Crockett Challenges Scratch to a Debate

[_Mister Scratch]

There you go. Evidence of suppression may be seen from the Tanners' claim that the Church published the materials only two months after obtaining the fragments. I got it. If you want to suppress material, make sure you publish it so that it does not really appear that you are suppressing it.

Look, I don't doubt that the Church wanted to get the leg up on publication rights and an explanation. I see that frequently in the Church (as well as other cases -- the Dead Sea Scrolls project, for instance). But I hardly see this as a good example of suppression. Two freakin' months, for crying out loud.

I think you are misinterpreting the evidence, Bob. As the Tanners' account states, the Church *was* actively suppressing the material. Unfortunately, an outsider had managed to get his hands on some photos and was about to release them. So, the Church had to scramble in order to get the photos out ASAP. (Otherwise, it really would seem to everyone that the Church was hiding something.)

And to say, as Scratch claims, that the Church continues to suppress the facsimiles -- citing Gee? How could that possibly be, with Larson's publication and the Improvement Era's?

You haven't yet fully established that Larson's photos came by way of the Church. Mightn't he have gotten them from the source mentioned in the Tanner article?

Do you, Rollo, really subscribe to Scratch's view that the Church is suppressing knowledge of the facsimiles?

I never said that the Church was suppressing "knowledge" of the facsimilies or other Book of Abraham materials. Instead, as per Gee, they are suppressing access to them, probably out of fear that critics will notice yet another problem with them. (The so-called "two ink" theory regarding the KEP further bolsters this observation.)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Do you, Rollo, really subscribe to Scratch's view that the Church is suppressing knowledge of the facsimiles?

Not anymore, because they're already out there. I do believe the Church has wanted to suppress materials, only to have to fess up and address (or "spin") them once they are leaked by another source (i.e., the Salamander letter, the facsimiles obtained by sources other than the Church, etc.). So often the Church is reactive to its history, which gives the sense the Church would rather suppress than disclose.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You haven't yet fully established that Larson's photos came by way of the Church. Mightn't he have gotten them from the source mentioned in the Tanner article?

I don't think Larson got them from the Church or the Improvement Era, because of the differences pointed out in the Tanner article.

[_rcrocket]

To summarize:

I asked for the debate. I set the ground rules. If Scratch doesn't want to debate with my rules, fine. The purpose for the debate was to show that Scratch has no substance, but all flash.

I asked Scratch for his very best evidence of Church suppression of its history.

Scratch responded with two. In the first one, he maintains that the Church does not publish its finances. Seeings how to me that has nothing to do with "history" except in perhaps the most abstract sense, I asked for another.

Scratch responded with the claim that the Church suppresses access to the Book of Abraham facsimiles. Again, I don't see how that is "history," but we plunged ahead. Instead, I demonstrated that the Church published high-quality images of the facsimiles within two months of their acquisition. A very splendid example, Mr. Scratch. And, Rollo came to your rescue.

Well done, Scratch. We will let our dear readers conclude whether I established my original premise, or not.

Pick your next subject -- history. [Edited to make more polite.]

[_antishock8]

To summarize:

I asked for the debate. I set the ground rules. If Scratch doesn't want to debate with my rules, fine. The purpose for the debate was to show that Scratch has no substance, but all flash.

I asked Scratch for his very best evidence of Church suppression of its history.

Scratch responded with two. In the first one, he maintains that the Church does not publish its finances. Seeings how to me that has nothing to do with "history" except in perhaps the most abstract sense, I asked for another.

Scratch responded with the claim that the Church suppresses access to the Book of Abraham facsimiles. Again, I don't see how that is "history," but we plunged ahead. Instead, I demonstrated that the Church published high-quality images of the facsimiles within two months of their acquisition. That is hardly suppression.

Then, I was met with the argument that it is indeed evidence of suppression because the Church was forced to publish them on account of the threat that they were going to be published by Charles Larson, to whom they had been leaked. That is a mystically speculative argument.

