Crockett Challenges Scratch to a Debate

[_Coggins7]

Why should it be?

[_KimberlyAnn]

That fact that so many TBMs (including, presumably, the Brethren) fear that people would "poke fun" at the face in the hat basically explains why they've tried to bury this embarrassing bit of history.

Yes, every bit as embarrassing as a bunch of filthy, illiterate, uneducated fisherman going about claiming to understand the mysteries of the universe.

Interesting where hostility to the truth inevitably leads one.

I've personally never known a Christian to be embarrassed because there were illiterate fishermen chosen by Jesus to be his disciples, and they make not the least attempt to suppress that information.

Yet, the Mormon church is embarrassed by the "face in the hat." They're embarrassed by polyandry. They're embarrassed by things they believe were commanded of God. Why is that? Is it because certain aspects of church history are so blatantly affronting to the sensibilities of reasonable non-Mormon folks that they must be swept under the rug or risk being quickly dismissed as hoaxes, adultery or worse?

The fact is, most people find polyandrying, glass-looking, face-in-hat translating, bank scandaling, press destroying, repetitively law-breaking men to be less than credible. I believe the Mormon church is embarrassed of the real Joseph Smith.

KA

[_harmony]

Why should it be?

Because every member gets one; they don't have to go to the bookstore and spend their money... they just go to church and they're given one. Why? Because that's where the information the church wants the members to have about Joseph is. It's a thick book, almost 600 pages long. Why isn't this information in there? Why aren't the multiple First Vision accounts in there? Why isn't the list of Joseph's wives in there? Why isn't the lies Joseph told from the pulpit in there?

[_Mister Scratch]

Why should it be?

Because every member gets one; they don't have to go to the bookstore and spend their money... they just go to church and they're given one. Why? Because that's where the information the church wants the members to have about Joseph is. It's a thick book, almost 600 pages long. Why isn't this information in there? Why aren't the multiple First Vision accounts in there? Why isn't the list of Joseph's wives in there? Why isn't the lies Joseph told from the pulpit in there?

That's precisely it. Apologists can claim that the information is "out there!" They can say, "Heck, it's even in my local LDS bookstore!" The trouble is: that is not "The Church". I wonder how many of those millions of Google hits Coggins came up with are a result of the official, institutional LDS Church's openness on such matters. As far as I know, the only "official" LDS publication to ever deal with the seer stone/hat issue is the Ensign. The quote in question is memorialized in Cinepro's MAD signature. The bottom line is that the stuff which is "officially" churned out by the Church has been seriously "whitewashed", with key bits of history getting suppressed. I would be interested in seeing Coggins or Bob provide a citation from either a correlated, official Church source, or from some material for which the primary audience is non-LDS, which deals frankly and in detail with any of the following:
---Kolob
---MMM
---Blood Atonement
---Helen Mar
---Polygamy / polyandry
---JS's pistol at Carthage
---the Danites
---The SCMC
---the face in the hat (something other than the Ensign)

Etc., etc., etc.

[_rcrocket]

Cf. the thread dealing with Gee's latest FARMS piece.

I have never heard that the Church has imposed an "off limits" edict on anything except disciplinary or temple content matters.

Two more instances of Church suppression of history.

Could I please have a specific, rather than a vague, reference to evidence that the Church has an off-limit policy with respect to the history of the Book of Abraham.

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=670

Scroll down to the article's end to see the parts I'm talking about.

I see nothing there.

Is this what you're talking about? "4. If you want to do anything with the originals, you need to apply to the archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at least a full year in advance. You will need approvals from half a dozen committees that meet only once a month and for whom your request will be far down the list of agenda items. Requests to do anything before that time will garner an automatic denial."

That's ridiculous. As you well know, extremely accurate digital photographs are available to scholars on a nearly instant's notice. The Church itself published extremely accurate photographs of these in 1968 (Charles Larson, p. 41). You obviously have not worked in archival work before. Critical originals, especially of ancient documents, are tough to see in any major institution without advance notice. How do you think Charles Larson get to them?

[_Mister Scratch]

That's ridiculous. As you well know, extremely accurate digital photographs are available to scholars on a nearly instant's notice. You obviously have not worked in archival work before. Critical originals, especially of ancient documents, are tough to see in any major institution without advance notice.

Lol. If the "digital photographs" are so readily available, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble supplying a link. I'll be waiting patiently.

[_rcrocket]

That's ridiculous. As you well know, extremely accurate digital photographs are available to scholars on a nearly instant's notice. You obviously have not worked in archival work before. Critical originals, especially of ancient documents, are tough to see in any major institution without advance notice.

Lol. If the "digital photographs" are so readily available, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble supplying a link. I'll be waiting patiently.

Walk over to LDS archives and they will provide a copy. They are also published all over the internet. Google images: Papyrus Joseph Smith photographs. Also, high quality images were published in Larson's book. Really, your knowledge base is shockingly deficient.

Again, I ask, how do you think Charles Larson got them?

I think we can agree that your claim that the Church has placed "off limits" Book of Abraham material is bull.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I am willing to debate specific topics on specific issues, not general ones where mere handwaves suffice as rhetoric.

And, as if on cue, Tomasi follows up with the following:

My answers:

1. Yes. Reason: he did not recognize their prior civil marriages.

2. Yes.

3. Depends on who you ask, but I think it's running for cover from mounting scientific evidence.

4. Yes.

5. Depends on what you mean by "cover up," but I think the Church does this on occasion (or at least waters down or misleads).

6. Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." Certainly there is that belief (and doctrine per the D&C) in the Church.

7. Could "revealed" include the possibility it is not an ancient records of real peoples, but more allegory?

8. Yes.

9. You'd have to ask Joseph, but I think it was consistent with his belief in folk magic/occult.

10. Privately, and late in life, I think he did. Why, I'm not sure, but he analyzed the Book of Mormon from a scientific angle for many years, and perhaps the dearth of helpful evidence disheartened him.

11. I think it certainly was akin to fraud, even if that's not the legal term that was used.

And so it goes. Rollo wipes out the entire Church in a few brief sentences.

This is nice work if you can get it.

I didn't "wipe out" anything -- I simply answered Bob's questions.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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

Salamander Letter. GBH hid it away for 2 years until Hofmann leaked his copy to others, forcing the Church to address it (and causing Dallin Oaks to give his infamous speech trying to justify angels appearing as amphibians, etc.).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

David Whitmer's "face in the hat" story is of suspect quality. It first surfaced in 1875. He didn't mention this before that time. Thus, his story depends upon what he was told, not what he had seen.

Apparently not "suspect" enough for Elder Nelson, who used that very story in a talk that appeared in the Ensign a few years ago.