing will even get him to move even a silly little millimeter from his position, which, I am sure, he has arrived at through the "preponderance of evidence."

This is a guy who likes to dismiss others with the canard of "lazy research," but who feels perfectly comfortable extrapolating to the entire universe from a sample set of 1 (himself).

It would be more productive to try to reason this through with my border collies, who I now have reason to suspect possess higher IQ's than bc space.

[_Infymus]

"The Book of Mormon authors are moralizing preachers and prophets, so they naturally spin history to illustrate their moral and theological points." ---Prof. Daniel C. Peterson, 3/26/08

DCP actually wrote that?

The man is far from royalty or even GA material then.

Deny, deny, deny. Testify, Testify, Testify.

With statements like his above, he'll never make anything more than SP, unless he has connections or money.

[_Infymus]

Why the hell do all of you continue to try to reason with bc space when it is clear that he is waaay beyond reasoning? Nothing will even get him to move even a silly little millimeter from his position, which, I am sure, he has arrived at through the "preponderance of evidence."

This is a guy who likes to dismiss others with the canard of "lazy research," but who feels perfectly comfortable extrapolating to the entire universe from a sample set of 1 (himself).

It would be more productive to try to reason this through with my border collies, who I now have reason to suspect possess higher IQ's than bc space.

And to that I raise my beer.