Why the church should open its archives (not what you think)

[_Tal Bachman]

Former Mormons argue that the church should open its archives on grounds of justice. It is not just, they (we) say, that sincere members around the world should in good faith devote their lives to an organization which withholds facts relevant to its truth and authority claims. Well, yes - of course.

But there is another reason why the church should open its archives: it is in the best interests of the church, as a purely man-made organization bent on surviving and growing, to do so.

Consider, amigos:

1.) An overwhelming avalanche of evidence from disciplines as diverse as linguistics, anthropology, geography, zoology, botany, metallurgy, ethnology, and most importantly, molecular biology, has exploded virtually every single Book of Mormon claim about the indigenous peoples of America. And...what? Most Mormons don't care. Like certain MD posters, they simply find mental "outs", privately re-define key words, retroactively change 160 years worth of LDS doctrine, and voila! - no problem;

2.) Same with the Book of Breathings scrolls. Does the fact that Smith's "translation" have no relationship to the source text matter to devout Mormons? No.

3.) Same with Smith's lying about polygamy. Does what that lying say about his credibility mean anything to devout Mormons? No.

4.) Same with doctrines like evolution. LDS doctrine could not be clearer on this. It has been announced in an official First Presidency statement which declares itself to reveal "eternal truth"; it is in LDS scriptures; it is reiterated in the LDS Bible dictionary. Yet a few mind games, a bit of selective blindness and amnesia, are all that's needed for this to be no problem whatsoever for devout Mormons.

5.) The list goes on forever - Smith didn't use any plates for the translation? No problem. He stared into a stone and dictated? No problem. He was charged with fraud ("disorderly conduct")? No problem. He tried to get rid of all those "Books of Commandments" and re-wrote some of his "prophecies" in the subsequent edition ("D&C")? No problem. The sun doesn't draw its light from a star called Kolob? No problem. DNA evidence refutes Smith's claims? No problem. He deflowered a bewildered 14 year old? No problem. He changed his "first vision" story fundamentally over the years? NO PROBLEM.

The truth is that NOTHING is, or ever could be, a problem for a huge segment of believing Mormons - nor should this be surprising.
Paraphrasing Frank Kermode, for the "true believer" there can be no such thing as "disconfirming evidence", simply because his "true belief" was never based on evidence in the first place. Mormon belief, like all fanatical, false beliefs, only maintains a veneer of rational justification; underneath, it is virtually content-free. It is, in fact, merely a psychological state, distinguishable only by the particular totems it anchors itself with (the Book of Mormon itself, a man-as-true-prophet itself, etc.).

Consider - what would the flaming Mormons on here say, if Monson announced in General Conference that "the Book of Mormon should be regarded as an inspiring allegory, rather than as strictly literal history"? Would that drive the Englunds or Schryvers or BCSpaces away? Hinckley's denial of doctrinal status to eternal progression - the actual engine of all Mormon theology - didn't phase them...why would anything else? It wouldn't.

Mormon prophets can say or do anything; LDS archives could yield anything; it will not disrupt the hardened psychological state of most Mormons. Nothing, for the most part, will happen.

Therefore, Mormon leaders have little or nothing to fear from throwing open the archives to any who wish to peruse them - even the big bad anti-Mormons. But best of all for church leaders is that throwing them open would remove a huge club from the hands of church critics.

Consider one of the most devastating books to Mormonism's image of the past fifty years (and maybe ever): Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven". One of Krakauer's primary motivations in writing that book was his irritation at the Mormon church's obfuscation and deception about its origins. Throw open the archives and that's one less club for Krakauer, with virtually no cost in number of followers.

More obvious is that throwing them open would lessen the suspicion some members do end up feeling as they start out investigating their own church's origins.

Opening up the archives, then, would not only be the right thing to do, but would also be in the church's best interests.

[_The Nehor]

But if the LDS members are immune to all things that can come out of the church archives aren't they also immune to the club even if the big, bad anti-Mormons get one.

Also, I will state this unequivocally. If the Church declares eternal progression to be an incorrect doctrine or declares that the Book of Mormon is fictional, I'm walking.

[_bcspace]

Consider - what would the flaming Mormons on here say, if Monson announced in General Conference that "the Book of Mormon should be regarded as an inspiring allegory, rather than as strictly literal history"? Would that drive the Englunds or Schryvers or BCSpaces away?

