Newsroom responds to media attention

[_DarkHelmet]

Maklelan, Boyd K. Packer doesn't seem to share your view that members should be doing research outside of direct Church materials.

Yep, sticking to correlated materials was a HUGE issue when I was TBM. The church wanted to control the message, and they couldn't have people teaching and studying out of uncorrelated sources. Any time I brought up these uncorrelated and disturbing issues from church history I was told to stop reading from unofficial sources, and to go back and read the Book of Mormon and pray about it. Of course members could read from uncorrelated materials, but if they found issues that were disturbing, and asked about it, they were typically told to stop reading that stuff because it was either an anti-mormon lie, or the doctrine was too deep to understand until you gained a stronger testimony. When I brought up these issues with friends and family, it was all knew to them, and they assumed I was reading anti-mormon books because, get this, they NEVER read anything outside of the milky correlated information. This might surprise apologists, but most Mormons aren't curious enough about their religion to study it deeply on their own time. If you stumbled across disturbing facts, you were told to go back to the plain and precious truths in the correlated materials. That's been my experience in several different wards in several different states. I'm not calling Mak a liar, but he is in a very narrow minority if every Mormon he knows studied deep doctrine in the uncorrelated material.

[_Kevin Graham]

"Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer…

The writer or teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment...The Lord made it clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy…

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith - particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith - places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities… Do not spread disease germs!" (Boyd K. Packer, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271)

Seems perfectly clear to me. According to BKP, anyone who insists on teaching historical truths that show the weaknesses of past Mormon leaders, well they're essentially tools of Satan and they need to repent.

Here is what Dallin H. Oaks had to say on the matter:

My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." (Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii f28)

No matter if it is true. The idea again is the same. True or not, it should not be taught unless it is faith-promoting or faith-neutral.

Michael Quinn's take on all of this:

"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)

It would be one thing if the Church were only guilty of suppressing information or discouraging complete disclosure of all truth. But it has actually engaged in an institutionalized system of, for lack of a better phrase, "lying for the lord." My personal favorite was when it published in the Friend magazine that Brigham Young only married Zina because her husband, Henry Jacobs, "abandoned" her and her children, when in fact he was sent away on a mission to England so Brigham could facilitate the transition to becoming her third husband in a decade.

[_DarkHelmet]

Why do you think associating with people who "know things" most Mormons don't, can mean risking your temple recommend? Or do they no longer ask that question in the interviews?

when I discussed these issues with my Bishop, that was his biggest concern. He wanted to make sure I didn't share any of it with other people in the ward. That's odd behavior when, according to Mak, the information is already readily known by every member in the ward.

[_Kevin Graham]

I remember back during my first FAIR conference, I brought a dozen copies of a book written by an Evangelical friend, JP Holding. Back then he was in various email exchanges with several LDS scholars like Dan Peterson, and DCP requested that I bring copies so the folks at FARMS could write up a "review." He asked for as many copies as I could give, and I ended up giving him around eight.

For that weekend, I was staying at the home of one of the members of FAIR. He lived with his wife, and when she found out I had "anti-Mormon" books, she came very close to throwing me out. She was visibly upset and didn't speak to me after that. He had to calmly explain to his wife why I was bringing those books with me to the conference. And I also remember passing out copies to apologists I thought would be interested in writing up their own review/refutation (I was an apologist at the time). Several of them were very upset with me for doing that. Lance Starr was the guy I remember making a scene when I kindly asked him if he wanted a copy. "NO, I DO NOT" he said loudly as he simultaneously turned and walked the other way.

These folks have been conditioned from a very early age to shun certain kinds of information, all based only on one thing: whether or not they're faith promoting or faith destroying. And sadly, Mormons typically live in such a black and white universe where everything is represented by either God or Satan. You can't really tell them things that are true and uncomfortable without them freaking out, breaking down in tears, or physically removing you from their presence. I've experienced all of those. It was during one of those instances I had an epiphany. Mormonism wasn't really about truth at all. It didn't accept all truths like the articles of faith said. It just wants to hear things they already believe to be true, and everything else is just some Satanic attempt to deceive.

[_Kevin Graham]

Why do you think associating with people who "know things" most Mormons don't, can mean risking your temple recommend? Or do they no longer ask that question in the interviews?

when I discussed these issues with my Bishop, that was his biggest concern. He wanted to make sure I didn't share any of it with other people in the ward. That's odd behavior when, according to Mak, the information is already readily known by every member in the ward.

