Church History in Church Materials

[Mister Scratch]

---disciplinary proceedings

---worthiness interviews

Are you of the opinion that these should be made public?

As for the "secretive" rumors, often created by antis, how in the world is the Church supposed to address that?

I think that in certain instances, the Church's failure to make public its reasons for excommunicating somebody can look bad, and like the Church is hiding something. Prime examples include the excommunications of Mike Quinn and Simon Southerton. In both instances, it is very easy for critics to argue that these men were dismissed as a way of sending a message to dissidents---basically a reiteration of the central message of President Packer's, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect." Wouldn't it be better, clearly, and more transparent on the Church's part if it would simply issue a reason for why high-profile members are ex'ed? I.e., if these people are getting ex'ed because of doctrinal disagreements, or for apostacy, why can't the Church simply say so? Why not issue a P.R. announcement saying something along the lines of, "Well, we had a disagreement and decided to part ways. Mr. ____'s attitude towards such-and-such doesn't accord with what the Brethren are trying to accomplish, and so we told him to take his concerns elsewhere." Instead, we get silence. The Church says nothing.

As to rumors, what makes you think things such as the tunnels under Temple Square or the First Presidency's vault are only the currency of antis?

In any case, my point overall is that the Church can often appear like it is behaving in a secretive way.

Actually, I think the church is quite open about this. A lengthy talk on the purposes, symbolism, and significance of the garments can be found in the publication titled "Temples," with the picture of the Salt Lake Temple on the front cover and several other colorful pictures throughout the publication. It's available at all church distribution centers for anyone to purchase - and I believe that the article is also on the internet, too, though I don't know where.

My comment was directed not only at the Church itself, but Mormon culture more generally. In my experience, most members are reluctant to hash out details relating to the garments. Moreover, we are prohibited from discussing them at length on this board.

[Abulafia]

I agree that much hinges on trust. (That is, after all, the fundamental meaning of pistis, the word in the Greek New Testament that is typically translated as "faith.")

And I would agree that the questions surrounding Joseph's practice of plural marriage are, very likely, the most difficult historical issues in his biography. (The matter of the Kinderhook Plates seems to me much less problematic.)

Nonetheless, I think that the overall picture of Joseph Smith yielded by the primary documents is clearly that of an honest and sincere man, who genuinely believed himself to be receiving revelation from God and who tried, within the limits of sinful humanity, to do God's will. The difficult matter of the origins of plural marriage needs to be situated within that larger context.

It's rather like hearing about something seemingly bad done by a long-time and trusted friend. In such cases, we typically give the friend the benefit of the doubt, assuming that there are exculpating factors, or elements that we don't know about, or that he had reasons that we haven't yet learned. If, on the other hand, we hear that someone in whom we have no trust has done something apparently bad, we are much more ready to believe it to be really bad and to regard it as merely one more redundant example of his bad character.

Finally, I would note that the truth of Mormonism, though it is very much bound up with the claims of Joseph Smith, does not rest solely upon his testimony. In almost every major revelatory event after the First Vision, he has co-witnesses (e.g., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, etc.), whose testimony is extraordinarily impressive (notwithstanding recent attempts, which I regard as stunningly weak, to dismiss it).

Thankyou, I read your post with interest.

[Doctor Steuss]

An aside musing

[onelowerlight]

My comment was directed not only at the Church itself, but Mormon culture more generally. In my experience, most members are reluctant to hash out details relating to the garments. Moreover, we are prohibited from discussing them at length on this board.

Well, how often do YOU discuss the purposes and function of your underwear in public, Mister Scratch?

[onelowerlight]

An aside musing

[Abulafia]

An aside musing

[selek]

Just put it down to me being a godless, uninspired, telestial kingdom headed, apostate... 

At least there's honesty with oneself.

No one here seeks to condemn you, Abulafia.

On the contrary, your eternal reward will not be decided by your fellow man, nor by posters at FAIR (thank Heavens), but by Heavenly Father, who knows your struggles and your heart. Be grateful for that, and trust in his love for you.