It would for my part if it were published officially (such as in the May or November Ensign). Keep in mind that I have no problem with some allegory, but the Nephites and Lamanites as well as all the important figures (such as Lehi and Nephi) must have existed and the record on the plates must be about them.

Hinckley's denial of doctrinal status to eternal progression - the actual engine of all Mormon theology - didn't phase them...why would anything else? It wouldn't.

Been through that before; there was no denial and on top of that you are dealing with isolated statements. Look to officially published works for the doctrine whenever there is a question. It's the only solution that makes sense.

[_Trevor]

Also, I will state this unequivocally. If the Church declares eternal progression to be an incorrect doctrine or declares that the Book of Mormon is fictional, I'm walking.

You may have to eat those words, Nehor.

[_Trevor]

Been through that before; there was no denial and on top of that you are dealing with isolated statements. Look to officially published works for the doctrine whenever there is a question. It's the only solution that makes sense.

BC is right, the Hinckster could have said almost anything to the media. It may have upset some folks, but it didn't change the doctrine. Essentially, what you have in Hinckley's waffling on eternal progression is a kind of wimpy dodge. Pretty damn disappointing, no doubt.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'm all for more open access to the archives.

But before I can personally test the limits I'm going to need some more time. But I plan on seeing what I can find there at any rate.

[_The Nehor]

Also, I will state this unequivocally. If the Church declares eternal progression to be an incorrect doctrine or declares that the Book of Mormon is fictional, I'm walking.

You may have to eat those words, Nehor.

Why? I will walk. I'll either have to practice my religion alone or join the inevitable 'break-off' sect as soon as God is done transferring the keys.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Tal, out of curiosity, how many times have you requested access to anything in the archives? How often have you visited there, read anything there? What kind of things have you requested that you have been denied access to?

[_bcspace]

Tal, out of curiosity, how many times have you requested access to anything in the archives? How often have you visited there, read anything there? What kind of things have you requested that you have been denied access to?

I was going to ask the same thing. What would Tal like to see that's closed to him?

[NorthboundZax]

Consider - what would the flaming Mormons on here say, if Monson announced in General Conference that "the Book of Mormon should be regarded as an inspiring allegory, rather than as strictly literal history"? Would that drive the Englunds or Schryvers or BCSpaces away?

It would for my part if it were published officially (such as in the May or November Ensign). Keep in mind that I have no problem with some allegory, but the Nephites and Lamanites as well as all the important figures (such as Lehi and Nephi) must have existed and the record on the plates must be about them.

Hinckley's denial of doctrinal status to eternal progression - the actual engine of all Mormon theology - didn't phase them...why would anything else? It wouldn't.

Been through that before; there was no denial and on top of that you are dealing with isolated statements. Look to officially published works for the doctrine whenever there is a question. It's the only solution that makes sense.

---I don't believe you, BCSpace, and here's why. The church has already changed its doctrinal position on "who the Book of Mormon is about"; but that made no difference to you. It was once doctrine that it was about the blood ancestors of the American Indians. Now it's not anymore. Yet you don't care.

You didn't care when it said that endowment ceremony contained rituals and oaths which every human being had to receive to get into heaven, but then dropped a full third of them once the results of a member poll came back saying that the ritual suicide enactments (which I went through) freaked members out.

You didn't care when Hinckley denied (lied about) the doctrinal status of eternal progression.

You don't care that the Book of Abraham, whatever else it may be, is NOT what it claims to be.

You don't care about what it means for his credibility, that Smith showed himself to be a very comfortable, talented, aggressive liar on the subject of his sex life.

You don't care, because your faith isn't what you think it is. It is a psychological state, not a subscription to certain propositions. The "propositions" are mirages; they're just totems which can mutate into whatever shape you need to stay in that state. In themselves, they are meaningless, contentless.

And your comment about you walking if it were published in "The Ensign" is baloney, too; the proof is that as late as 2002, "The Ensign" republished the church's official doctrinal position on evolution, and all you did was spontaneously come up with ways to make it mutate in your imagination into something that wouldn't dissolve your psychological state. You even post a link to LDSnews which offers absolutely no "out" for you on this, yet you remain so blind to it that you can't even see that.

If Mormonism were a fraud, BC, how - really - would you know?