Church History in Church Materials

[Marvelous]

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.)

Thanks to your having referenced "Opening the Heavens" in an earlier post, I purchased a pristine copy through Amazon's website. I haven't yet read it, but trust your endorsement that it is a good compliment to "Early Mormon Documents".

I crack up when I read your highlighted quote. (What is the generic name for them?) At any rate, I spent much time at RFM the last five years and got well acquainted with the aforementioned Canadian rock artist. I like and respect him, but think he has misjudged you. I'm unsure how it got so personal, but for what it's worth, you seem reasonable to me and present sound arguments for your position.

[Mister Scratch]

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.

Come on. We both know that funds are spent in a variety of ways (despite the Church's refusal to be fully transparent on this matter), some of which can only tangentially be characterized as "promoting the Gospel". The big, obvious example is the SLC mall. That the Church would have to shell out a bit more cash in the interest of promoting honesty and openness hardly seems like a burden, imo.

Also, given that the Church has already demonstrated its willingness to sue critics it disapproves of (i.e., the Tanners, who posted excerpts from the CHI---yet another example of the Church's attitude towards secrecy), is it really that far of a stretch to conclude that the Church already has a "perpetual lawyer's fund"? Isn't that the reason Dallin Oaks is in the Twelve?

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).

How, especially since, as you said, the Church would be in the right, and would no doubt win the cases?

RE: your Q's---what "answer"? I've been arguing all along that the Church is, imo, overly secretive, and that I wish it were less so. My "agenda" does allow for a satisfactory answer---you conceding that the Church is secretive, and that it would be better off if it were less so. Is that satisfactory, Selek?

Kawika Dave:

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

Obviously you're being funny. The "confidential"/"top secret" aspects of the def. are what apply. My point was that the various listings under the heading of "secret" are meant to provide a nuanced portrait of what that word means. *ALL* the listings contribute to the meaning of the word. We can agree on this at least, no?

[charity]

Mr. Scratch, your "secrecy" obsession is laughable. My underwear is my business. Not anyone else's. You don't have a right to know anything I do in Church that I don't want to tell you.

Isn't it funny that there are those who demand rights of privacy with regard to their immoral behavior, but will not allow anyone else the right of privacy in the most moral of all behavior, worshipping God.

[Moksha]

The missionary discussions should include:

- Mountains Meadow Massacre

- Book of Mormon Translation Methods

- Polygamy (Who, What, When, Where, How)

- Treasure Hunting 101

- Joseph Smith's Record (includes charges, court dates, etc.)

- Bank Failures in Church History

- Adam/God Theory

- Journal of Discourses

- Alternative Sources for the Book of Mormon (Spaulding Theory, Kinderhook, et al.)

- Danites

- Masonry & the Endowment

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Not from the missionaries, they wouldn't know that stuff, but it would be nice to discuss this somewhere along the way in the supportive environment of Church.

The missionaries work so hard to attract members, that I cannot understand why we would risk losing others by having them find out on their own. They can find the history of the Church on the Tanner's website, but this is far from a supportive environment that can explain the nuances of what happened.

[Mister Scratch]

Mr. Scratch, your "secrecy" obsession is laughable.  My underwear is my business.  Not anyone else's.  You don't have a right to know anything I do in Church that I don't want to tell you. 

Isn't it funny that there are those who demand rights of privacy with regard to their immoral behavior, but will not allow anyone else the right of privacy in the most moral of all behavior, worshipping God.

What you call an "obsession" I call a fact. Face it: secrecy is an important aspect of being LDS, and of the Church writ large.

Of course I don't have a right. But my point all along has been that it would be a better move for the Church, P.R.-wise and ethically, to be more open and candid. What's more, I never asked for the revealing of personal, individual testimonies. I'm advocating a larger, institutional change. And anyways most Mormons have no problem laying out their personal, "private" behavoir in public---that's what F&T Meeting is for.

Please allow me to clarify one more time: it is the institutional and cultural secrecy I'm critical of, not your individual privacy, charity.

Edit: Another thought---is there anything postive that is accomplished via the secrecy? What aspects of the Mission Statement are fulfilled with the secrecy? Isn't secrecy contrary to promoting the Gospel?

[Daniel Peterson]

I crack up when I read your highlighted quote. (What is the generic name for them?) At any rate, I spent much time at RFM the last five years and got well acquainted with the aforementioned Canadian rock artist. I like and respect him, but think he has misjudged you. I'm unsure how it got so personal, but for what it's worth, you seem reasonable to me and present sound arguments for your position.