I cannot reconcile the bigger picture with the smaller and narrower picture, and still regard Joseph as inspired.

I admire those that can. I've tried and I just can't do it. My mind won't go there...

That's probably why we have an escape clause in the phrase, "we are saved by grace after all we can do."

I understand your struggles with this- and I encourage you to turn to Heavenly Father with those struggles. He who made the blind to see and the lame to walk can also make the weak strong and the humble mighty.

Trust in him, pray to him, appeal to him in heart, and mind, and soul, and it will come to pass.

[Calm]

Instead, we get silence. The Church says nothing.

So you think it is appropriate to compromise a principle instituted to protect the individual when it appears to be in the interest of the Church to do so.

If the reason is potential damage, at what level should we make the cutoff point? I ask this because many time excommunication of a member can cause hard feelings among those who don't know all the details and often the wrong party gets blamed and this can lead to them or others leaving the Church. Shouldn't the Church, by your standard, reveal the details of that excommunication?

What if, in the case of high profile individuals, excommunciation takes place for moral reasons, not doctrinal disagreement. Do you think the Church should publish the reasons then?

[Mister Scratch]

My comment was directed not only at the Church itself, but Mormon culture more generally.  In my experience, most members are reluctant to hash out details relating to the garments.  Moreover, we are prohibited from discussing them at length on this board.

Well, how often do YOU discuss the purposes and function of your underwear in public, Mister Scratch?

Funny. Obviously you're joking, but my point still stands. Outsiders are curious about the garments, ask questions, and are given the shirk. More evidence of secrecy.

[Calm]

Well, how often do YOU discuss the purposes and function of your underwear in public, Mister Scratch?

That was pretty much my reaction too, lol.

[Doctor Steuss]

Jesus was the important one for me.

You and I definately have common ground with this.

[onelowerlight]

Funny. Obviously you're joking, but my point still stands. Outsiders are curious about the garments, ask questions, and are given the shirk. More evidence of secrecy.

I can't speak for others, but if people ask me, I'll be sure to give them the down and dirty.

Seriously, every time I've been approached with questions about the garments, I've been able to talk about it. And I've been able to broker some enlightening conversations with my fellow BYU students on the subject as well, who would otherwise have had a hard time discussing to topic. Embarrasment makes anyone relatively secretive.

[Mister Scratch]

Instead, we get silence. The Church says nothing.

So you think it is appropriate to compromise a principle instituted to protect the individual when it appears to be in the interest of the Church to do so.

If the reason is potential damage, at what level should we make the cutoff point? I ask this because many time excommunication of a member can cause hard feelings among those who don't know all the details and often the wrong party gets blamed and this can lead to them or others leaving the Church. Shouldn't the Church, by your standard, reveal the details of that excommunication?

What if, in the case of high profile individuals, excommunciation takes place for moral reasons, not doctrinal disagreement. Do you think the Church should publish the reasons then?

I like your points very much, Cal.

For me the issue is not necessarily these specifics, but rather a larger culture and atmosphere of secrecy---it is a heritage which descends down from JS.

What if, in the case of high profile individuals, excommunciation takes place for moral reasons, not doctrinal disagreement.  Do you think the Church should publish the reasons then?

I'm not asking for a sordid, play-by-play sort of account. A simple, "we parted ways due to moral reasons" would suffice. Bottomline: less secrecy would be a good thing.

[Mister Scratch]

Embarrasment makes anyone relatively secretive.

At last! The truth comes out! Please see my thread on Mitt Romney, who, imo, refuses to discuss "details" due to embarrassment.

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, the brand new issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Religion (mine arrived yesterday) is devoted entirely to the question of "Secrecy in Religion." It features several articles on the topic, as well as a very impressive bibliography of works dealing with the subject.

Mormons are far from alone -- within Christianity, but also far beyond it -- in having things (notably the temple, and items related to it like the garment) that they do not discuss openly.

