Is there an obligation to a balanced historical narrative?

[_mcjathan]

"Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of Official Church Literature or avowedly anti-Mormon literature. Neither has anyresponsibility to present both sides." Dallin Oaks, CES Symposium, 16 August, 1985.

This quote continues to bother me for several reasons. I think Pres. Oaks was being honest, but I consider that he sees the search for truth as an adversarial contest, such as a courtroom trial.

Consider Oaks statement in the context of the L.D.S. Church requiring the "sacrifice of all things." (Lectures of Faith 6:7) Does the church have an obligation to present a balanced historical narrative of its history?

I don't think Oaks is being honest. This is not simply the church lining up on one side of an adversarial battle.

Rather, these leaders have a profound conflict of interest. They are personally and heavily invested in their own position and status within a church that raises leadership worship to a whole new level. They're not simply advocating for "God's truth", they're protecting their own a$$es and they're bettering their personal standing.

And, they've made countless moral compromises along the way. They know damn well that they don't have milk and cookies every Thursday in the SLC temple with Jesus, yet they actively cultivate this with their members. They know that if their finances were disclosed and revealed that it would be devastating. They know that... on and on.

You're being to generous, deacon blues, Oaks being honest, my a$$

[_deacon blues]

It's ironic that in the Oaks quote, he puts "Official Church Literature" on the same level as "avowedly anti-Mormon Literature." He's telling C.E.S. teachers, and the rest of us, that they operate by the same standards.

Matsukov nailed it: Propaganda.

[_Philo Sofee]

No, there is no obligation for any religion to tell its true and real history. And, there is no obligation for anyone to believe anything they ever say.

[_deacon blues]

No, there is no obligation for any religion to tell its true and real history. And, there is no obligation for anyone to believe anything they ever say.

....and yet I feel an obligation to be truthful, and I believe you, Philo, do too- and not just because of your name.

[_cwald]

Think about it, South Park told the truth about how the Book of Mormon was translated before the Church did. And that doesn’t give members pause to be sceptical about the integrity of Church leaders.

Right. You know who else told the truth about Mormon history decades before the Church finally admitted the truth. The Tanners. The Apostles and perhaps the membership in general hate and despise these people. They would consider Jerald and Sandra the most vial "apostates," outside of William Law, that the church has ever known.

And what did the Utah Lighthouse say that was untrue? For that matter, what did William law and the Nauvoo Expositor print that was not factually correct?

The LDS church hates the truth. They are a dishonest and amoral cult that manipulates it's members by keeping them in the dark by distorting history and the facts.

[_honorentheos]

"Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of Official Church Literature or avowedly anti-Mormon literature. Neither has any responsibility to present both sides." Dallin Oaks, CES Symposium, 16 August, 1985.

This quote continues to bother me for several reasons. I think Pres. Oaks was being honest, but I consider that he sees the search for truth as an adversarial contest, such as a courtroom trial.

Consider Oaks statement in the context of the L.D.S. Church requiring the "sacrifice of all things." (Lectures of Faith 6:7) Does the church have an obligation to present a balanced historical narrative of its history?

John Taylor was quoted in the 2004 PH/RS manual Teachings for Our Times - John Taylor Lesson 23 "Eternal Truth" as stating something somewhat to this effect. It is sandwiched in so much other language that could be construed to justify running so-called truth through the filter of how well it aligns with what Mormonism already believes but it's interesting nonetheless. I think it is the kind of statement that the NOM and the fundamentalist LDS might find supports their side. For consideration -

We are after the truth. We commenced searching for it, and we are constantly in search of it, and so fast as we find any true principle revealed by any man, by God, or by holy angels, we embrace it and make it part of our religious creed.

A man in search of truth has no peculiar system to sustain, no peculiar dogma to defend or theory to uphold. He embraces all truth, and that truth, like the sun in the firmament, shines forth and spreads its effulgent rays over all creation. If men will divest themselves of bias and prejudice, and prayerfully and conscientiously search after truth, they will find it wherever they turn their attention.

One great reason why men have stumbled so frequently in many of their researches after philosophical truth is that they have sought them with their own wisdom, and gloried in their own intelligence, and have not sought unto God for that wisdom that fills and governs the universe and regulates all things. That is one great difficulty with the philosophers of the world, as it now exists, that man claims to himself to be the inventor of everything he discovers. Any new law and principle which he happens to discover he claims to himself instead of giving glory to God.

There is nothing of more value to me than the principles of eternal truth; than the principles of eternal lives; eternal salvation, and eternal exaltations in the kingdom of God. But then it is for us to comprehend them, for if we do not comprehend them, no matter how great the truths, they cannot benefit us.

We are open for the reception of all truth, of whatever nature it may be, and are desirous to obtain and possess it, to search after it as we would for hidden treasures; and to use all the knowledge God gives to us to possess ourselves of all the intelligence that he has given to others; and to ask at his hands to reveal unto us his will, in regard to things that are the best calculated to promote the happiness and well-being of human society.

