mentalgymnast wrote:Mister Scratch wrote:It seems to me that the Church hasn't so much suppressed history, or openly advised members against reading certain things; rather, Church leaders have cannily engaged in spinning and smearing of certain works. Thus, Brodie's admirable and groundbreaking biography becomes a "historical novel." D. Michael Quinn's work becomes "untrustworthy." So on and so forth. I reckon that this process, and the effect it has on the membership, is somewhat akin to the exhortations to avoid R-rated movies and the like. There's not really a formal list (or an Index Librorum Prohibitorum, as it were---conveniently, the MPAA does this for the Church) on which specific films are banned; instead, the general warning is enough to scare most TBMs away from this.
Comparing movie ratings and such with what books not to read doesn't work. Ratings have been talked about/discussed ad nauseum for years among church members...at church, and in homes. I have
never heard discussions as to Brodie's book being a "historical novel" or Quinn's work being "untrustworthy" in general church group settings.
Of course you haven't (which, incidentally, supports the general thesis of the critics on this thread). Notice that I said
"Church leaders" and not "the rank and file." The leader I was specifically referring to is DCP, who is, for better or worse, LDS Apologist Numero Uno.
Or discussions/warnings of any other books that I can think of.
The "discussions/warnings" tend to be very vague in general. Cf. the earlier quote that was posted by RDL on the MADthread. The same poster also more recently included this passage from Elder Nelson:
In this Church there is an enormous amount of room—and scriptural commandment—for studying and learning, for comparing and considering, for discussion and awaiting further revelation. We all learn “line upon line, precept upon precept,”3 with the goal being authentic religious faith informing genuine Christlike living. In this there is no place for coercion or manipulation, no place for intimidation or hypocrisy. But no child in this Church should be left with uncertainty about his or her parents’ devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Restoration of His Church, and the reality of living prophets and apostles who, now as in earlier days, lead that Church according to “the will of the Lord, . . . the mind of the Lord, . . . the word of the Lord, . . . and the power of God unto salvation.”4 In such basic matters of faith, prophets do not apologize for requesting unity, indeed conformity, in the eloquent sense that the Prophet Joseph Smith used that latter word.5 In any case, as Elder Neal Maxwell once said to me in a hallway conversation, “There didn’t seem to be any problem with conformity the day the Red Sea opened.”
Parents simply cannot flirt with skepticism or cynicism, then be surprised when their children expand that flirtation into full-blown romance. If in matters of faith and belief children are at risk of being swept downstream by this intellectual current or that cultural rapid, we as their parents must be more certain than ever to hold to anchored, unmistakable moorings clearly recognizable to those of our own household. It won’t help anyone if we go over the edge with them, explaining through the roar of the falls all the way down that we really did know the Church was true and that the keys of the priesthood really were lodged there but we just didn’t want to stifle anyone’s freedom to think otherwise. No, we can hardly expect the children to get to shore safely if the parents don’t seem to know where to anchor their own boat. Isaiah once used a variation on such imagery when he said of unbelievers, “[Their] tacklings are loosed; they could not . . . strengthen their mast, they could not spread the sail.”6
(emphasis added)
Here we have one of the Twelve stating that skepticism is a "No no." Is a specific text mentioned? No, and there doesn't need to be---that was my point vis-a-vis the movie analogy. The Brethren do not have to issue dictates about which movies are okay and which aren't, since the MPAA does it for them. In terms of books dealing with embarrassing facets of history, the Church obviously cannot come out and say, "Avoid these books!" since that would simply stir up too much curiosity. Rather, the tactic has been to quietly suppress these problems of history---to discourage "skepticism," to proffer (to paraphrase your own words) "whitewashed" versions of Church history, and to sneakily ban all "unpleasant" books from the shelves of Deseret Book.
Years ago when I was a babe in the woods in regards to the unwhitewashed version of church history, etc., I can't remember anything that would have discouraged my reading interests at all. My interests developed independently without any influence one way or the other from "the church".
The question isn't just one of whether or not you, as an individual, were told to avoid certain, specific works; the question is (at least in part): Has the Church "suppressed history" in any way? The answer, as per your own statements, seems to be "Yes."
I think that you are, as usual, putting blame on "the church" where none is warranted. Why do you keep doing that?
Regards,
MG
Who is "blaming" anyone for anything? I don't really "blame" the Church for suppressing embarrassing history. In fact, I rather sympathize with and understand it. Gee, are you upset that some people who left the LDS Church have a legitimate beef about the Church suppressing its history?