Thanks. I like to think that I'm not criminally insane and unfathomably stupid. But then, if I were, surely I would be among the last to know.

The quotes at the bottom are called "signatures," incidentally.

[KevinG]

Scratch, I will not allow you to defiine for me what is and is not private and sacred in my life and beliefs just so that you can have your paranoid curiosity sated. (yes - the word paranoid fits when you ascribe nothing but sinister motives to the LDS Church), and in the process accuse Mitt Romney of being embarassed, President Hinkley and the rest of LDSdom of hiding things and anyone with a sense of privacy about their sacred beliefs in general of conspiracy.

[OMWO2]

I just wanted to chime in on this topic. One bothersome statement I read as I studied, as an active member, the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young manual was the 4th paragraph of the introduction (Introduction - Paragraph 4) 35554, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, Introduction, v

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=t...;fn=default.htm

Text quoted:

Each chapter contains two sections

[Bob Crockett]

Please allow me to clarify one more time: it is the institutional and cultural secrecy I'm critical of, not your individual privacy, charity.

Edit: Another thought---is there anything postive that is accomplished via the secrecy? What aspects of the Mission Statement are fulfilled with the secrecy? Isn't secrecy contrary to promoting the Gospel?

Where can I find in the Bible some sort of rule that pearls should be cast before swine, and that there are no secrets that should be withheld from the world?

Or, some sort or rule or ethical standard which supports your view.

rcrocket

[kawikadave]

These original sources are not necessary to have in order to effectively study or teach from this book. Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures, is sufficient for instruction.

This is sinister, indeed! The church is telling people that they don't need to go out and buy the Journal of Discourses and/or the History of the Church in order to participate in or teach Sunday School. That is dastardly, isn't it???

Those evil scheming thugs! [/sarcasm]

[Pahoran]

What I meant to imply there was that the LDS know (as do a few others ) that they would likely not gain as many converts with this type of new approach than if they stuck to their current practice....especially attempting to sell their brand as mainstream Christianity.

Only those who are terminally clueless about the Church of Jesus Christ really believe that we are "attempting to sell [our] brand as mainstream Christianity." Although there are a lot more people who assert that than who actually believe it. Are you, by any chance, one of them?

But you've held up your church as a righteous example of "telling all" before baptism. So tell us, CG: in those RCIA classes you wax so rapturous about, how many hours are spent discussing the Reign of the Harlots? In how much detail do they examine the interrogation practices of the Inquisition? Is it disclosed that the Roman Inquisition was still torturing heretics up until the time Garibaldi's army captured the city, just as the Spanish Inquisition did until Napoleon's army took over? When the RCIA teacher explains about popes deposing monarchs, does she do so proudly or regretfully? Are they told about the Indulgence given to the soldiers who participated in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre? Are they told about Indulgences at all? Is the depopulation of the Languedoc region of France discussed in any detail?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

RCIA is usually once a week for about 48 weeks. The questions of the Inquistion, the Indulgences, and other church history that would be considered controversial are usually discussed in the first class titled "Introduction to Catholicism" but also in several more classes with their relevance to those topics. This would include Church History, the Protestant Reformation, the Magisterium, the Scrutinies, and the Exorcism Rites (not the kind you see in the movies, either ).

If you were to audit an RCIA class, you could ask these very questions you raised openly and freely and be answered openly and freely in front of the entire class. I would challenge all who doubt to try it.

So, IOW, the Catholic Church does not openly disclose these matters, but waits for people to ask about them.

Exactly as we do.

So your method is superior to ours--how, again?

BTW, we also have a one-year class for investigators and new members. It goes by the considerably less grandiose title of "Gospel Essentials." The manual is called Gospel Prinicples. The notion that the six missionary discussions are all the preparation a new member gets is an (obviously intentionally) oversimplified picture.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

need not

"Need not" doesn't mean "should not".

I suspect many a less than well off teacher was grateful to not have the addition of financial costs added to the burden of time investment to their calling.

OTOH, some of us teachers enjoy learning more about the subject then we plan to teach in class and are willing to foot the bill to do so.

If the Church really didn't want anyone to be looking into this deeper, wouldn't you think they'd remove the references and quit publishing all of them as well?