It may help to remember that the term profane, the opposite of sacred, comes from the Latin words pro and fanum, meaning, literally, "before [and, thus, outside] the temple." What was outside the temple was not holy; it might even be impious. What was inside the temple, however, was sacred. And it was a profanation of the sacred to take it outside of the temple.

[selek]

Outsiders are curious about the garments, ask questions, and are given the shirk. More evidence of secrecy.

Not secrecy, sacredness. "Cast not your pearls" was quoted before, but still applies.

I see no evidence that the purpose and function of garments has been kept secret (especially since that carefully hidden and oh-so secret 60 Minutes interview). I've been taught very carefully to respect my garments and my covenants, and have even considered how to answer the questions of the curious without denigrating either the subject or the listener.

No, I don't show people my garments, but then, I tend NOT to run around in public in nothing but my underwear. (Much to the relief of both those with weak stomachs, tender constitutions, and local law enforcement).

As far as disciplinary councils, these matters are also sacred and private- intended to protect the accused as much as the Church. Were the Church to begin issuing press releases, it would violate the sanctity of the confessional (one of the most inviolate of client confidences) and open the Church to further complaints and defamation and libel lawsuits (which, one presumes, the Church would win).

This has been explained repeatedly, Scratch.

Is it that you don't like the answer? Or perhaps that your agenda does not allow for a satisfactory answer?

[Calm]

Personally I am glad the Church puts the individual's needs highest in this area. It would be very difficult, imo, for someone to come back if it is publicly announced they were excommunicated for moral reasons. At least when they haven't been made a public spectacle, they have a chance of being able to make a fresh start if they choose.

[Daniel Peterson]

By the way, a very good recent book on the character of Joseph Smith is Mark McConkie's massive collection of first-hand accounts entitled Remembering Joseph.

And an excellent recent book devoted, to a large extent, to witness corroboration of Joseph Smith's revelatory claims, is Jack Welch's anthology, Opening the Heavens. (Of course, the classic scholarly treatment of the Book of Mormon Witnesses is Richard L. Anderson's aptly named Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses.)

[Abulafia]

Trust in him, pray to him, appeal to him in heart, and mind, and soul, and it will come to pass.

Sorry, to derail the thread. I found your post quite poignant, and I appreciate your sincerity.

I hope....that doesn't mean I hope that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I can't go anywhere near as far as that.

I just hope that a loving God exists and that just maybe some of what Jesus is purported to have said may represent Him (God) and His feelings towards us.

I don't even know if Jesus was God, or good teacher. Do I have to know that in order to be saved?

I hope not, or I am in trouble on that front too!!!!

[Mister Scratch]

Not secrecy, sacredness.

Definitionally speaking, this simply isn't correct. Sacred and secret. But to deny that it's secret is absurd.

I've been taught very carefully to respect my garments and my covenants, and have even considered how to answer the questions of the curious without denigrating either the subject or the listener.

Why would you even have to weigh this out in your mind, unless you felt an obligation to maintain the secrets you covenanted to keep? Moreover, it's unclear how your attempt to avoid "denigration" jives with your earlier, "cast not your pearls before swine" remark. Are the people who ask questions necessarily "swine"?

As far as disciplinary councils, these matters are also sacred and private- intended to protect the accused as much as the Church. Were the Church to begin issuing press releases, it would violate the sanctity of the confessional (one of the most inviolate of client confidences) and open the Church to further complaints and defamation and libel lawsuits (which, one presumes, the Church would win).

1. If the Church would win, what's the problem? It will look both righteous and open.

2. Again, I'm not asking for sordid details here. Just more transparency overall. And also again, it's not just the garments or the disciplinary councils. It is a larger culture of secrecy. Addressing these two things would be only one small step in the right direction, imo.

Cal,

Personally I am glad the Church puts the individual's needs highest in this area. It would be very difficult, imo, for someone to come back if it is publicly announced they were excommunicated for moral reasons. At least when they haven't been made a public spectacle, they have a chance of being able to make a fresh start if they choose.