Nonetheless, we can see that my original premise is correct. Rollo came to Scratch's rescue to show that the Church took two months to publish the facsimiles, thus suppression.

Well done, gentlemen. Scratch, you may claim victory once again, as you always do. In the inimitable style of Kevin Graham, whose style I find boorish, I say to Scratch, "you are an idiot." Pick your next subject -- history.

Temple ceremony. Suppressed. Fact. You lose.

[_rcrocket]

Temple ceremony. Suppressed. Fact. You lose.

The current content of the temple ceremony is known to millions. The various pre-1990 versions of the ceremony is known to tens of thousands.

You know the content.

I win.

[_antishock8]

Temple ceremony. Suppressed. Fact. You lose.

The current content of the temple ceremony is known to millions. The various pre-1990 versions of the ceremony is known to tens of thousands.

You know the content.

I win.

Oh, would you then point me in the direction of all the different temple ceremonies, rites, and rituals published by the LDS church and taught openly to its members via official publication and available to all, or perhaps provide a URL?

[_Chap]

To summarize:

I asked for the debate. I set the ground rules. If Scratch doesn't want to debate with my rules, fine. The purpose for the debate was to show that Scratch has no substance, but all flash.

I asked Scratch for his very best evidence of Church suppression of its history.

Scratch responded with two. In the first one, he maintains that the Church does not publish its finances. Seeings how to me that has nothing to do with "history" except in perhaps the most abstract sense, I asked for another.

Scratch responded with the claim that the Church suppresses access to the Book of Abraham facsimiles. Again, I don't see how that is "history," but we plunged ahead. Instead, I demonstrated that the Church published high-quality images of the facsimiles within two months of their acquisition. That is hardly suppression.

Then, I was met with the argument that it is indeed evidence of suppression because the Church was forced to publish them on account of the threat that they were going to be published by Charles Larson, to whom they had been leaked. That is a mystically speculative argument.

Nonetheless, we can see that my original premise is correct. Rollo came to Scratch's rescue to show that the Church took two months to publish the facsimiles, thus suppression.

Well done, gentlemen. Scratch, you may claim victory once again, as you always do. In the inimitable style of Kevin Graham, whose style I find boorish, I say to Scratch, "you are an idiot." Pick your next subject -- history.

Temple ceremony. Suppressed. Fact. You lose.

Mr Scratch can no doubt answer for himself. But so far as the CoJCoLDS suppressing its history is concerned:

1. What could be more central to the distinctive belief and practice of the CoJCoLDS than what goes on in the temple?

2. Who could doubt that the many changes in temple practice that have indubitably (from the point of view of any reasonable person) taken place since the beginnings of the CoJCoLDS are historical events concerning the CoJCoLDS?

3. Who could doubt that the CoJCoLDS has acted in a manner calculated to conceal the fact that any such changes have taken place, and that the result has been that even believing and practicing LDS are unaware that such changes have occurred?

Antishock's point seems a strong one. Temple changes are history - and any discussion of them is certainly suppressed.

[_rcrocket]

Temple ceremony. Suppressed. Fact. You lose.

The current content of the temple ceremony is known to millions. The various pre-1990 versions of the ceremony is known to tens of thousands.

You know the content.

I win.

Oh, would you then point me in the direction of all the different temple ceremonies, rites, and rituals published by the LDS church and taught to its members via official publication or perhaps provide a URL?

The current version of the ceremony can be learned from attending any temple. What is an URL? But I really don't want to talk to you; you are hardly capable of writing a coherent paragraph.

[_rcrocket]

Antishock's point seems a strong one. Temple changes are history - and any discussion of them is certainly suppressed.

The development of the endowment ceremony was been thoroughly documented in David John Buerger, The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony, Dialogue, Volume 34, Number 1, 2, Spring/Summer 2001. I strongly recommend this article to any reader. Mr. Buerger does not claim "suppression."

Almost all of his sources are church publications, or publications by Mormons in good standing.