Why the church should open its archives (not what you think)

[_Tal Bachman]

Such a statement may or may not 'officially change' doctrine but I'll walk if that comes over the pulpit too.

---Nehor, there is already one hundred and eighty years of endlessly changing "doctrine" which has been preached over "the pulpit" of the church you still pledge allegiance to. This makes your claim very dubious.

I invite you right now to give us just three "doctrines" which haven't been changed at some point throughout the course of Mormon history, or are currently being shifted or backed away from, by Mormon leaders. What are they?

The Godhead? Changed.

Baptism? Changed.

Marriage? Changed.

Blacks? Changed.

Who the Lamanites are? Changed.

Who can give blessings? Changed.

The "plan of salvation"? Changed.

Everything's already changed, Nehor. Why would one more change matter to you?

It wouldn't.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

---I don't think there's any question that you're asking an honest question. I actually think, that you think that's a great, relevant, "gotcha!"-style question.

Is this like shooting into a flock of geese and knowing which one you hit by watching for the one that flutters and falls?

But seriously, I asked for two reasons: one, because I sincerely doubt you have ever been or plan to be in the archives, and two, because if you have I would be genuinely interested in how you were treated there, the things you had to do, the materials you were or were not allowed to access, and what you did with said materials, etc.

---Then you know perfectly well that the Mormon church has enlisted spies to report on official church historians, has imposed pressure on those historians to basically whitewash church history, and has restricted access to many of its documents; and this makes your questions look even dumber than they did originally. Way to go.

Apparently you and I got different things from the book.

---No - knowledge of its existence preceded my birth, didn't it? And however did its existence come to be known about? Tell me - was it a special article in "The Ensign"?

Not to my knowledge.

---You still don't get it, do you?

No, I get "it" Tal.

And you seem really cranky.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

D&C 1

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;
26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;
27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;
28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

[_Tal Bachman]

The Brethren really ought to open the books.

---Now that, I think, might cause something of an uproar.

There are hundreds of thousands of the Mormon church going to bed hungry every night, and watching their kids go hungry, and one part of the reason why is that they are devoting valuable time to the church, and between ten and fifteen percent of their valuable money to the church.

But the church doesn't give a damn about those people. Fat, pompous idiots like Thomas Monson, who I doubt has gone to bed hungry a single day in his pampered, mission-free life, are more concerned about purchasing and running two billion dollar shopping malls, insurance companies, radio stations, cattle ranches, etc., and playing "big-time CEO", than doing anything substantive toward alleviating the suffering of people like those I spent two years of my life working with.

Mormonism tried communism three times, but there's no such humanitarian impulse around now. I never knew a single person get church welfare the entire time I was in Argentina, and most of them were dirt-poor. There was no "work-for-food" program that we could ever find out about; there was nothing. One of my favorite families had nine kids, all in a two room little brick house with dirt floors, and sometimes they couldn't afford food for dinner - but they always paid their ten percent, didn't they? They always paid their fast offerings, didn't they?

Monson can give all of his stupid, vainglorious "widow's mite" talks, but in the end, he's fat and wealthy, and many of the people he collects centavos from, are skinny and hungry, if not suffering from malnutrition. And the church does basically nothing. They won't even come clean about the millions their businesses make.

I don't see how Monson and co are any different from the pharisees that Jesus rails against, I really don't. They're a disgrace to Christian humanitarianism. All those memories of those sincere folks in Argentina...it all makes me sick.

[_Tal Bachman]

But seriously, I asked for two reasons: one, because I sincerely doubt you have ever been or plan to be in the archives, and two, because if you have I would be genuinely interested in how you were treated there, the things you had to do, the materials you were or were not allowed to access, and what you did with said materials, etc.

---Tell you what, hotshot - why don't you fly me down to Utah, and you and I will go together to the church archives and ask for permission to photograph Smith's Egyptian Dictionary and Grammar or the Clayton diaries, and we'll see what happens?

---Then you know perfectly well that the Mormon church has enlisted spies to report on official church historians, has imposed pressure on those historians to basically whitewash church history, and has restricted access to many of its documents; and this makes your questions look even dumber than they did originally. Way to go.

Apparently you and I got different things from the book.

---Apparently you have a unique way of reading...

---No - knowledge of its existence preceded my birth, didn't it? And however did its existence come to be known about? Tell me - was it a special article in "The Ensign"?

Not to my knowledge.

---Well maybe you should do a bit of research and get back to us...

---You still don't get it, do you?

No, I get "it" Tal. .

