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

[_moksha]

Wade Englund made a very thoughtful post on MAD, that I think will make for a good discussion here:

This topic continues to go the rounds and pop up in various forms on a variety of threads--the most recent being the thread on public excommunication.

I am going to try and take a somewhat different approach than may have been used in the past when discussing this issue, in hopes that it may be laid somewhat to rest, or help the disputants find some mutually beneficial resolution or satisfaction, if not come closer to an agreement.

Let me start by outlining, as fairly and as accurately as possible, what I see as the critics point of view, and then later in the thread juxtapose it against how I, and perhaps various apologists, see the issue.

Correct me if I am wrong, or feel free to fill in the key blanks if I happen to miss any, but here are the basic elements of one of the primary arguments I hear coming from the critics on this matter:

Argument:

a) There are certain historical facts that may be viewed as suggesting that the Church isn't true.
b) These historical facts are not being disclosed in missionary, Sunday School, or Seminary lessons.
c) Because membership in the Church involves considerable commitment, and devoting of personal resources (time, money, etc.), it is only right, fair, and prudent that decisions about joining the Church, or decisions about continuing in the Church, be informed.
d) Since the Church has not disclosing certain historical fact that may suggest it isn't true, it has not been right, fair, and prudent with it's investigators and members.

Is this a fair and accurate representation of the fundamental elements of the argument?

If not, then please make whatever corrections and additions you think necessary.

If so, then while I look at the issue somewhat differently, I believe the argument above is rational, and I think that those who view things this way can logically harbor some level of negative sentiments towards the Church for what they deem to be a lack of right, fair, and prudent disclosure. In short, I hear you and hopefully understand you.

With that having been said, it might be of interest to see if one of the critics (who embrace the argument above) would make an earnest attempt to fairly and accurately outline the apologetic point of view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

If you happen to read this post at MAD, note how well Wade is conducting himself. I think he has made significant strides since being here and I am proud of him.

[_Runtu]

I think so, too. I believe that when you interact with "the other side," you can't help but humanize them and feel some common ground. Maybe that's what's happened with Wade. Heaven knows I couldn't stand him when he first came here. But I mellowed out, and I think he did too.

[_beastie]

Yeah, I read that, and noted how well he was behaving. I haven't had time to read the whole thread, though, so can't comment on what's been said.

It is a somewhat slippery slope to insist that the church which dwells so heavily on its history as proof of its authenticity, isn't "hiding" historical issues when it simply doesn't mention them.

And, as one poster did point out, Wade's entire premise is predicated on having already established the truth of the church. If these historical problems can undermine that claim, then it isn't firmly established at all.

It does make sense, according to the church's perspective, to hide these things. That's never been the point, whether or not it makes sense from the church's perspective.

Of course, the internet is changing that, and I think we may be seeing some effect from that.

[_karl61]

Yeah, I read that, and noted how well he was behaving. I haven't had time to read the whole thread, though, so can't comment on what's been said.

It is a somewhat slippery slope to insist that the church which dwells so heavily on its history as proof of its authenticity, isn't "hiding" historical issues when it simply doesn't mention them.

And, as one poster did point out, Wade's entire premise is predicated on having already established the truth of the church. If these historical problems can undermine that claim, then it isn't firmly established at all.

It does make sense, according to the church's perspective, to hide these things. That's never been the point, whether or not it makes sense from the church's perspective.

Of course, the internet is changing that, and I think we may be seeing some effect from that.

I think you may hear some talks at Oct. General Conference about reading history off the internet.

[_Dr. Shades]

d) Since the Church has not disclosing certain historical fact that may suggest it isn't true, it has not been right, fair, and prudent with it's investigators and members.

Although that's strictly true, I think the apologists may have somewhat of a point that that's just too much to ask from any organization. Revealing the skeletons in one's own closet is pretty much unheard of, especially since the church is in the business of indoctrinating people.

HOWEVER, the point where the church goes way, way awry is when it A) brainwashes its members to run screaming from anything which might suggest that there may be a skeleton or two in the closet, and B) demonizes anyone who suggests there might be a skeleton or two in the closet (just look at what happened to Michael Lamborn mere days ago).

So, what someone ought to bring up to Wade is that although it's not the church's responsibility to do the critics' job for them, it's intellectually and morally dishonest to hamper the critics or prevent their members from accessing critics.

[_Trevor]

My problem with LDS history is not so much the hiding things as it is the oversimplification of them. While I understand it is quite a burden for the LDS Church to make materials that they can translate into dozens of languages and have that work fairly well, I don't think this is the only reason for the simplicity. It is as though any humanity in past LDS figures can't really see the light of day in an official forum without 'trying faith.' Try pointing out that the God chastens Martin Harris for his murderous and adulterous intentions in the D&C, and people act like you've just taken a pot shot at Santa Claus. LDS leaders, past and present, are generally treated with kid gloves when it comes to their public image, at least in official Church gatherings and correlated materials. I don't see this as either realistic or very helpful.

[_Runtu]

My problem with LDS history is not so much the hiding things as it is the oversimplification of them. While I understand it is quite a burden for the LDS Church to make materials that they can translate into dozens of languages and have that work fairly well, I don't think this is the only reason for the simplicity. It is as though any humanity in past LDS figures can't really see the light of day in an official forum without 'trying faith.' Try pointing out that the God chastens Martin Harris for his murderous and adulterous intentions in the D&C, and people act like you've just taken a pot shot at Santa Claus. LDS leaders, past and present, are generally treated with kid gloves when it comes to their public image, at least in official Church gatherings and correlated materials. I don't see this as either realistic or very helpful.

Yep, the church hasn't so much sanitized the history as "Monson-ized" it.

[_rcrocket]

d) Since the Church has not disclosing certain historical fact that may suggest it isn't true, it has not been right, fair, and prudent with it's investigators and members.

Although that's strictly true, I think the apologists may have somewhat of a point that that's just too much to ask from any organization. Revealing the skeletons in one's own closet is pretty much unheard of, especially since the church is in the business of indoctrinating people.

HOWEVER, the point where the church goes way, way awry is when it A) brainwashes its members to run screaming from anything which might suggest that there may be a skeleton or two in the closet, and B) demonizes anyone who suggests there might be a skeleton or two in the closet (just look at what happened to Michael Lamborn mere days ago).

So, what someone ought to bring up to Wade is that although it's not the church's responsibility to do the critics' job for them, it's intellectually and morally dishonest to hamper the critics or prevent their members from accessing critics.

Just for the record, I am steeped in anti-Mormon literature. I collect old works and subscribe to new ones. I have dozens to hundreds of works. I studied early manuscripts of the Tanners' work as well as other anti-Mormon collections in the Kimball Young collection at Northwestern and at the Urban collection at Trinity College in Cook County, Illinois while on my mission. My mission president authorized me to visit these libraries on my P-Days when they were out of my areas.

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.

The only time, in three to four decades of sitting through meetings, I have heard priesthood leaders discuss anti-Mormon literature, it has been to counsel members to seek and ask for answers from those knowledgeable. Many a leader has acknowledged his inability to know the answers, but I have heard many times that answers may be had and found.

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. 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.

[_harmony]

Lies of omission are still lies.