Dialogue between TBMs and Critics

[_Bob Loblaw]

Actually, Loblaw, I think Gee has said that.

Touche.

[_Fence Sitter]

Listening to some members defend the Church reminds me of Bill Clinton testifying to the grand jury.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I've not read this piece so I don't know what it concerns, but given it is Clark it must be about MesoAmerican archaeology. I am of the personal view that LDS apologetic work that attempts to argue a MesoAmerican site for the Book of Mormon is the kind of tissue paper what magicians use which vanish when a flame is put to it. There are a whole lot of good people, including BYU professors, who think that the MesoAmerican work is a bunch of silliness based upon a lack of faith in the Book of Mormon.

Yup.

But, I can also say that FAIR attempts to appear to be neutral on this issue. Although most of its writers attempt to hold the defenses against an assault upon MesoAmerican speculation, I can see where FAIR has attempted neutrality on this.

Agreed. My problem is, of course, that no American setting works for the Book of Mormon. It just doesn't fit.

Apologists are not the Church. FAIR is not the Church. There is some material that is terribly wrong. But, as to FAIR, not much.

First of all, I am not conflating apologists with the church. God help the church if that were true. I suppose it depends on how you define the word "wrong." Is FAIR deceptive? I don't think so. Are their arguments solid and compelling? Nope. I'm frankly surprised that you have found their stuff useful in resolving problems members have. Stranger things have happened.

I've read Mormon Think's stuff. It is frothing at the mouth anti-Mormonism. It is not neutrally written, as is most of FAIR's Wiki stuff. At this point, I don't expect frothing at the mouth anti-Mormons to be objective, so I would anticipate them slapping Tweedle-Dee's back and saying, "well done, my fiend."

I guess you and I have a different view of what constitutes frothing at the mouth. For my own part, I don't aim for objective, but I do aim for honesty and fairness. I can see why people would find MormonThink is unfair, but I think it's honest, for the most part (everyone makes mistakes). A friend of mine is an editor and contributor at FAIR, and I think he is scrupulously honest and is as fair as one can be coming from an apologetic side. Does FAIR aim to be objective? I think not, and I doubt anyone there would claim that.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Is the Church exempt from the mandate to be truthful? It may not be under a mandate to discuss and portray its history, but if it does so is it not under a mandate, as Jesus' church, to do so truthfully?

As for this discussion and reference of truthfulness, shall we stipulate to the terms and conditions laid out by Elder Dallin H Oaks in his address, Gospel Teachings About Lying, BYU Fireside Address, September 12, 1993?

I've been in the Church Historian's office. I've been there when they've been reading Brigham Young's letter books for the first time and expressed surprise as to the contents, about how insanely little he knew about the MMM within the two or three weeks after it occurred. It struck me that these guys are not required to be familiar with the Church's library much less to publish it.

When Arrington's assistant published the book from the Historian's office about Bishop Wooley, the department took some heat from the Brethren because the department was not in the business of writing and publishing. But, historians like Arrington are naturally disposed to publish. They feel compelled to do so. He was not a good fit because he wanted to publish and that wasn't what he was hired to do.

Rick Turley is not a trained historian. He is a lawyer, a tax lawyer. He's publishing, but outside the auspices of the Church.

Yes, when the Church does publish, it wants to be accurate. The Encyclopedia is an example, but even then there was a lot of dispute over what was fact and what was not. The MMM entry, for instance, has a significant problem with its discussion of martial law -- the timing of it. But it takes trained historians AND legal scholars to work that out, and because the D&C doesn't impose upon the Church a mandate to publish history, these underpaid fellows are stumbling about in the dark like the rest of us. There's no angel sitting on their shoulder like people think bishops have to discern truth.

Historians are also prone to mistake, error and unintentional overstatement and sometimes deception. Scott Gordon's recent talk at USU has had a lot of criticism, but it was generally accurate if not somewhat overstated. Big deal. But he exemplifies what historians face.

[Guest]

What do you make of the fact that the LDS Church published Sorenson on the MesoAmerican siting in the Ensign in 1985 (after McConkie's death)?

I have about the same regard for it as the Deseret News' publication of Dr. Peterson's Asherah piece.

Thomas Stuart Ferguson was a Santa Barbara lawyer who was pals with General Authorities. His hobby was to prove the Book of Mormon with science and fact. He persuaded the Church to fund a bunch of amateurs to lead expeditions to Mexico, where he lost his testimony.

The Church was persuaded by a member of the FP to spend a lot of money buying a cattle ranch as an investment in Florida. I think Henry D. Moyle advanced it, although I'd have to check his bio. For decades it came under considerable criticism as a waste of tithing funds, unable to turn a profit. Many of the Brethren spent way too much time on it instead of ecclesiastical matters.

Then, one day, Disney announced Disney World and the investment bore fruit akin to winning the lottery.

When it comes to history and investing money, the Brethren are a bunch of elderly men, mostly, who can make mistakes. Most of the Brethren are not historians, scriptorians or financial managers. They are where they are by being able to run wards and stakes well and by being honorable men and being good at giving sermons. The people the church employs are, in large part, paid much lower than prevailing wages and salaries and don't work all that hard. And, then tend to be 10 years older than the typical wage force average.

We read in the Old Testament had the Apostles were annoyed that resources weren't being used appropriately for the care of the poor and that they, the Apostles, were forced to wait on tables. The Church cannot be judged from these types of errors, and we should expect to see them.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

I've been there when they've been reading Brigham Young's letter books for the first time and expressed surprise as to the contents, about how insanely little he knew about the MMM within the two or three weeks after it occurred.

How did they react when they read the minutes of the Council of Fifty?

[_Yahoo Bot]

I've been there when they've been reading Brigham Young's letter books for the first time and expressed surprise as to the contents, about how insanely little he knew about the MMM within the two or three weeks after it occurred.

How did they react when they read the minutes of the Council of Fifty?

I will check back into my posts above and see if I mention this, or the Catholic assault on Languedoc, and get back to you with an answer.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

I will check back into my posts above and see if I mention this, or the Catholic assault on Languedoc, and get back to you with an answer.

You weren't there for that part? ...sigh.

[_Blixa]

Roses! I throw roses at the Erotic Apologist!

Or at least a little Book of Love. And some Siouxsie on top...

[_Darth J]

Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.

D&C 93

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.