Doesn't this kind of render the excommunication irrelevant on some level? I.e., if the Church is expecting the person to come back at some point, then what is the point of disciplinary action in the first place? (And further, doesn't this just contribute to my thesis of secrecy yet again, since this indicates that the Church "secretly" expects that the ex'ed person will repent and come back? Or can you cite a specific instance where the Church has publicly stated that it wants Mr./Mrs. ______ to return to Church, despite the discipline?)

[kawikadave]

From Websters:

SECRET

1 a : kept from knowledge or view : HIDDEN b : marked by the habit of discretion : CLOSEMOUTHED c : working with hidden aims or methods : UNDERCOVER <a secret agent> d : not acknowledged : UNAVOWED <a secret bride> e : conducted in secret <a secret trial>

2 : remote from human frequentation or notice : SECLUDED

3 : revealed only to the initiated : ESOTERIC

4 : constructed so as to elude observation or detection <a secret panel>

5 : containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could endanger national security -- compare CONFIDENTIAL, TOP SECRET

"Marked by the habit of discretion" - I like that.

"Revealed only to the initiated" - That clearly applies well.

[Calm]

Doesn't this kind of render the excommunication irrelevant on some level?  I.e., if the Church is expecting the person to come back at some point, then what is the point of disciplinary action in the first place?  (And further, doesn't this just contribute to my thesis of secrecy yet again, since this indicates that the Church "secretly" expects that the ex'ed person will repent and come back?  Or can you cite a specific instance where the Church has publicly stated that it wants Mr./Mrs. ______ to return to Church, despite the discipline?)

The Church's hope in each case is that the individual will repent and return. Often, excommuncation is seen as part of that repentance. There is nothing secret about that desire. I am very surprised you are unaware of this.

The bishops court and the high council court have properly been referred to as courts of love. The sole purpose of a Church court is to bring about in the Lord

[Mister Scratch]

From Websters:

SECRET

1 a : kept from knowledge or view : HIDDEN b : marked by the habit of discretion : CLOSEMOUTHED c : working with hidden aims or methods : UNDERCOVER <a secret agent> d : not acknowledged : UNAVOWED <a secret bride> e : conducted in secret <a secret trial>

2 : remote from human frequentation or notice : SECLUDED

3 : revealed only to the initiated : ESOTERIC

4 : constructed so as to elude observation or detection <a secret panel>

5 : containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could endanger national security -- compare CONFIDENTIAL, TOP SECRET

"Marked by the habit of discretion" - I like that.

"Revealed only to the initiated" - That clearly applies well.

I like them too. The trouble is that, definitionally speaking, none of us gets to choose which of these fits. They all apply.

[kawikadave]

Really? Who decides that all possible meanings of a word apply to a specific situation? You???

5 : containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could endanger national security -- compare CONFIDENTIAL, TOP SECRET

This applies to historical information about the LDS church? Wow, maybe Dan Brown will be writing a book about the LDS church!!!

[selek]

1. If the Church would win, what's the problem? It will look both righteous and open.

2. Again, I'm not asking for sordid details here. Just more transparency overall. And also again, it's not just the garments or the disciplinary councils. It is a larger culture of secrecy. Addressing these two things would be only one small step in the right direction, imo.

Because whether the Church wins or not, time and resources would need to be diverted from promoting the Gospel to settling endless and frivilous lawsuits.

While the Church did have a Perpetual Emigration Fund, and now has a Perpetual Immigration Fund, I'm really not sure we need a Perpetualy Lawyers Employment Act.

It would provide the enemies of the Church with yet another means to hamper and harass the work. It would open us up to ACLU tactics (obfuscate, litigate, and denigrate).

Further, verdicts- particularly acquittals- are rarely big news. Even if the Church were victorious, the news would be buried on page G13, but "LDS Church sued for Defamation" would be headline stuff.

It would provide yet another wedge for the anti's to use against those curious about the Church.

Finally, you failed to answer my other questions:

This has been explained repeatedly, Scratch.

Is it that you don't like the answer? Or perhaps that your agenda does not allow for a satisfactory answer?

Can you answer them now?