Well, I guess this explains why the Bishop has never tried to encourage my wife to go to the temple. He knows she'd fail the interview by virtue of the fact that she's married to me. LOL

[_Bazooka]

Why do you think associating with people who "know things" most Mormons don't, can mean risking your temple recommend? Or do they no longer ask that question in the interviews?

when I discussed these issues with my Bishop, that was his biggest concern. He wanted to make sure I didn't share any of it with other people in the ward. That's odd behavior when, according to Mak, the information is already readily known by every member in the ward.

From the Church Handbook of Instructions (secret one) page 105

"Protect The Innocent
The second purpose of Church discipline is to protect the innocent. With inspiration, a priesthood leader should act to protect Church members when a transgressor poses a physical or spiritual threat to them, such as by physical harm, sexual abuse, drug misuse, fraud, or apostasy"
http://file.wikileaks.org/file/mormon-h ... s-2006.pdf

[_ludwigm]

Maklelan, Boyd K. Packer doesn't seem to share your view that members should be doing research outside of direct Church materials.

And as I pointed out earlier when you appealed to this tired old canard ...

The "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young" can not be downloaded as a whole.
The download is x-ed, only the audio is available.

The introduction (pages v–vi) write:

The first section consists of extracts from Brigham Young’s sermons to the early Saints. Each statement has been referenced, and the original spelling and punctuation have been preserved; however, the sources cited will not be readily available to most members. These original sources are not necessary to have in order to effectively study or teach from this book. Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures, is sufficient for instruction.

A tired old canard, eh?

The Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith can not be downloaded as a whole.
The download is x-ed, only the audio is available.

The introduction (pages v–vii) write:

It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text. Members are encouraged to turn to the scriptures that have been suggested for further study of the doctrine.

Another tired old canard...

I think I shouldn't cite other manuals of church presidents.

by the way the Historical Summary (pages viii–x) write:

This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.

Read as : Joseph F. Smith had six wives, and fathered forty-three children.

From the 380–87 pages:

On 27 June 1918, President Smith presided at the Salt Lake City Cemetery, where a monument had been erected in honor of his father. On that occasion, he said: “I am blessed today with thirty-five children living, all of whom, so far as I know, have a standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I believe their hearts are in the work of the Lord. I am proud of my children. I have today over eighty-six grandchildren. … I am rich; the Lord has given me great riches in children and in children’s children. … I want you to just take a look here at a little flock of my grandchildren—right here, every one of them.

A flock. And another flock of cows wives.

[_maklelan]

I don't think you have much of a case here Mak.

Just what case do you think I'm trying to make?

Sure, BKP said that in a certain context, but why should we assume he would have given a completely opposite counsel to the general membership?

So now what the Church teaches is not just what it actually teaches, but what it hypothetically might have taught?

At least this example gives us some insight into the psyche of LDS leadership when it comes to dealing with uncomfortable historical truths.

Or at least the psyche of BKP.

After all, just look at the Church's history of excommunicating scholars, and even discouraging Mormon scholars from studying certain topics. Don't believe me, then just ask David Bokovoy who knows from first hand experience that people have been instructed not to get into biblical studies because it could lead to apostasy.

I was warned about the same, and I know David very well.

This is why Religious "education" is what they have at BYU, not Religious "studies." It isn't about letting scholars use the tools they've learned to advance understanding in the field, it is about relaying what the LDS leadership says because they're the only ones who matter when it comes to understanding what the scriptures really say.

Arguable, but I think you're not far from the situation.

And while you're at it, ask David to tell you the details of his various interrogations he had to endure when he applied for a position at BYU.

You don't think I've already spoken directly with him about that?

Muhlestein and company were less interested in his far superior qualifications, and much more interested in his friendships with known apostates. Ultimately they gave the job to a guy who had not even half of David's experience and qualifications. Why? Because he was a safe hire. He wasn't particularly friendly towards former members.

That's more the result of certain individuals in the admin than some universal position on critical scholarship. I've studied the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament under several different professors at BYU, and most are quite happy to teach and engage critical biblical scholarship.

Why do you think associating with people who "know things" most Mormons don't, can mean risking your temple recommend? Or do they no longer ask that question in the interviews?

There's never been a question about associating with people who "know things."

And why do all these "anti-Mormon" books exist at the BYU library, only in a special section?[/quote]

A special section? There's no "special section."

Or is that no longer true?

I've seen all kinds of books critical of the Church scattered all around the stacks in the library's Religion and Family History section. I even worked in that section for a year. That's not been true since at least 2006.

[_maklelan]

Well, I guess this explains why the Bishop has never tried to encourage my wife to go to the temple. He knows she'd fail the interview by virtue of the fact that she's married to me. LOL

It didn't complicate my mother's temple recommend, but bishops are also often counseled not to push members who have non-member spouses toward decisions they know the spouses will oppose.

[Guest]

-