Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I haven't read most of this thread, but let me offer one instance of suppression that I have come across:

I'm not personally acquainted with the facts of this case, so I'd be happy to withdraw this example if somebody can show that Bullock's minutes from that morning have since been made available. (Note that Bullock's minutes of the afternoon meeting at the grove that same day are apparently available in the General Minutes Collection, as Van Wagoner cites them on the next page.)

I believe I just read a transcription the other day. They were published, IIRC in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844.

The biggest problem with them is the account is nearly illegible.

It may be that I'm thinking of afternoon meetings, but I'm not exactly sure. I don't have the book in front of me.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm not personally acquainted with the facts of this case, so I'd be happy to withdraw this example if somebody can show that Bullock's minutes from that morning have since been made available. (Note that Bullock's minutes of the afternoon meeting at the grove that same day are apparently available in the General Minutes Collection, as Van Wagoner cites them on the next page.)

What do you suppose it could be? I'm sure it must be something that would simply rewrite Mormon history!

Maybe Brigham Young positioned "plants" in the audience to heckle Sidney Rigdon as he spoke? Or maybe Brigham was seen making rabbit ears with his fingers behind Rigdon's head? (That would be funny!)

Again, I'm pretty certain it is published in Opening. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have the book right in front of me.

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, I'm pretty certain it is published in Opening. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have the book right in front of me.

I do have a copy of the book in front of me. Can you give me any clue as to where to look?

[Scott Lloyd]

Free Agent:

No fair changing the rules. This is an example of the Church not allowing something to be seen. It obviously wasn't too sacred as 5,000 people were in attendance, nor was it confidential. And just because it seems obscure to you, it is still, no less, an example.

The point is, we don't know why the Church has not made these minutes public, whether it is to suppress history or for some other reason. Can you prove that suppression of history is the reason?

By the way, when your posts show up in the boldface font that you used in this one, I am unable to use the reply function. This makes it rather inconvenient to reply.

[Free Agent]

The point is, we don't know why the Church has not made these minutes public, whether it is to suppress history or for some other reason. Can you prove that suppression of history is the reason?

Can you prove it isn't? I don't mean that to be snide, btw.

[Scott Lloyd]

I do have a copy of the book in front of me. Can you give me any clue as to where to look?

Ah, I found it!

Beginning on page 479 is an appendix entitled, "Minutes of Brigham Young's Remarks at the Morning Meeting, August 8, 1844"

The introduction reads as follows:

Skeptics have implied that Tomas Bullock's curious shorthand minutes from the meeting of August 8, 1844 have not been transcribed and made available to historians or general researchers because this text has material that would prove embarrassing to mantle advocates. The following minutes were transcribed in August 1997 at the request of BYU Studies editors and were provided by Church Archives.

There follows a literal transcription of Bullock's shorthand and an edited transcription.

Well done, LOAP!

Alf, looks like you will have to withdraw your example.

[Scott Lloyd]

Free Agent:

Can you prove it isn't? I don't mean that to be snide, btw.

As it turns out, I can. Please see my post just before this one.

By the way, I'm still having trouble using the "Reply" function with your posts.

[Pahoran]

The point is, we don't know why the Church has not made these minutes public, whether it is to suppress history or for some other reason. Can you prove that suppression of history is the reason?

Can you prove it isn't? I don't mean that to be snide, btw.

Actually he has proven it; but more importantly he doesn't have to.

It is only in inquisitions and witch hunts that accusations need to be disproved by the accused. For all other purposes, accusactions need to be proved by the accuser.

Those who have accused the Church of "suppressing" its history stand convicted as false accusers.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

I do have a copy of the book in front of me. Can you give me any clue as to where to look?

Sorry, I got distracted by the trolls.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, I got distracted by the trolls.

No worries. It didn't take me long to find it.

Is it providential or what that the book was sitting less than eight inches from my computer screen at the moment you referenced it?

[LifeOnaPlate]

No worries. It didn't take me long to find it.

Is it providential or what that the book was sitting less than eight inches from my computer screen at the moment you referenced it?

I guess. It's a good book, imo. DCP recommended it, I requested it for my birthday.

[Scott Lloyd]

So, now that we've so summarily dispatched Alf Omega's ill-fated attempt, anyone else care to come forth with an instance of the Church suppressing its history?

I guess. It's a good book, imo. DCP recommended it, I requested it for my birthday.

As it happens, it was at DCP's recommendation that I bought the book as well. The coincidences are mounting.

[LifeOnaPlate]

So, now that we've so summarily dispatched Alf Omega's ill-fated attempt, anyone else care to come forth with an instance of the Church suppressing its history?

As it happens, it was at DCP's recommendation that I bought the book as well. The coincidences are mounting.

Mine was used, but you couldn't tell other than an address sticker in the back of the book.

I mentioned the not-all-the-way-open-archives. And the financial disclosure. 2 examples of withheld info.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Speaking of address things in books, I remember Hoffman made some sort of stamp or something with a little poem that identified a book "if ye borrow this book," or something like that. Does anyone know more about little owner-identifying poems like that?

[Scott Lloyd]

Mine was used, but you couldn't tell other than an address sticker in the back of the book.

I mentioned the not-all-the-way-open-archives. And the financial disclosure. 2 examples of withheld info.

But not of suppressed history.

[mms]

Has anyone mentioned to those that may not have been around very long (not that I have been around very long, and likely to not be around very long at all) that this topic has been discussed on a regular basis around here?

In fact, as each new long-time member decides to join this board because of his/her surprise and concern at what he/she has recently learned by reading RSR or on the internet, etc. (which seems to be quite often), the topic seems to come up and it is always quite popular. So, if you have the time and the appetite for it, do some searching and you will have days of reading to do on this very topic.

Of course, as several have said before, we can blame all day long (with most of the blame going to the currently struggling member at this particular site), but that does not change the obvious -- person after person will feel blindsided and distrustful as a result of learning about polyandry, post-manifesto polygamy, Book of Abraham, etc. That may only be proof that the Church has a lot of stupid lazy people that need to be weeded out. I tend to think it proof of something entirely different.

[Free Agent]

Free Agent:

As it turns out, I can. Please see my post just before this one.

I see that. And I'm glad you found it. It sounds interesting. What would your thinking be on why the other minutes were transcribed and this wasn't? Could it be possible that when critics found that this portion hadn't been transcribed it prompted the Church to do so? Just a thought!

I'm sorry you can't reply to my posts. Maybe its somethng I'm doing on my end. Sorry.

[RDL]

The challenge was to substantiate the charge that Church suppresses aspects of its history. I don't think this qualifies. There are reasons why the Church might decline to make public the minutes of its high-level meetings other than a desire to suppress historical facts and events. Material that is considered too sacred for public view (such as temple ceremony content) might be withheld, for example. As would confidential discussion pertaining to the character of an individual pursuant to, say, a disciplinary proceeding.

In any event, this example is pretty obscure. The impression I get from critics here on the board is that "suppression" is the order of the day for the Church when it comes to its history. I just don't see any evidence of that.

Incidentally, I'm getting a flash of deja vu here, Alf. It seems you and I have discussed this subject before.

By the way, Alf, I wish you would correct my typos when you quote my posts.

This cracked me up. So the church doesn't suppress its history, unless there's a good reason for it, in which case it's not really "suppression." And I do recognize that this alleged "suppression" was disproven, but that's not what makes the above post so enjoyable to read.

As a practical matter, it's impossible to know that the church does not suppress aspects of its history. How can anybody know something is being repressed if in fact it's being suppressed?

And I don't see how anybody who knows of the Joseph Smith Project can argue the church doesn't suppress aspects of its history. At best, you could say it has suppressed aspects of its history, but it has decided not to any longer.

But you can't even go that far. Here's Dallin H. Oaks, explaining why the Church does suppress aspects of its history, in a speech related to Mark Hoffman.

Are documents ever acquired by the Church and then closed to the public? Of course. This is true of most large archives, as any well-informed person should be aware. Like other archives, the Church Historical Department closes or restricts access to certain documentary materials it acquires from outside sources for such reasons as the following:

1. The donor has directed that access be restricted or prohibited for a certain period.

2. The contents are confidential. When materials are written or statements are made with the understanding that the communication will not be available to the public for a certain period of time, the Church Historical Department respects that understanding.

3. The contents are private. The laws and ethics of privacy forbid custodians from revealing information that may invade the privacy of living individuals. Examples would include diaries or minutes that discuss the private affairs of living persons. In addition, our belief in life after death causes us to extend this principle to respect the privacy of persons who have left mortality but live beyond the veil. Descendants who expect future reunions with deceased ancestors have a continuing interest in their ancestorsâ?? privacy and good name.

These same considerations apply to official Church documents, such as the minutes of confidential meetings and Church courts.