[cksalmon]

So, what do you think? Is it the Church's obligation to inform its members or is it the members duty to inform themselves, even if the information is only available through the agents of the church (missionaries, leaders, etc.)

Okay...I read through all the ten pages (at current count--and you folks kept adding pages, even as I was reading), and then I had to go back and read the original post to know what exactly folks were on about here.

I'm trying to put this into context. As a Southern Baptist, I'm fully aware of my own denomination's history. I.e., that we split from the Triennial Convention over the issue of slavery (and we SBs, by the way, were not on the progressive end of the perspective).

A quandary--a pancake of infinite proportions--to be sure.

Here's my take on a response, FWIW: (some of those) SBs who affirmed slavery did so based on a faulty interpretation of scripture (others were just incorrigbly racist, I'm sure). They cited scripture. There was a book--the title escapes me now, but it was on the shelves of my seminary library--written back in the middish 1800s, that purported to offer a biblical defense of slavery. The author was SB, by the way.

Is that an important part of our history? Absolutely. Would I bring it up in an evangelistic encounter? Most likely not. (But, rest assured, as a "liberal" Baptist, who incessantly questions the denominational status quo, I would bring it up at some point--if only by way of comparison of my own beliefs with those of former Baptists.)

So, this is a sticky wicket. I don't know exactly how I would, objectively, answer the initial question.

One difference emerges, however, in my ruminations.

Some of the questionable claims of the LDS faith came from the mouth of an inspired prophet. In other words, they were revealed as the very word of God.

Baptists, of course, have never made such a declaration. While faulty beliefs of Baptists of the past are based on an interpretation of scripture, no one ever said This is the direct revelation of God to his followers.

And yet, that is what one finds with regard to LDS polygamy, and (more questionably, I suppose) anent the position of blacks, prior to the 1978 revelation.

So, I guess, for me, the question would be something more like: Should the Church make readily available to all potential converts and members alike what former LDS prophets and authorities have uttered in the name of the Lord?

Some may argue that the two instances (SBs claiming to know what the Bible teaches and LDS prophets proclaiming what the Lord has declared to be true) are roughly synonymous. I don't see it.

Anyway, FWIW. That's my take.

Best to all readers.

CKS

[OMWO2]

These original sources are not necessary to have in order to effectively study or teach from this book. Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures, is sufficient for instruction.

Those evil scheming thugs! [/sarcasm]

This is sinister, indeed!   

So are you being sarcastic? If so, now that you've gotten that out of the way...

The church is telling people that they don't need to go out and buy the Journal of Discourses and/or the History of the Church in order to participate in or teach Sunday School. That is dastardly, isn't it???

It could be considered dastardly! Is it wrong to view the "online" copies of these references? If so, why? If not, then how do you explain the ommissions of words from the original quotes?

[kawikadave]

It could be considered dastardly! Is it wrong to view the "online" copies of these references? If so, why? If not, then how do you explain the ommissions of words from the original quotes?

Maybe you can read the quote again:

"Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters."

Members don't NEED to buy these other books in order to participate in or teach this Sunday School class. Members have never been told not to buy or study these books, whether online or in print.

Do you have a source for where people are told NOT to read Journal of Discourses or History of the Church?

EDITED TO ADD: Please post the quotes from the BY manual vs. the original context. I think it would make for an interesting discussion.

[OMWO2]

It could be considered dastardly! Is it wrong to view the "online" copies of these references? If so, why? If not, then how do you explain the ommissions of words from the original quotes?

Maybe you can read the quote again:

"Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters."

Members don't NEED to buy these other books in order to participate in or teach this Sunday School class. Members have never been told not to buy or study these books, whether online or in print.

Do you have a source for where people are told NOT to read Journal of Discourses or History of the Church?

EDITED TO ADD: Please post the quotes from the BY manual vs. the original context. I think it would make for an interesting discussion.

Are you sure you want to go there? Have you read the manual and cross-referenced the original quotes? I have a 75 page word document that I created doing just that! This IS NOT SOME ANTI propaganda, but my honest quest for understanding what was omitted. I spent a whole weekend reading THE ENTIRE Priesthood/RS manual and then going to the original DBY source and highlighted the difference. Some things omitted are of little importance however, I found a few IMO, that caused me to pause and ask why? I will await your reply.

