Reason is Resistance

[_Dr Exiled]

To push back a little bit, I think there was a concerted effort by some church leaders to beat back those who wanted to be more open starting back in the 70s and 80s. Packer comes to mind. Nelson didn't want his daughter exposed to that "apostate" seminary principal Grant Palmer. So Grant was fired. Sure they might have justified their actions with a sort of parental condescension. However, I'm sure there was a decision at some point to deliberately edit out the bad parts as they saw it. I also remember certain ward and stake members who grumbled a lot in having to deal with correlation (they were on the manual writing committees). Truth was sacrificed in favor of faith promoting fluff.

[_Maksutov]

I own and have read the book. While it depends on some neat narratives, the overall sweep of American silliness has to be read in book length to be appreciated. It's one of the most powerful books I've read in years.

It's about a whole lot more than conspiracy theorists.

[_Maksutov]

Doesn't skepticism lead to questioning everything, even what the mainstream corporate media tries to tell us? Certainly corporate media has a corporate agenda and slants the news accordingly. Noam Chomsky showed us that with "manufacturing consent." As for conspiracies, they happen all the time. Jails and prisons are full of conspirators. The Mormon church sure opened my eyes to that with their attempts to hide their history. It wasn't just one leader who joined in the hiding history, but many. Hence, a conspiracy.

Question everything. Question Chomsky, too, because while he has often trenchant criticisms on political issues, he has yet to offer a functional alternative beyond "anarcho-syndicalism"---a concept which has left a significant historical footprint nowhere but in Chomsky's own mind.

[_Kishkumen]

It's about a whole lot more than conspiracy theorists.

LOL. Yes it is. Somehow that part ended up being controversial here.

[_Kishkumen]

To push back a little bit, I think there was a concerted effort by some church leaders to beat back those who wanted to be more open starting back in the 70s and 80s. Packer comes to mind. Nelson didn't want his daughter exposed to that "apostate" seminary principal Grant Palmer. So Grant was fired. Sure they might have justified their actions with a sort of parental condescension. However, I'm sure there was a decision at some point to deliberately edit out the bad parts as they saw it. I also remember certain ward and stake members who grumbled a lot in having to deal with correlation (they were on the manual writing committees). Truth was sacrificed in favor of faith promoting fluff.

I am not sure exactly what you are pushing back against. I don't know that it takes an eye for conspiracies to conclude that the Church edits history for its own purposes, and that it fires CES employees who have the wrong sort of opinions.

Consider the stuff about Joseph Smith and folk magic. It took a long time before Bushman found a place for that in his historical narrative, and when he did it was inadequate, in my view. And yet, I really doubt he had any desire to suppress anything. The cat was already out of the bag in any case because of Michael Quinn's writing. The first responders to the scene were FARMS, which was beside itself, flailing about, trying to find something to do with this information.

To make this short, I think there is a difference between a malicious intent to deceive and those believers who can't be brought to understand or accept information that does not fit their preconceived ideas. Where I do think there is clear editing of history is in the refusal to release documents. I think it is obvious that in some cases those documents really do make people look bad. In the case of the minutes of the Fifty, it required some time to consider what kind of narrative would work to make that effort look less treasonous and delusional than it was. In the end, I don't think it worked, but so far I don't see lots of people having a meltdown over the minutes, so I suppose it doesn't take much to divert attention or to calm the anxieties of some folks.

[_Kishkumen]

Question everything. Question Chomsky, too, because while he has often trenchant criticisms on political issues, he has yet to offer a functional alternative beyond "anarcho-syndicalism"---a concept which has left a significant historical footprint nowhere but in Chomsky's own mind.

Yes, question. Reason. Demand evidence. Do all of the above. I think there is a difference between healthy questioning and skepticism and delusional paranoia. I think that these days there are too many people who have crossed over to delusional paranoia, and that has terrible consequences.

[_Kishkumen]

There is a way in which this topic crosses over to the neo-apologetic discussion that is going on. In the past it has been pointed out, by myself and others, that Mormonism offers a fictional history. Now, someone like the narrator might argue that Mormonism is entitled to its myths and that these have little to do with the mundane reality we inhabit most of the time. Once we enter the realm of faith, so the line of thought goes, we are talking about something entirely different from history and so we should not place incorrect demands on Joseph Smith and angels with gold plates. To do so would be a category error.

I have some sympathy for this point of view, but then I do not believe that most of the people who believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient record--and this is something that Bert Russell pointed out--make such distinctions. These folks are like those kind individuals who, upon hearing I was going off to get a PhD in Ancient History, got excited that I would be able to learn more about the Book of Mormon. In their minds, there was no difference. God creating the world, an angel with a flaming sword, Jesus walking on water, Nephi and the brass plates, Joseph Smith receiving the gold plates from an angel: all of these things were part of history, not an alternate "language game" called myth, legend, or theology.

And these alternate histories of the world do have consequences. Who can blame the member of the LDS Church who sincerely believes that the time is nigh at hand when President Monson will call upon the saints to settle in Jackson County, Missouri? Why did people seek out archaeological remains of Nephite civilization? People put their faith in such things because they believe the claims are anchored in real-world events. Except that they are not.

[_Philo Sofee]

A fascinating thread with great insights and thoughts. Thanks Kish for starting it and thanks to the others for contributing.... I love threads that get something done and we learn from.

[_Maksutov]

A fascinating thread with great insights and thoughts. Thanks Kish for starting it and thanks to the others for contributing.... I love threads that get something done and we learn from.

You would love the book, Philo. It will rev your engine for months to come. Guaranteed.

[_Res Ipsa]

Reverend, being an ex-Mormon atheist, I’d like to agree. But I’ve seen too many counter examples to be very sanguine. I’ve encountered former Mormons who believed in every popular conspiracy theory, including the faked moon landing. There are former Mormons that subscribe to every pseudo scientific and supernatural belief out there: homeothapy, anti-vaccination, ghosts, UFOs, etc.

Here’s what I think goes on. Many former Mormons believe they were lied to and suckered by the church leadership. As a result, they develop a hyperskepticism to all forms of authority. Many times they perceive the LDS leadership as an actual conspiracy that fooled them, reinforcing beliefs in conspiracies. As a result, I’ve seen lots of ex-Mormons who are reflexively contrarian against any consensus position, especially those supported by government, corporations, or authority figures.