Recent press release from the LDS church.

[_mentalgymnast]

Well, I just spent a good part of the morning reading through the edited transcripts that the church posted on their website of Elder Packer's and Elder Oak's interviews with Helen Whitney. Very interesting and enlightening.

A great deal has been made of Oak's reference a while back to history, even though while it may be true, may not be "useful". Here is what he had to say about that.

" HW: You used an interesting phrase, “Not everything that’s true is useful.” Could you develop that as someone who’s a scholar and trying to encourage deep searching?

DHO: The talk where I gave that was a talk on “Reading Church History” — that was the title of the talk. And in the course of the talk I said many things about being skeptical in your reading and looking for bias and looking for context and a lot of things that were in that perspective. But I said two things in it and the newspapers and anybody who ever referred to the talk only referred to [those] two things: one is the one you cite, “Not everything that’s true is useful,” and that [meant] “was useful to say or to publish.” And you tell newspapers any time (media people) [that] they can’t publish something, they’ll strap on their armor and come out to slay you! [Laughs.]

I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever. Well, of course, that sounds like religious censorship also.

But not everything that’s true is useful. I am a lawyer, and I hear something from a client. It’s true, but I’ll be disciplined professionally if I share it because it’s part of the attorney-client privilege. There’s a husband-wife privilege, there’s a priest-penitent privilege, and so on. That’s an illustration of the fact that not everything that’s true is useful to be shared.

In relation to history, I was speaking in that talk for the benefit of those that write history. In the course of writing history, I said that people ought to be careful in what they publish because not everything that’s true is useful. See a person in context; don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation.

HW: Just one more question on that. In every church, in every person, there’s a shallow territory usually explained away through context. Many find information through the Internet — some would rather find things out about the Church history, doctrine through teachings, rather than the Internet, or other resources.

DHO: It’s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That’s an old problem in Mormonism — a feeling of members that they shouldn’t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should’ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life.

There are several different elements of that. One element is 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 what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t. "

MG: Tell you what. The soundbites that PBS took out of Elder Oak's and Elder Packer's interviews did not do justice to the intelligence and depth of these two men. I wish that HW would have seen to it that more of the "meat" of these two particular interviews had been aired. I think Elder Packer's interview was reduced to a couple or three sentences if I remember.

As it is, the church ended up posting the interviews so that the meat could be served. It was also interesting to read what he had to say in reference to just how much the church should step forward in clarifying church history, etc., as the age of the internet has arrived.

The interviews can be accessed here:

Interviews

Regards,
MG

[_Sethbag]

So, he wants to have more history as long as it doesn't help create doubts in people who already believe? Well, the obvious problem with that is what if the church is not really true? The history of the church, if it's not actually true, is going to look like the history of a church that isn't really true, and that's exactly what we have in this case. The history of a church that doesn't look like it's true. And so guess what? An open and honest accounting of that history is naturally going to create some doubts. Duh.

So he's still double-talking here. He's saying he wants to be "more and more forthright", but only to the extent that they can do this and avoid the things that would tend to create doubt.

Hmm, do you think it might help create doubt to discuss the fact that Joseph Smith had at least in the 30s of additional "wives" beyond Emma Smith?

Might it create doubt to discuss the circumstances of Oliver Cowdery's excommunication, and that in fact part of the charges against him were for accusing Joseph Smith of adultery with Fanny Alger? And that the Church historians now admit that Joseph Smith must have had hanky-panky with Fanny Alger, but then explain that this obviously means "Joseph had restored plural marriage" about ten years before the Nauvoo period, when most of the rest of the "plural marriage" happened?

Might it create doubt to discuss how a good dozen or more of Joseph Smith's "plural wives" were in fact women already married to other men, who were still alive? And that some of these men, at least, were still faithful and active members of the church during the time Joseph Smith "married" their wives?

Might it create doubt to discuss the journal entries and whatnot of some women, like Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Rigdon, and Sarah Pratt, who record some detail about the badgering and emotional and religious manipulation Joseph Smith used to convince women, who of themselves had no interest in marrying him, to do so anyway?