[kawikadave]

Are you sure you want to go there? Have you read the manual and cross-referenced the original quotes? I have a 75 page word document that I created doing just that! This IS NOT SOME ANTI propaganda, but my honest quest for understanding what was omitted. I spent a whole weekend reading THE ENTIRE Priesthood/RS manual and then going to the original DBY source and highlighted the difference. Some things omitted are of little importance however, I found a few IMO, that caused me to pause and ask why? I will await your reply.

Please start a thread with the quotes that you feel are most egregious.

In the meantime, are you understanding the difference between not requiring members to purchase and use books for a Sunday School class and telling them they MUST NOT read said books?

Seems clear to me...

[OMWO2]

Please start a thread with the quotes that you feel are most egregious

I will consider that, after I find out what "egregious" means. Thanks for the thought.

In the meantime, are you understanding the difference between not requiring members to purchase and use books for a Sunday School class and telling them they MUST NOT read said books?

Actually if you go back and re-read my posts, I NEVER said they MUST NOT. Please correct me if I am wrong on that. However, my point is that I was uncomfortable with the implied message in the introduction

These original sources are not necessary to have in order to effectively study or teach from this book. Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures, is sufficient for instruction.

Perhaps I should have highlighted the previous sentence as is now quoted and in bold.

[kawikadave]

I must have misread you. I apologize.

However, my point is that I was uncomfortable with the implied message in the introduction

What is the implied message?

[AdamS]

Are you sure you want to go there? Have you read the manual and cross-referenced the original quotes? I have a 75 page word document that I created doing just that! This IS NOT SOME ANTI propaganda, but my honest quest for understanding what was omitted. I spent a whole weekend reading THE ENTIRE Priesthood/RS manual and then going to the original DBY source and highlighted the difference. Some things omitted are of little importance however, I found a few IMO, that caused me to pause and ask why? I will await your reply.

OMWO2,

Wow that is impressive. If you have anyway to put that information online (don'tgo through any major trouble) I would love to see it. If not, I will just do the research myself. i would love to see the things that were left out.

[OMWO2]

However, my point is that I was uncomfortable with the implied message in the introduction

What is the implied message?

I must have misread you. I apologize.

No problem at all. Reading all of these posts can be confusing at times.

Each statement has been referenced

This is from the introduction page. I guess I would take this as implying that NOTHING has changed in the quote. The truth is that each statement has been referenced BUT some parts have been omitted! That is just my take on it.

If I recall, the post was really about whether or not the church should publish church history in church materials. I feel that as a member it would have been easier to learn of B. Youngs polygamy in church and not when I studied the manuals "original text". Sorry I think I made a mess of the quotes.

[OMWO2]

Are you sure you want to go there?  Have you read the manual and cross-referenced the original quotes?  I have a 75 page word document that I created doing just that!  This IS NOT SOME ANTI propaganda, but my honest quest for understanding what was omitted.  I spent a whole weekend reading THE ENTIRE Priesthood/RS manual and then going to the original DBY source and highlighted the difference.  Some things omitted are of little importance however, I found a few IMO, that caused me to pause and ask why?  I will await your reply.

OMWO2,

Wow that is impressive. If you have anyway to put that information online (don'tgo through any major trouble) I would love to see it. If not, I will just do the research myself. i would love to see the things that were left out.

Just look for any quote referencing "Discourses of Brigham Young" or DBY. As you read the manuals quotes note the ... in the text. I would then go to the original quote in DBY and compare to see what was edited, omitted and added. Some things are minor, others pretty questionable to me.

Here is one example (in now way is this meant to be the "smoking gun", it is just one randomly selected) the bold is what is omitted:

As printed in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young:

[OMWO2]

It could be considered dastardly! Is it wrong to view the "online" copies of these references? If so, why? If not, then how do you explain the ommissions of words from the original quotes?

Maybe you can read the quote again:

"Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters."

Members don't NEED to buy these other books in order to participate in or teach this Sunday School class. Members have never been told not to buy or study these books, whether online or in print.

Do you have a source for where people are told NOT to read Journal of Discourses or History of the Church?

EDITED TO ADD: Please post the quotes from the BY manual vs. the original context. I think it would make for an interesting discussion.

Actually I did find a quote that may or may not be relevant (your call). This is from

[Daniel Peterson]

Here is one example (in now way is this meant to be the "smoking gun", it is just one randomly selected) the bold is what is omitted:

As printed in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young:

[OMWO2]

Here is one example (in now way is this meant to be the "smoking gun", it is just one randomly selected) the bold is what is omitted:

As printed in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young: