Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Paul Ray]

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.

To me that appears to be obvious as a given, but I think it's still worth pointing out for consideration.

Sometimes people seem to base their opinion on Joseph Smith by what people in the past said about him as if all people in the past would have shared nothing but the truth about him.

The truth I know concerning Joseph Smith comes from what God has told me, personally, while reading everything I have read about Joseph.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Arrington's comments are very outdated. Things changed dramatically after Richard Turley Jr. came on board as managing director of the Church Historical Department (now the Family and Church History Department) back in 1986. If anything, there's even greater openness today with Elder Marlin K. Jensen as Church Historian/Recorder.

I have some acquaintance with this, as I have covered the Historical Department for the past couple of decades.

The impression I get is that part of the reason for the restrictiveness just after Arrington departed is that the department had not been very well managed during his tenure in terms of cataloging and protection of valuable documents.

As Pahoran has pointed out, departmental policies today are in line with archival standards in the profession.

[jerryp48]

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.

Does he give a reason why the policy was abandoned? Was in the interest of protecting the documents themselves?

[Scott Lloyd]

To me that appears to be obvious as a given, but I think it's still worth pointing out for consideration.

Sometimes people seem to base their opinion on Joseph Smith by what people in the past said about him as if all people in the past would have shared nothing but the truth about him.

The truth I know concerning Joseph Smith comes from what God has told me, personally, while reading everything I have read about Joseph.

A very clear illustration of this is the affidavits collected by Philastus Hurlbut from residents of the Palmyra, N.Y., area many years after the Smith family had departed. The documents are scurrilous. Some of them were quite obviously written by Hurlbut himself for the signatures of people he contacted.

[Paul Ray]

A very clear illustration of this is the affidavits collected by Philastus Hurlbut from residents of the Palmyra, N.Y., area many years after the Smith family had departed. The documents are scurrilous. Some of them were quite obviously written by Hurlbut himself for the signatures of people he contacted.

Yes, and just as Philastus had something to say about Joseph, Joseph also had something to say about Philastus, leaving a person to wonder who they should trust and believe considering how they appeared to be on different sides of the fence.

To make that kind of determination, for myself, I asked God to help me, and what I know about that is what God had to tell me.

Putting our trust in books makes no sense at all, no matter who wrote them. I wouldn't even trust what I now refer to as scripture unless God personally assured me he inspired people to do the writing.

We simply need to ask and trust God to guide us, and he will.

[Free Agent]

I wanted to reply to Teancum's thoughts because I think he makes very many good points, most especially admitting he doesn't have the answers but does like the idea of a "C" type curriculum. I hope that we see more of that kind of thought in the Church and I believe that with Elder Oaks acknowledging it is an issue in his interview that perhaps it will be more accessible to the general membership. And by accessible, I mean letting the members know that there is something to access if they choose to.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Good grief.

You know what? I suspect that RDL would, by this same logic, also accuse the RCC of suppressing massive amounts of information over time because of the size of their archives, and the fact that they simply haven't had the time and resources to catalog and publish it all.

I suppose that according to RDL, the primary purpose of the Church (if it had wanted to avoid accusations of fraud, set by RDL's standards) should really have been to publish and catalog absolutely everything it had. This should have been its primary purpose - before preaching the gospel, before temple work, before dealing with persecutions, and a host of other things that RDL evidently considers to be of secondary importance.

Because we all know how important it is to spoon feed our members, in order not to be fraudulent.

[Paul Ray]

I wanted to reply to Teancum's thoughts because I think he makes very many good points, most especially admitting he doesn't have the answers but does like the idea of a "C" type curriculum. I hope that we see more of that kind of thought in the Church and I believe that with Elder Oaks acknowledging it is an issue in his interview that perhaps it will be more accessible to the general membership. And by accessible, I mean letting the members know that there is something to access if they choose to.

"C" type curriculum?

