Jason Bourne wrote: Why are you so obstinant. My questions are sincere. If this is the best you can do to help it is a sad reflection on you. Why are you being such a jerk? Typically you post in an elusive and coy way. You are doing it here. Can you not do better?
I've answered your questions; my answers stand. I'm sorry to be such a jerk and having such a sad reflection.
rcrocket
No you are not sorry. You are amusing yourself and I bet you are patting yourself on the back thinking you are quite funny. You are not. I asked decent questions, I responded to what you wrote best as I understood, you claim I did not get you right and I said that I might not have and could you clarify. I am left to conclude that you believe it is ok to change a historical record and insert things that were not there that even if it may distort the truth IF it furthers the mission of the Church. If you cannot do better then that it is pretty sad and again, I am amazed that someone of your apparent caliber would be ok with such a thing. I am sure you would not for any other entity or organization.
I am still interested in hearing from other LDS defenders about the wholesale editing of the official Church History. I have found as I have explored this further that there are many other, what I view as egregious, changes. Many of them were made to make Joseph Smith look better (Deletions of references to his use of liquor is one example), defend plural marriage and to substantiate the succession of the Quorum of the 12 and BY after the prophet's death.
Another example is that comments that were allegedly made regarding Joseph's attempt in 1843 to put Rigdon out of the FP. The comments have Joseph Smith saying (and this is not an exact quote as my sources are home) that he had put Sydney off his back but the church had put him back on, but Joseph was through with him. However, Joseph Smith never said that and it was put in by BY to make Rigdon look less favorable in the prophet's eyes. It seems that Joseph Smith and Sidney were fairly reconciled that day.
I wish I had my source but there was an assistant church historian at the time the Documentive history was being compiled that was very upset about the insertions and deletions. As I have studied this more it does not seem to me that this was just normal procedure for the day and readily accepted like Plu theorizes. There were objections to the editing to make the history look better and more supportive of BY and crew.
I don't know. It seems one defender basically says it is ok to do this if it further the Kingdom of God. Is this lying for the Lord? Is it taking a position that evil speaking of the Lord's anointed is a worse sin the lying, even if the thing that may be perceived as evil speaking is true? What does this say about the truth claims then?
Am I overreacting to this? This really bugs me. It seems that some of what I read as a missionary in the seven volume church history may have been outright fabrication? Does the end justify the means?
rcrocket wrote:Nonetheless, although the Church may publish its histories as its sees fit, with few exceptions its archives are completely open to researchers to challenge and contest the Church's publications. This is completely different, for instance, than the canonical libraries of the Vatican and its U.S. churches, which are generally closed to researchers. When I have been in the archives, looking for sensitive material, I have never been asked to display my temple recommend or even affirm that I am a member of the Church. Whereas I dislike the policies in place against copying material, I have had complete freedom to transcribe on a computer what I have been provided. (I note that these policies are similar to those of the Huntington Library.)
My job back in the early 90s required me to go down to the Historical Library on several occasions and look at materials that were not available to the general public. If I recall correctly (and I do), I had to sign in at the desk downstairs and then wait to be escorted through a locked door and upstairs to a microfilm viewing room. I had to show my employee ID and my temple recommend.
My job back in the early 90s required me to go down to the Historical Library on several occasions and look at materials that were not available to the general public. If I recall correctly (and I do), I had to sign in at the desk downstairs and then wait to be escorted through a locked door and upstairs to a microfilm viewing room. I had to show my employee ID and my temple recommend.
What on earth is so sacred in the Historical Library that you'd have to show your temple recommend?
I'm no apologist. But you must remember that this church leadership (particularly ones who have invested their entire life to the church) feel that not all truth is useful and that the end justifies the means. As long as God's putting his stamp of approval on it, anything goes regardless of whether or not it goes against every moral and ethical impulse by the little humans.
God's stamp of approval is a bit hard to discern. It would be nice if He/She would etch their signature in lightning jags.
It should bother you. That is the little voice inside your head reminding you that you should always question authority against your own moral compass to ensure your own integrity.
"I think one of the great mysteries of the gospel is that anyone still believes it." Sethbag, MADB, Feb 22 2008
My job back in the early 90s required me to go down to the Historical Library on several occasions and look at materials that were not available to the general public. If I recall correctly (and I do), I had to sign in at the desk downstairs and then wait to be escorted through a locked door and upstairs to a microfilm viewing room. I had to show my employee ID and my temple recommend.
What on earth is so sacred in the Historical Library that you'd have to show your temple recommend?
Beats me. None of the stuff I was doing was particularly sensitive.
My job back in the early 90s required me to go down to the Historical Library on several occasions and look at materials that were not available to the general public. If I recall correctly (and I do), I had to sign in at the desk downstairs and then wait to be escorted through a locked door and upstairs to a microfilm viewing room. I had to show my employee ID and my temple recommend.
What on earth is so sacred in the Historical Library that you'd have to show your temple recommend?
Beats me. None of the stuff I was doing was particularly sensitive.
That seems like an abuse of the temple recommend to me.I can think of nothing in the Historical Library that would require showing a temple recommend in order to enter the doors. If there is something of a sacred nature in there, like the original temple endowment or something, then either move it or restrict access to a small area, but to restrict the whole library seems pretty extreme.
Trinity wrote:I'm no apologist. But you must remember that this church leadership (particularly ones who have invested their entire life to the church) feel that not all truth is useful and that the end justifies the means. As long as God's putting his stamp of approval on it, anything goes regardless of whether or not it goes against every moral and ethical impulse by the little humans.
God's stamp of approval is a bit hard to discern. It would be nice if He/She would etch their signature in lightning jags.
It should bother you. That is the little voice inside your head reminding you that you should always question authority against your own moral compass to ensure your own integrity.
All this does is emphasize once again that this church is led by men, not God. God doesn't fear history.
harmony wrote:That seems like an abuse of the temple recommend to me.I can think of nothing in the Historical Library that would require showing a temple recommend in order to enter the doors. If there is something of a sacred nature in there, like the original temple endowment or something, then either move it or restrict access to a small area, but to restrict the whole library seems pretty extreme.
It wasn't the whole library. The open stacks are available to the public. It was the special collections stuff that required the added information.
It wasn't the whole library. The open stacks are available to the public. It was the special collections stuff that required the added information.
So what's in the special collections? Private correspondence? Journals? Official papers? Because I'm having a hard time understanding what would require a temple recommend. Are they trying to verify that the person entering is a member? Or an active member? Or that they are worthy? Because I don't see why a person would be required to be a member to see the special collection, and I sure don't see what a person's worthiness to enter the temple has to do with the Historical Library. Sounds like our leaders are making up the rules again, instead of letting God do it.