---What is it that you think you get?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

But seriously, I asked for two reasons: one, because I sincerely doubt you have ever been or plan to be in the archives, and two, because if you have I would be genuinely interested in how you were treated there, the things you had to do, the materials you were or were not allowed to access, and what you did with said materials, etc.

---Tell you what, hotshot - why don't you fly me down to Utah, and you and I will go together to the church archives and ask for permission to photograph Smith's Egyptian Dictionary and Grammar or the Clayton diaries, and we'll see what happens?

---Then you know perfectly well that the Mormon church has enlisted spies to report on official church historians, has imposed pressure on those historians to basically whitewash church history, and has restricted access to many of its documents; and this makes your questions look even dumber than they did originally. Way to go.

Apparently you and I got different things from the book.

---Apparently you have a unique way of reading...

---No - knowledge of its existence preceded my birth, didn't it? And however did its existence come to be known about? Tell me - was it a special article in "The Ensign"?

Not to my knowledge.

---Well maybe you should do a bit of research and get back to us...

---You still don't get it, do you?

No, I get "it" Tal. .

---What is it that you think you get?

I get that your not interested in anything but ridicule. I get that no matter what happens you will use any and all evidence to mock and ridicule the LDS Church. I get that you believe yourself to be some kind of psychologist/philosopher/historian and you're not really good at any of it. You present a pop version, though, comparable to your contributions to the music world. I also get that no matter how reasonable and non-combative I try to be you'll still be that jerk who would rather mock than enlighten.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Oh, and I also get that you're whining about the Church archives while you have no actual intention to visit them, or do any actual research for yourself. You will, however, rely on anything that doesn't have the word "FARMS" stamped on it.

But forsooth, the work day is done! Off to the Jazz game to see them defeat the lowly and pitiful Rockettes.

[_Trevor]

Consider Trevor, that IF Hinckley had issued a signed, joint First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve statement saying that "it is not necessarily true that God was once a man", that that WOULD have "changed the doctrine" - but that that wouldn't have mattered either, because all it would have done for the true believer is make him feel GREAT that "we have continuing revelation!". It would just be, "Joseph could get things wrong; he was allowed to speculate; thank goodness we have a living prophet now to reveal to us what the truth is". No problem.

Actually, I don't disagree with you at all. Check out my signature. I recall when they changed the initiatory ritual a little while back. As something of a student of ritual and symbol, I found the changes kind of nonsensical. It was disturbing to me. Then, when I asked a relative about it, he said, "as long as I can feel the spirit, it's OK." My thoughts were that he could convince himself that just about anything was OK, so long as he felt warm and fuzzy about it. This was one of those pivotal moments leading to my departure from Mormonism.

Mormonism has ever changed before the eyes of the believers, from the time of the founding of the LDS Church to the present. What it is at one point in time might be radically different from what it was a decade before or after. What anchors it all, as you pointed out some time ago, is authority. Submission to the leadership is the very core of what the LDS Church is about. All else can change, and does.

[_Trevor]

Such a statement may or may not 'officially change' doctrine but I'll walk if that comes over the pulpit too.

We'll see.

[_Tal Bachman]

---What is it that you think you get?[/color]

I get that your not interested in anything but ridicule.

---Actually, I'm entirely serious about the trip to the archives with you. But, just to make it easier, you could go all by yourself in my stead. Why don't you just mosey on down to the one true religion's historical archives, and ask if you can photograph the Clayton diaries or Smith's fake Egyptian dictionary, and then "return and report"? After all, you're a member in good standing, and one of the staffers there might recognize me as the "prince of darkness". So you showing up alone would be an even better test. You could show them your recommend and everything.

I get that no matter what happens you will use any and all evidence to mock and ridicule the LDS Church.

---Not at all, and in fact I'm related to quite a few people who seem desperately to need the surrogate family that Mormonism provides, despite not being what it claims. I've written publicly about situations in which "Mormonism works". It worked, for example, for my wife as a teenager, who came from a horrific home situation.

But what does deserve ridicule are ridiculous questions like yours.

I get that you believe yourself to be some kind of psychologist/philosopher/historian and you're not really good at any of it.

---That might be true; but so what?

You present a pop version, though, comparable to your contributions to the music world. I also get that no matter how reasonable and non-combative I try to be you'll still be that jerk who would rather mock than enlighten.

---Life

Can I ask you a serious question? All ribbing and towel-snapping aside?

Would you care if Mormonism were a fraud? If Smith actually invented his stories about plates and sword-wielding angels and all the rest of it...would you leave Mormonism? Would you tell your kids? Would you tell your wife?

Would you care? What would you do?