I suspect the apologetic defense is that "aspects of history" are not being suppressed, but merely documents, and a document isn't an "aspect of history." Is everybody with me?

[Scott Lloyd]

Free Agent:

I see that. And I'm glad you found it. It sounds interesting. What would your thinking be on why the other minutes were transcribed and this wasn't? Could it be possible that when critics found that this portion hadn't been transcribed it prompted the Church to do so? Just a thought!

Can't imagine why. Reading through both the literal and edited transcriptions, I see nothing startling, nothing that contradicts the conventional view of this event. The record is replete with sentence fragments, incomplete thoughts, missing words and punctuation -- what one might expect from a scribe taking down the words of a speaker and struggling to keep up with him. But there's no damning evidence here.

Maybe the archivists just hadn't gotten around to it. I know there was a problem in the department for a while with tons of material that hadn't even been cataloged.

I'm sorry you can't reply to my posts. Maybe its somethng I'm doing on my end. Sorry.

I'm doing a workaround by starting a new post each time and copying your comments into it.

[Paul Ray]

I suspect the apologetic defense is that "aspects of history" are not being suppressed, but merely documents, and a document isn't an "aspect of history." Is everybody with me?

Yes, I'm with you on that.

An aspect of history is not a document.

An aspect of history would be something that actually happened in the past.

At best, a document can only let us know what actually happened.

... but the document, itself, isn't an aspect of history.

History is a matter of time, and that time is in the past.

[Teancum]

Hey all

About 7 pages ago I posted what I thought was a reasonable and balanced post. Nobody commented. So I thought I would try again. Maybe I my thoughts are just boring. But I am interested in some feed back so here it is again:

This has been an interesting thread. Both sides I think have made some very compelling arguments for their positions and some not so good.

It is a tough issue. Let me add a few more thoughts.

Certainly the primary goal of the LDS Church and its leaders is to spread what they believe to be saving truths. As part of this mission they clearly have a goal to foster faith and build testimony. I agree that they cannot be totally neutral in this pursuit. Nor should they be.

On the other hand, it seems a bit silly to me to compare the promulgation of the LDS gospel to selling a Ford or a particular political party line. The LDS Church requires a high level of time, resources and devotion. For a child born into the LDS Church they are going to be indoctrinated from the start in the plain and faith promoting portions of the gospel. Boys will be strongly influenced to serve a mission and devote two years of their lives. That often serves as the platform for a future life of devotion and service.

Investigators are a whole difference ball game.

So the question becomes when should a person who is raised LDS be given at least some information about difficult issues that most certainly could persuade them not to serve a mission or devote their life to the LDS cause? And how about an investigator? What information should they have before they commit to becoming LDS?

It seems that some here a in a way admitting that teaching difficult issues at a too early an age will be a bad thing and will not foster faith. But this seem to be almost an admission that the problematic issues are really problematic and will destroy faith. If that is the case then it seems to speak poorly for the LDS Church trugh claims.

And whose job is it to provide this information? I can readily agree that that the more difficult issues are not suppressed and especially given the internet almost anyone can go find out more details than the LDS Church had given. So how and when do these things get examined? And is it reasonable to assume that most 15-19 year olds are going to pursue these issues on their own before they make major life decisions? And is it really their fault if all they get from the Church is faith promoting information and they do not f go read Fawn Brodie, Mormon Enigma, Todd Compton or various BYU studies on whatever issue you want to suggest before they turn 20? This seems almost nonsensical to say yes to.

For my part I have no easy answers. I like the idea of a level C and maybe thing later in High School seminary or an institute class such curriculum could be offered. I think healthy approaches like Bushman's book or other like minded histories could be used and faith and testimony could still be fostered. I could be wrong but I think over time more will become disaffected and angry if some sort of solution like this is not found.

It seems the Church is struggling with this even now. We read this from Elder Oaks from the recent PBS documentary:

"Itâ??s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. Thatâ??s an old problem in Mormonism â?? a feeling of members that they shouldnâ??t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they shouldâ??ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life.

There are several different elements of that. One element is that weâ??re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesnâ??t deal with anything thatâ??s unfavorable, and weâ??re coming into a period of â??warts and allâ? kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things â?? there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.

On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You donâ??t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didnâ??t exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and thatâ??s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members havenâ??t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives â??Brother Jonesâ? his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. Itâ??s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that weâ??re moving with the times, weâ??re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldnâ??t."