I think it is either a pass/fail system... which I see as being much more liberal, IMO.

[RDL]

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

So documents "that are unavailable for casual public scrutiny" are not "suppressed," and "protecting private, unique or fragile documents" does not amount to "suppressing."

I can't take this anymore. Good luck, everybody.

[jerryp48]

So documents "that are unavailable for casual public scrutiny" are not "suppressed," and "protecting private, unique or fragile documents" does not amount to "suppressing."

I assume this is a statement due to a lack of a question mark. I agree with the statement.

[jwhitlock]

So documents "that are unavailable for casual public scrutiny" are not "suppressed," and "protecting private, unique or fragile documents" does not amount to "suppressing."

I can't take this anymore. Good luck, everybody.

You're leaving??

I was in the middle of making a new "Best Reasons for Rationalizing the Church as Not True" list and you were providing so much good material!

[Free Agent]

"C" type curriculum?

I think it is either a pass/fail system... which I see as being much more liberal, IMO.

Are you not familiar with the "C" type curriculum term? We referred to it earlier in this thread. I can find the specific area if you want, or I'll try. Pass/fail implies you have to believe everything, or not at all, at least I think that's what you are trying to imply.

[Scott Lloyd]

I assume this is a statement due to a lack of a question mark. I agree with the statement.

As do I.

Can it be that RDL is starting to be sensible?

Nah.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Arrington's comments are very outdated. Things changed dramatically after Richard Turley Jr. came on board as managing director of the Church Historical Department (now the Family and Church History Department) back in 1986. If anything, there's even greater openness today with Elder Marlin K. Jensen as Church Historian/Recorder.

I have some acquaintance with this, as I have covered the Historical Department for the past couple of decades.

The impression I get is that part of the reason for the restrictiveness just after Arrington departed is that the department had not been very well managed during his tenure in terms of cataloging and protection of valuable documents.

As Pahoran has pointed out, departmental policies today are in line with archival standards in the profession.

Indeed. But where is the interview discussing archival policies with Turley, etc.? That would be excellent. Alas, back to my reading of people in the past who spoke more about these particular things.

[Calm]

Indeed. But where is the interview discussing archival policies with Turley, etc.? That would be excellent. Alas, back to my reading of people in the past who spoke more about these particular things.

You remember this talk, don't you?: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...ves_Closed.html

[LifeOnaPlate]

You remember this talk, don't you?: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...ves_Closed.html

Wasn't that on day 1? Thanks for the reminder.

(I want to hear Turley's take. I'd love to ask him a few quick q's indeed!)

[jwhitlock]

Wasn't that on day 1? Thanks for the reminder.

(I want to hear Turley's take. I'd love to ask him a few quick q's indeed!)

Speaking of suppressing truth, what kind of transcripts are we ever going to be able to get for the conference last year, outside of the four that are listed on the FAIR site?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Speaking of suppressing truth, what kind of transcripts are we ever going to be able to get for the conference last year, outside of the four that are listed on the FAIR site?

No joke. Boo-urns to that.

[Tchild2]

Boy that was sure a long thread. I feel like I know you all so much better from our converstions. Now that we are of the agreement that not all truths are equally useful for everything, how about we get down to some investing? I offer a guaranteed 20% annualized return and can do so with as little as $100,000 from each of you.

I have a few things in my past, but I am confident that they are not material in any way for you to not completely trust me and my investment claims. Life, Jwhitlock, Mnn are you guys ready to get those bank drafts ready for me?

[mnn727]

Boy that was sure a long thread. I feel like I know you all so much better from our converstions. Now that we are of the agreement that not all truths are equally useful for everything, how about we get down to some investing? I offer a guaranteed 20% annualized return and can do so with as little as $100,000 from each of you.

I have a few things in my past, but I am confident that they are not material in any way for you to not completely trust me and my investment claims. Life, Jwhitlock, Mnn are you guys ready to get those bank drafts ready for me?

Actually, you should be asking those incapable of doing honest research; RDL sounds like a prime candidate for your 'investments'

[Paul Ray]

Are you not familiar with the "C" type curriculum term? We referred to it earlier in this thread. I can find the specific area if you want, or I'll try. Pass/fail implies you have to believe everything, or not at all, at least I think that's what you are trying to imply.

Yes, I'm not familiar with the term "C type curriculum, if it's not referring to the idea of getting a C grade to pass the big test in this world. If that's not what you folks are referring to I must have misunderstood what was said earlier, perhaps because I might have missed a post or two.

The pass/fail system I had in mind refers to the idea of either accepting or rejecting the main gospel truths that are presnted to us that we have searched to find, not the idea that we must learn every truth before we can receive Celestial glory. I believe all of us who receive Celestial glory after our judgement will still have many gospel truths to learn from that point.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Boy that was sure a long thread. I feel like I know you all so much better from our converstions. Now that we are of the agreement that not all truths are equally useful for everything, how about we get down to some investing? I offer a guaranteed 20% annualized return and can do so with as little as $100,000 from each of you.

I have a few things in my past, but I am confident that they are not material in any way for you to not completely trust me and my investment claims. Life, Jwhitlock, Mnn are you guys ready to get those bank drafts ready for me?

I've been wisely counseled by my religious leaders to avoid shady business deals.

[Free Agent]

Yes, I'm not familiar with the term "C type curriculum, if it's not referring to the idea of getting a C grade to pass the big test in this world. If that's not what you folks are referring to I must have misunderstood what was said earlier, perhaps because I might have missed a post or two.

The pass/fail system I had in mind refers to the idea of either accepting or rejecting the main gospel truths that are presnted to us that we have searched to find, not the idea that we must learn every truth before we can receive Celestial glory. I believe all of us who receive Celestial glory after our judgement will still have many gospel truths to learn from that point.

Just so you know, "C" refers to a curriculum that includes the issues we've talked about. "A" is more of what we have currently in the Church. "B" would be anti material. "C" would be what we have now with more included. It would go along with the belief that if we get some of these things out there earlier, hence innoculating people, then there isn't big shock down the road, if and when someone learns these things.

I certainly don't want to get this thread going again, although it was really thought provoking and interesting. I just hope we all can enjoy the common ground we do share. Best to all.

[Calm]

No joke. Boo-urns to that.

Twits. It's a volunteer organization. If you want transcripts, feel free to volunteer to help out with the transcribing.

[Scott Lloyd]

Indeed. But where is the interview discussing archival policies with Turley, etc.? That would be excellent. Alas, back to my reading of people in the past who spoke more about these particular things.

LOAP, my friend, did I not mention I have covered the department for the past couple of decades?

Here is my Church News piece of Jan. 12, 2002:

http://dn.desnews.com/cgi-bin/cqcgi/@archi...Q_TEXT_MAIN=YES

For now, you can't access our archives without a hard-copy subscription. So here is a relevant excerpt.

With its vast holdings, the department does not make everything available, and occasionally encounters criticism for the restrictions it does have. Yet the ethical considerations of privacy and confidentiality that govern department policies are in line with standards that are described in professional archival literature, Brother Turley said.

He described such considerations in volume 1 of The Journals of George Q. Cannon. These apply to "matters that are sacred, private or confidential. Matters of great sacredness deserve reverence. Divulging some kinds of information may violate principles of privacy, and persons who confess to religious leaders or communicate other information in a confidential setting expect that leaders will maintain their confidences."

I will mention that Steven Olsen's FAIR Conference presentation last year was superb and is consistent with what I've been told by Turley and others. (See calmoriah's link in an earlier post.)

Addendum: Here's another relevant Turley snippet I found in re-reading my 2002 article:

"It would be difficult for me to find a comparable private institution in terms of size that provides as much information about itself to the public," Brother Turley said.