Might it create doubt to go into detail about the claims Joseph Smith made regarding the Egyptian papyrus, and what the papyri actually say in proper translations?

Might it create doubt to go into the connection between Joseph Smith and Masonry, and the obvious rip-offs from Masonry of such "sacred" things as the very signs and tokens of the freaking priesthood?

Yeah, there's a good reason the church doesn't want to touch these things with a ten foot pole. We can't really expect that they would, after all, because the truth is in fact damning to the church's claim of truth, and why the heck would they want to discuss any of this stuff?

The church is between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, they have people claiming they bury their history and avoid the touchy topics. On the other hand, if they actually do discuss this stuff, it just makes it obvious that the church is in fact a man-made institution started by a charismatic, opportunistic conman.

[_Some Schmo]

I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation.

Well, that may not be useful information to him, but it is to me. It gives me a better understanding of how Washington was.

But aside from that, who's he really trying to kid? (Himself, I suspect). There's a huge difference between Washington and someone who claims to be the mouthpiece of God. Questions of Joseph Smith's character are far more useful when it comes to assessing the validity of those claims. I mean, it's a no-brainer.

[_truth dancer]

There are several different elements of that. One element is 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.

GAG!

This pretty much admits that the church has not been forthcoming in sharing its history!

Unlike what some apologists claim, (that the church doesn't hide anything), it sounds to me like there was a clear intent to not share the reality of the history of the church!

Basically... so long as the leaders believe the church is not ready for the meat, not ready for the truth, not strong enough to make decisions with knowledge, not "ready" for the real story, they need to present a pretend history.

Wow... talk about condescending!

:-(

~dancer!

[_Who Knows]

GAG!

This pretty much admits that the church has not been forthcoming in sharing its history!

Unlike what some apologists claim, (that the church doesn't hide anything), it sounds to me like there was a clear intent to not share the reality of the history of the church!

Basically... so long as the leaders believe the church is not ready for the meat, not ready for the truth, not strong enough to make decisions with knowledge, not "ready" for the real story, they need to present a pretend history.

Wow... talk about condescending!

:-(

~dancer!

Along with this:

The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.

MG - can you fix [shorten] your link? Having to scroll my screen is extremely annoying.

- Thanks, much better!

[_truth dancer]

—

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.

Translation:

Members are discovering real/true church history so we have no choice but to admit there are some serious issues!
(sigh)

~dancer~

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation.

Well, that may not be useful information to him, but it is to me. It gives me a better understanding of how Washington was.

But aside from that, who's he really trying to kid? (Himself, I suspect). There's a huge difference between Washington and someone who claims to be the mouthpiece of God. Questions of Joseph Smith's character are far more useful when it comes to assessing the validity of those claims. I mean, it's a no-brainer.

I agree. This was a bad analogy by Oaks. He underestimates the intelligence of people. If I want to read about George Washington, I don't want the glorified pseudo-history of him chopping down a cherry tree and not lying about it. I want to learn about the REAL George Washington, warts and all. If I want to learn about Joseph Smith, I don't want to hear exaggerated stories from his fans of him receving surgery without drinking alcohol because he wanted to obey the Word of Wisdom, or how he talked to Jesus and God, or how he can do one-handed pushups, etc. I want to know the REAL Joseph Smith, warts and all, and unfortunately members have to go to "shady" sources to learn about him.

[_mentalgymnast]

So, he wants to have more history as long as it doesn't help create doubts in people who already believe? Well, the obvious problem with that is what if the church is not really true?

Your point is well taken. But if the church is true the organizational structure shouldn't be involved in creating disillusionment or doubt. It all comes down either/or. The critics are persuaded by things as they are that the church is false. Those that believe are persuaded by things as they are that the church may be true.

The history of a church that doesn't look like it's true.

Yes and no. It depends on where the evidence leads you.

