Does the Church Suppress History?

[Jersey Girl]

Labeling such a work as Brodie's as a historical novel is merely to serve as a refutation without specifics.

[_TrashcanMan79]

I would recommend highly this long and detailed response by Todd Compton to two FARMS reviews of his In Sacred Loneliness by Anderson/Faulring and Bachman.

Thanks for the link. Fascinating. I found especially interesting this from Compton:

I submitted an earlier version of this response to the Farms Review of Books, but the editor showed a marked lack of enthusiasm for publishing it...

Now, why on earth would that be?

I second CK's recommendation. Read it now.

[_KimberlyAnn]

My Bishop paid a visit to my home after an earlier interview with me wherein I had informed him I no longer believed Mormonism was "true".

Before he came, I printed off some historical information from SHIELDS and FARMS, thinking they would be inoffensive to him, but I was wrong. The bishop did not know Joseph Smith was married to other men's wives. He did not know many of the details of the MMM. I was surprised to find him as ill-informed as I was prior to my epiphany. Prepared for his incredulity, I handed him the articles from FARMS and SHIELDS. I didn't expect him to read them then and there, but thought he'd take them home to peruse at his leisure. No. He wouldn't even look at them momentarily. He laid them, face down, on the table and said he would not read them. Such information was, he said, unnecessary.

Does the Mormon church suppress it's history? Yes, I think it does. There may be no expressed mandate to do so, but culturally, it's as if there may as well be. I was told several times that non-faith promoting materials drove the spirit from one's home. That they were spiritually dangerous. I believed that, and felt I was doing something wrong when I ordered Todd Compton's books.

That's my own personal experience, but I think it fairly representative of many Chapel Mormons.

Kimberly Ann

[_Blixa]

I would recommend highly this long and detailed response by Todd Compton to two FARMS reviews of his In Sacred Loneliness by Anderson/Faulring and Bachman. Plan to dedicate probably at least an hour to Compton's thoughts here. It runs to, at least, some 120 pages when typeset in international A5 size.

Compton, a still-believing LDS, is often utterly baffled by the treatment he receives at the hands of these FARMS reviewers. Note of interest: this pamphlet publication by Compton was one of the stated reasons that Bob McCue began to seriously question his LDS beliefs. His initial thought was: I'm glad they took Compton to task. Then he read this response and thought something like: Whoah! This guy is actually doing honest history.

Despite its largely informal nature, Compton's response deserves to be widely read. One can only hope that it will be published soon.

CKS

Thanks. That was very interesting reading.

[_Mister Scratch]

A quick search over at Deseret Book reveals that Compton's book is also conspicuously absent.

[Guest]

There can be no debate about the question asked in the title of this thread: "Does the Church Suppress History" The questions really is: "Is the Church, having admitted to suppressing history to prevent doubt, justified in doing so?" Some would argue it certainly is. Others would disagree.

Elder Oaks admitted the suppression in his interview with Whitney for the PBS documentary, "The Mormons". He stated:

"It’s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That’s an old problem in Mormonism — a feeling of members that they shouldn’t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should’ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life.

There are several different elements of that. One element is that we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.

On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t."

So it seems plainly admitted here an "adoring" history was presented with an absence of the "warts" so doubt would not be created and because the members were not prepared (seems to satisfy the definition of suppression to me).

With regard to counseling members re "anti" and other material. The July 2007 New Era advised those who are presented with anti-Mormon materials (which most LDS likely believe to be materials that present information that reflects negatively on the Church or its leaders) to say that they would rather read the scriptures than the materials. They are also advised to

"Just tell your friend the truth, that you find that literature disturbing. If he or she is a true friend, he or she will have no problem with it. Stick with your feeling of not wanting to read it. If you do read it, it could open up a window of doubt. There are plenty of good books (like True to the Faith) that have been written through inspiration. Pick up one of those so that you may know how to respond to questions."

All bolding above is mine.

[_Infymus]

Compton, a still-believing LDS, is often utterly baffled by the treatment he receives at the hands of these FARMS reviewers.

Has anyone notified the resident rabid TBM defenders here? I'm sure they, like FARMS or FAIR, would jump on Compton as being "dismissed as insufficiently credentialed; unprincipled in various ways and hence likely to waste his time in debate; unworthy of his special attention in part because I have shown unscholarly tendencies in Internet postings"

Ok, credits to DCP in his dismissal of Bob McCue, but relevant. ;)

[_Infymus]

Before he came, I printed off some historical information from SHIELDS and FARMS, thinking they would be inoffensive to him, but I was wrong. The bishop did not know Joseph Smith was married to other men's wives. He did not know many of the details of the MMM. I was surprised to find him as ill-informed as I was prior to my epiphany. Prepared for his incredulity, I handed him the articles from FARMS and SHIELDS. I didn't expect him to read them then and there, but thought he'd take them home to peruse at his leisure. No. He wouldn't even look at them momentarily. He laid them, face down, on the table and said he would not read them. Such information was, he said, unnecessary.

It used to stagger me that I could bring evidence before Mormons, only to have it shot down without them even looking at it.

Later I realized that it meant breaking down their belief system. If they look, they might fall. If they fall, their lives could be in ruin.

Ruin, however, is far greater than living a lie. And in reality, ruin doesn't follow, not really. Once you get out of the Cult and begin your "real life", it is a brand new world.

[_bcspace]

YES! to spend age 8 until age 19 in the church and going to sunday school, sacrament meeting, priesthood meeting, mia and never hearing about Joseph Smith's other wives suggests - a spoilation of evidence a.k.a. suppression. You will never hear in a Conference about Joseph's wife Lucy Walker or Emily Patridge as half the people at the event will look at each other and say "what?" and about one tenth of the people will look at each other and say "what the F___".

I heard about them when I was a deacon or a teacher, perhaps earlier. Where were you? Catching the latest sports score out in the parking lot? We do teach all of D&C 132 by the way.

[_mms]

YES! to spend age 8 until age 19 in the church and going to sunday school, sacrament meeting, priesthood meeting, mia and never hearing about Joseph Smith's other wives suggests - a spoilation of evidence a.k.a. suppression. You will never hear in a Conference about Joseph's wife Lucy Walker or Emily Patridge as half the people at the event will look at each other and say "what?" and about one tenth of the people will look at each other and say "what the F___".

I heard about them when I was a deacon or a teacher, perhaps earlier. Where were you? Catching the latest sports score out in the parking lot? We do teach all of D&C 132 by the way.

GIVE UP THE ARGUMENT that we should have learned this stuff when we were deacons. See my post above re Oaks admitting it was suppressed. You now have permission to stop arguing the utter ridiculousness you are arguing, as your leader has admitted the obvious SO NOW YOU CAN TOO. Geez. It is so facially absurd to argue that ALL of DC 132 is taught to the youth. There was a lesson on it two weeks ago and guess what? The lesson left out everything from 132 re plural marriage. Huh. Wonder why. Give me a break. Yes, I am active, yes a High Priest, yes go to church every week, etc. BUT STILL SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE ARGUING WITH THE UTTERLY OBVIOUS.

Hey, BC, go look at www.josephsmith.net and find a single reference to plural marriage, I dare you. Now why would the official website of Joseph Smith not have a single reference to any wife other than Emma? Why would it mention all kinds of useless details but leave out 32 wives? Huh? Why, BC? Seriously, tell me why. I am dying to hear your explanation.

I repeat, the argument is not about whether the church suppresses, as that is a settled issue despite the ignorance of some. The question is whether the church is justified in doing so.