Crockett Challenges Scratch to a Debate

[_LifeOnaPlate]

My take is Scratch won't take you up on it, largely because she is most aware of her shortcomings.

[_Mister Scratch]

I reiterate my challenge to go mano a mano with you in a debate on a topic of your choice dealing with Church history. Your silly rejoinder to me about debating me about something I have said in the past is rejected.

Sorry, Bob, if you are going to reject my choice, then I'm afraid there's nothing we can do.

All the world thus knows that you refuse to debate me on topics dealing with Church history. Instead, you choose only to debate the prior contents of this board and what I may have said on it.

And what's wrong with that?

Besides, you are overlooking the obvious: I *was* interested in "debating" whether or not the BYU "spy ring" was wholly "student-instigated," but you chickened out on that one.

As I have constantly pointed out here, your "claimed" expertise is ethics (I don't get this, citing material you don't have and claiming to have it), rhetoric (you are certainly skilled at honing in on the little nits of what people say), rules of logic (you excel in the Latin, for sure), and the deft insult and malignment of the reputations of real people, but when it comes to being read or deeply read in Church history or doctrine, you just are not there. My challenge is meant to expose you for what you are -- a thinly read agent provocateur.

I have never "claimed" "expertise" for anything, Bob.

I challenge you to a debate on this board with respect to one of the following topics.

Sorry, Bob, but I just don't find those topics very interesting, and prefer to engage in conversation and debate in a more organic fashion. (If I had to choose, though, I'd probably go with the Kinderhook Plates topic, or perhaps the issue of whether or not the Church "covers up" or "conceals" its history, although I have debated that at length many times. Where were you when that happened?) In any case, I agree more or less 100% with my dear old friend Rollo Tomasi.

[_Scottie]

Awwww....

[_Mister Scratch]

Awwww....

??? Alright. Go ahead, Bob. Fire away. Does the Church suppress history? Y/N?

[_rcrocket]

Give me your very best single example of suppression of Church history; cites would help.

My view is that the "Church" must be distinguished from the various persons who have ecclesiastic responsibility. Very very few of them are historians or trained in the historical method. Certainly, no president of the Church has been trained in the historical method.

Also, the Church has a scriptural mandate to maintain a historical function, but only to record and preserve, and not to publish. It maintains a set of archives second only to the Vatican, and almost all of its archives are open to scholars and researchers who can publish what they want. I point you specifically the Arrington's Adventures of a Church Historian, where he documents the extensive collection open to researchers.

The Tanners cite frequently to Roberts' work, where he edits out embarrassing stuff. That I will grant, but he was just a single person publishing the work, and there were no authorities on hand to second guess or to critique what he was publishing.

[_Mister Scratch]

Give me your very best single example of suppression of Church history; cites would help.

I tend not to think of it in terms of "single examples," but rather more of an aggregate "picture painting", as it were. I guess while we're at it we may as well point out that "history" and "suppression" are likely to be contested terms. My opinion is that the Church "suppresses" its history chiefly by omission. E.g., failure to tell investigators about Joseph Smith's troubles with the law, or polygamy, or MMM, blood atonement, the Danites, etc. Suppression also occurs by denying access to sensitive archives. And by keeping the financial records closed, etc.

My view is that the "Church" must be distinguished from the various persons who have ecclesiastic responsibility.

That's ridiculous, of course. And, in any case, the ecclesiastical mandate to suppress history came right out of the mouth of Pres. Boyd K. Packer---a mandate which was reiterated during his PBS interview.

Very very few of them are historians or trained in the historical method. Certainly, no president of the Church has been trained in the historical method.

The point of which is what?

Also, the Church has a scriptural mandate to maintain a historical function, but only to record and preserve, and not to publish. It maintains a set of archives second only to the Vatican, and almost all of its archives are open to scholars and researchers who can publish what they want.

"Almost all"? Well then, there goes your argument out the window. If the Church is keeping any---and I mean *any*---facet of its history under wraps (and it most certainly is), then your argument is dead in the water.

I point you specifically the Arrington's Adventures of a Church Historian, where he documents the extensive collection open to researchers.

And I point you to John Gee's latest Book of Abraham article in FARMS Review, in which he describes a Sisyphean-ly ridiculous and tedious process for gaining access to study the papyri. (Anyways, pointing to Arrington seems kind of irrelevant, since there was a backlash against his policies and ever since his tenure, the Church historical department has been run by lawyers. Why might that be, I wonder?)

[_Yong Xi]

Give me your very best single example of suppression of Church history; cites would help.

My view is that the "Church" must be distinguished from the various persons who have ecclesiastic responsibility. Very very few of them are historians or trained in the historical method. Certainly, no president of the Church has been trained in the historical method.

Also, the Church has a scriptural mandate to maintain a historical function, but only to record and preserve, and not to publish. It maintains a set of archives second only to the Vatican, and almost all of its archives are open to scholars and researchers who can publish what they want. I point you specifically the Arrington's Adventures of a Church Historian, where he documents the extensive collection open to researchers.

The Tanners cite frequently to Roberts' work, where he edits out embarrassing stuff. That I will grant, but he was just a single person publishing the work, and there were no authorities on hand to second guess or to critique what he was publishing.

Joseph Fielding Smith was Church Historian. I suppose, you can claim he was not trained in the historical method.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

rcrocket,

A year and a half ago you posted a challenge Plutarch Wants to Debate McCue or Bachman

At the time I offered to step up to the plate and posted my response here.

I'm doing the same again. Feel free to choose any of the topics I offered in my previous post above or one of your own choosing now. Outline any terms you wish. Open a thread and lets go.


Phaedrus

[_Who Knows]

How about the new Joseph Smith manual, where they edit out the embarrassing section of the wentworth letter?

[_The Dude]

How about the new Joseph Smith manual, where they edit out the embarrassing section of the wentworth letter?

Good example. If rcrocket doesn't accept that example based on a peculiar definition of the "church"...

My view is that the "Church" must be distinguished from the various persons who have ecclesiastic responsibility. Very very few of them are historians or trained in the historical method. Certainly, no president of the Church has been trained in the historical method.

then I wouldn't waste time debating him.

What do you mean in the above quote, rcrocket?