I like this. I like what he says. I am happy he acknowledges that this is an issue. Also is Elder Oaks frankly admitting that the Church has purposely avoided that warts in times past? Is that a form of suppression? Or is it more taking a buyer beware attitude?

thanks

[Scott Lloyd]

This cracked me up. So the church doesn't suppress its history, unless there's a good reason for it, in which case it's not really "suppression." And I do recognize that this alleged "suppression" was disproven, but that's not what makes the above post so enjoyable to read.

As a practical matter, it's impossible to know that the church does not suppress aspects of its history. How can anybody know something is being repressed if in fact it's being suppressed?

As Pahoran pointed out, except for inquisitions and witch hunts, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Otherwise, the accusation dies from its own lack of substance.

And I don't see how anybody who knows of the Joseph Smith Project can argue the church doesn't suppress aspects of its history. At best, you could say it has suppressed aspects of its history, but it has decided not to any longer.

You're missing the point. The Joseph Smith Papers Project is making widely available materials that were already accessible but not without a visit to Church archives.

Eidted because I was confusing RDL with mms.

[Scott Lloyd]

I suspect the apologetic defense is that "aspects of history" are not being suppressed, but merely documents, and a document isn't an "aspect of history." Is everybody with me?

And that's a very cogent defense; thank you for supplying it. And it is precisely why Elder Oaks's comments don't constitute evidence that the Church suppresses history.

Incidentally, a document is not necessarily accurate or credible just because it is old and just because it is original. A primary source can be false just as easily as it can be true.

[LifeOnaPlate]

FWIW

â??Coming to Terms with Mormon Historyâ??An Interview with Leonard Arringtonâ?

Dialogue Vol. 22, Number 4, Winter, 1989, pp. 39-54

[pg. 53]

Dialogue: What do you think is the biggest difficulty facing Mormon historians in the 1980s and 1990s?

Arrington: The biggest difficulty is gaining unrestricted access to the wealth of material in the Church Archives. While I was in the Church Historianâ??s Office (1972-82), we were able to make nearly everything available to scholars, both Mormon and non-Mormon, and that policy had a very positive influence on the image of the Church and its history. The atmosphere was one of openness and trust.

That policy has been abandoned. Permitting scholars to use materials only on a selective and restrictive basis gives the impression that the Church is hiding something. As one who had access to everything for years, I can say this policy represents excessive caution. Virtually everything in the Archives is positive and faith promoting. Denying access only keeps Church members and historians from reading uplifting, faith-promoting materials.

Dialogue: You found very little that would be embarrassing?

Arrington: Very little, and embarrassing only if itâ??s taken out of context. Some day, I trust, Church officials will come to understand that.

[Pahoran]

This cracked me up. So the church doesn't suppress its history, unless there's a good reason for it, in which case it's not really "suppression." And I do recognize that this alleged "suppression" was disproven, but that's not what makes the above post so enjoyable to read.

No, but it does make your attempt to salvage something from the wreckage something of a hoot.

As a practical matter, it's impossible to know that the church does not suppress aspects of its history. How can anybody know something is being repressed if in fact it's being suppressed?

Hence the problem of proving a negative.

And I don't see how anybody who knows of the Joseph Smith Project can argue the church doesn't suppress aspects of its history. At best, you could say it has suppressed aspects of its history, but it has decided not to any longer.

There seems to be a very great deal you don't see, RDL. Actually the JSPP stands as rather strong evidence against your baseless, prejudice-driven accusation.

Unless, as I have suspected all along, "suppress" is an anti-Mormon codeword for "does not work as hard as we demand to publish stuff that we will be far too lazy to read anyway."

But you can't even go that far. Here's Dallin H. Oaks, explaining why the Church does suppress aspects of its history, in a speech related to Mark Hoffman.

I suspect the apologetic defense is that "aspects of history" are not being suppressed, but merely documents, and a document isn't an "aspect of history." Is everybody with me?

Actually we left you far behind.

The Oaks talk, for anyone who can read English, says nothing at all about "why the Church does suppress aspects of its history." You have indulged in the rather dishonest lawyerly trick of telling the jury what the evidence means and hoping that they will take your word for it instead of examining it for themselves.

All he is saying is that, just like every other large archive that exists anywhere, the Church has documents that are unavailable for casual public scrutiny. Perhaps you have an alternative private definition of "suppress" that means "protecting private, unique or fragile documents." If so, the honest thing to do would be to tell us.

Regards,

Pahoran