If there are any good principles, any moral philosophy that we have not yet attained to, we are desirous to learn them. If there is anything in the scientific world that we do not yet comprehend, we desire to become acquainted with it. If there is any branch of philosophy calculated to promote the well-being ofhumanity, that we have not yet grasped, we wish to possess ourselves of it. If there is anything pertaining to the rule and government of nations, or politics, if you please, that we are not acquainted with, we desire to possess it. If there are any religious ideas, any theological truths, any principles pertaining to God, that we have not learned, we ask mankind, and we pray God, our Heavenly Father, to enlighten our minds that we may comprehend, realize, embrace, and live up to them as part of our religious faith. Thus our ideas and thoughts would extend as far as the wide world spreads, embracing everything pertaining to light, life, or existence pertaining to this world or the world that is to come. . . . They would soar after the intelligence of the Gods that dwell in the eternal worlds. They would grasp everything that is good and noble and excellent and happifying and calculated to promote the well-being of the human family. There is no man nor set of men who have pointed out the pathway for our feet to travel in, in relation to these matters. There are no dogmas nor theories extant in the world that we profess to listen to, unless they can be verified by the principles of eternal truth. We carefully scan, investigate, criticize, and examine everything that presents itself to our view, and so far as we are enabled to comprehend any truths in existence, we gladly hail them as part and portion of the system with which we are associated.

If there is any truth in heaven, earth, or hell, I want to embrace it; I care not what shape it comes in to me, who brings it, or who believes in it; whether it is popular or unpopular, truth, eternal truth, I wish to float in and enjoy.

It says something that I completely agree with the paragraph in bold.

[_Meadowchik]

"Both sides" is a fallacy of which Oaks should be aware. For an institution that expects honesty and virtue from its members, it should be honest.

[_deacon blues]

"Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of Official Church Literature or avowedly anti-Mormon literature. Neither has any responsibility to present both sides." Dallin Oaks, CES Symposium, 16 August, 1985.

This quote continues to bother me for several reasons. I think Pres. Oaks was being honest, but I consider that he sees the search for truth as an adversarial contest, such as a courtroom trial.

Consider Oaks statement in the context of the L.D.S. Church requiring the "sacrifice of all things." (Lectures of Faith 6:7) Does the church have an obligation to present a balanced historical narrative of its history?

John Taylor was quoted in the 2004 PH/RS manual Teachings for Our Times - John Taylor Lesson 23 "Eternal Truth" as stating something somewhat to this effect. It is sandwiched in so much other language that could be construed to justify running so-called truth through the filter of how well it aligns with what Mormonism already believes but it's interesting nonetheless. I think it is the kind of statement that the NOM and the fundamentalist LDS might find supports their side. For consideration -

We are after the truth. We commenced searching for it, and we are constantly in search of it, and so fast as we find any true principle revealed by any man, by God, or by holy angels, we embrace it and make it part of our religious creed.

A man in search of truth has no peculiar system to sustain, no peculiar dogma to defend or theory to uphold. He embraces all truth, and that truth, like the sun in the firmament, shines forth and spreads its effulgent rays over all creation. If men will divest themselves of bias and prejudice, and prayerfully and conscientiously search after truth, they will find it wherever they turn their attention.

If there is any truth in heaven, earth, or hell, I want to embrace it; I care not what shape it comes in to me, who brings it, or who believes in it; whether it is popular or unpopular, truth, eternal truth, I wish to float in and enjoy.

It says something that I completely agree with the paragraph in bold.

That's an amazing quote, especially from a man who denied the existence of polygamy during his European mission in the early 1850's (see:"Three Nights discussion, p. 8), presumably to defend LDS dogma. The irony is staggering.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Think about it, South Park told the truth about how the Book of Mormon was translated before the Church did. And that doesn’t give members pause to be sceptical about the integrity of Church leaders.

Right. You know who else told the truth about Mormon history decades before the Church finally admitted the truth. The Tanners. The Apostles and perhaps the membership in general hate and despise these people. They would consider Jerald and Sandra the most vial "apostates," outside of William Law, that the church has ever known.

And what did the Utah Lighthouse say that was untrue? For that matter, what did William law and the Nauvoo Expositor print that was not factually correct?

The LDS church hates the truth. They are a dishonest and amoral cult that manipulates it's members by keeping them in the dark by distorting history and the facts.

And punishes members for researching and publicizing the truth that they find. Case in point...the Tanners...Dehlin...you.

[_Symmachus]

I agree with former Justice Oaks that no church is required to present a balanced historical narrative. Historians should do that. But I see nothing wrong with mythmaking centered on communal rituals and ethical postures and gestures.

But that's not really the church's problem, is it? Their problem is that they can't stay in their lane. Rather than let historians do their thing, the Church decides to get into the history business by pontificating on the finer points of historiography when it serves their interest (by suppressing documents or attacking scholars, for example), but then they claim a religious exemption when they get push-back.