He's saying he wants to be "more and more forthright", but only to the extent that they can do this and avoid the things that would tend to create doubt.

If Elder Oaks is speaking as a representative of the true church then this is what you would expect him to say isn't it? It becomes a matter of perspective from the observer. A believer vs. a doubter.

Hmm, do you think it might help create doubt to discuss the fact that Joseph Smith had at least in the 30s of additional "wives" beyond Emma Smith?

Might it create doubt to discuss the circumstances of Oliver Cowdery's excommunication, and that in fact part of the charges against him were for accusing Joseph Smith of adultery with Fanny Alger? And that the Church historians now admit that Joseph Smith must have had hanky-panky with Fanny Alger, but then explain that this obviously means "Joseph had restored plural marriage" about ten years before the Nauvoo period, when most of the rest of the "plural marriage" happened?

Might it create doubt to discuss how a good dozen or more of Joseph Smith's "plural wives" were in fact women already married to other men, who were still alive? And that some of these men, at least, were still faithful and active members of the church during the time Joseph Smith "married" their wives?

Might it create doubt to discuss the journal entries and whatnot of some women, like Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Rigdon, and Sarah Pratt, who record some detail about the badgering and emotional and religious manipulation Joseph Smith used to convince women, who of themselves had no interest in marrying him, to do so anyway?

Might it create doubt to go into detail about the claims Joseph Smith made regarding the Egyptian papyrus, and what the papyri actually say in proper translations?

Might it create doubt to go into the connection between Joseph Smith and Masonry, and the obvious rip-offs from Masonry of such "sacred" things as the very signs and tokens of the freaking priesthood?

Yes, these things can create doubt. You exemplify that this is indeed the case.

Yeah, there's a good reason the church doesn't want to touch these things with a ten foot pole. We can't really expect that they would, after all, because the truth is in fact damning to the church's claim of truth, and why the heck would they want to discuss any of this stuff?

And there's the rub. None of these items that you've listed provide solid enough evidence/proof and reason to trash the church's truth claims. It isn't necessary from the church's perspective to even make the attempt to touch anything controversial unless it comes head long into the public forum. They're in the business of saving souls and at times saving face, when it becomes necessary from their vantage point.

The church is between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, they have people claiming they bury their history and avoid the touchy topics. On the other hand, if they actually do discuss this stuff, it just makes it obvious that the church is in fact a man-made institution started by a charismatic, opportunistic conman.

But there are those that discuss this stuff and have provided reason(s) to believe that the church is of God.

We are the ones that are between a rock and a hard place. Do we believe...or not?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Basically... so long as the leaders believe the church is not ready for the meat, not ready for the truth, not strong enough to make decisions with knowledge, not "ready" for the real story, they need to present a pretend history.

But TD, the evidence shows that those that have been exposed to "the meat" have had issues, and continue to do so with faith. Why would the church play a direct role in causing faith issues/doubts? To blame the church for not being forthcoming as to the skeletons in the closet and then using that as reason/excuse for trashing the truth claims of the church is a bit dis-ingenious, in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

[_truth dancer]

Hey MG...

But TD, the evidence shows that those that have been exposed to "the meat" have had issues, and continue to do so with faith.

Some who know the truth still believe, some do not. Clearly, few who do know the issues still believe in what they once did.

Why would the church play a direct role in causing faith issues/doubts?

Ummm... because it values honesty? ;-)

To blame the church for not being forthcoming as to the skeletons in the closet and then using that as reason/excuse for trashing the truth claims of the church is a bit dis-ingenious, in my opinion.

Don't see it.

I believe it is honest, decent, and healthy, to not present a knowingly false story in hopes that people will believe, (sorry for the double negative). In addition, I fail to see how the one and only true church of God, with Jesus at its helm must present a pretend/false story to gain/hold believers.

I think it is quite reasonable to hold a church to some mimimum level of honesty when presenting itself and its beliefs to the world.

And the whole, "milk before meat" nonsense is an attempt at hiding its condescention! (IMHO)!

:-)

~dancer~