Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[selek]

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

No name calling, Cal. Don't make me go Juliann on you, now.

(Hmmmm......wonder is that's where they got the name for Julienne fries?)

How do I sign up and what needs I do?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

So may I conclude, then, that nobody has a valid example to proffer of the Church suppressing its history?

If not, that's OK. Just want to be clear.

By the way, Free Agent, I had no trouble using the "Reply" function on your post that time. Whatever it is you did, please keep doing it.

[jwhitlock]

So may I conclude, then, that nobody has a valid example to proffer of the Church suppressing its history?

If not, that's OK. Just want to be clear.

Silence is golden.

[Calm]

No name calling, Cal. Don't make me go Juliann on you, now.

(Hmmmm......wonder is that's where they got the name for Julienne fries?)

How do I sign up and what needs I do?

Just write the people at FAIR and offer your help. If you just want to do the transcripts, they will probably connect you with the person in charge of those, can't remember who that is at the moment. They also have several other projects you might like helping with.

[jwhitlock]

No name calling, Cal. Don't make me go Juliann on you, now.

(Hmmmm......wonder is that's where they got the name for Julienne fries?)

How do I sign up and what needs I do?

I just went over to the FAIR site and sent Allen Wyatt a note (see the link "contact FAIR") volunteering for it.

[Paul Ray]

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.

I don't particularly want to get this thread going again either, or at least not the way we have been handling it, but I would like to make sure I understand what the A, B, and C refer to.

If I understand you correctly,

An A curriculum is more like what we now have in the Church

A B curriculum would be (totally?) anti-material, and

A C curriculum would includes the issues we've talked about, with more of what we have talked about included

Is that right?

If so, is B supposedly worse than A, and C supposedly worse than B?

If so, are you saying what we have been talking about is not anti material?

What exactly are you referring to when you say "what we have been talking about" ?

Are you referring to the idea some people have brought up concerning how they think we (the Church) have been suppressing information, or are you talking about the general idea of some truths being more important and/or more relevant than other truths?

I think some of what we have been talking about is actually anti material, just like any other anti material a person will find if they look for it.

I agree with the idea that it would help if we try "innoculate people", in a sense, but to innoculate people I would rather simply talk about what is true and/or how to find out what is true without going down the same road we have been going down in this thread.

And btw, one tactic used o suppress information is to cause diversions, and one of the diversions in this thread has been the idea that the Church suppresses information, which has kept some of our attention off of talking about some truths which are are more important than other truths.

It's been fairly interesting to watch, but I think we have much better things to talk about.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't particularly want to get this thread going again either, or at least not the way we have been handling it, but I would like to make sure I understand what the A, B, and C refer to.

If I understand you correctly,

An A curriculum is more like what we now have in the Church

A B curriculum would be (totally?) anti-material, and

A C curriculum would includes the issues we've talked about, with more of what we have talked about included

Is that right?

If so, is B supposedly worse than A, and C supposedly worse than B?

If so, are you saying what we have been talking about is not anti material?

What exactly are you referring to when you say "what we have been talking about" ?

Are you referring to the idea some people have brought up concerning how they think we (the Church) have been suppressing information, or are you talking about the general idea of some truths being more important and/or more relevant than other truths?

I think some of what we have been talking about is actually anti material, just like any other anti material a person will find if they look for it.

I agree with the idea that it would help if we try "innoculate people", in a sense, but to innoculate people I would rather simply talk about what is true and/or how to find out what is true without going down the same road we have been going down in this thread.

And btw, one tactic used o suppress information is to cause diversions, and one of the diversions in this thread has been the idea that the Church suppresses information, which has kept some of our attention off of talking about some truths which are are more important than other truths.

It's been fairly interesting to watch, but I think we have much better things to talk about.

"Curriculum" is not a very good way of saying it. The A-B-C model pertains to varying levels of understanding people have pertaining to the Church and its history. I suggest you go back and find Daniel Peterson's posts (there were a couple of them). He explained it very well.

And by the way, I disagree that we have handled this thread badly. Establishing the fact that nobody here can really pin down a valid instance of Church suppression of its history has been productive, I'd say.

[Paul Ray]

"Curriculum" is not a very good way of saying it. The A-B-C model pertains to varying levels of understanding people have pertaining to the Church and its history. I suggest you go back and find Daniel Peterson's posts (there were a couple of them). He explained it very well.

Can you give me a hint about where to look for that... like how many pages back, or something?

I'm really not that interested in reading through every page in this thread, again, and I don't really know where he mentioned it. I only caught a little bit from someone else who wasn't Daniel.

And by the way, I disagree that we have handled this thread badly. Establishing the fact that nobody here can really pin down a valid instance of Church suppression of its history has been productive, I'd say.

I agree that there are a lot of valuable thoughts in this thread. I was just referring to all the posts about the idea that the Church suppresses information, when instead we could have been talking about some of the truths which are more important than some other truths. That was a big diversion, IMO, and although we managed to get some good thoughts into those posts, I would rather have seen us talk about some of the more important truths we do have.

... you know, like some people seem to like to point out that a glass appears to be half empty, while I would rather think it is half full and how much I am enjoying it.

... which reminds me... Waiter! Can I get a refill please? It's still half full, but I want some more.

[Free Agent]

So may I conclude, then, that nobody has a valid example to proffer of the Church suppressing its history?

If not, that's OK. Just want to be clear.

By the way, Free Agent, I had no trouble using the "Reply" function on your post that time. Whatever it is you did, please keep doing it.

I'm too exhausted to provide examples and get battered up. I'm in charge of the RS Birthday Party Enrichment tonight so I need to focus. Let's just say for sake of keeping the peace that the word suppression means different things to different folks.

[Tchild2]

QUOTE(Scott Lloyd @ Mar 27 2008, 03:14 PM)

So may I conclude, then, that nobody has a valid example to proffer of the Church suppressing its history?

If not, that's OK. Just want to be clear.

Silence is golden.

The disappearing plates and Nephite artifacts are "proof" that Joseph Smith suppressed history. Of course, if you can get God to own up and admit that he hid the plates and not Joseph Smith then I will have to retract my words. Till that time, we will just have to assume Joseph Smith hid them and not God for lack of any proof.

Tongue in cheek, not meant as a serious reply.

[Scott Lloyd]

QUOTE(Scott Lloyd @ Mar 27 2008, 03:14 PM)

Tongue in cheek, not meant as a serious reply.

Thank God for that!

[Free Agent]

Can you give me a hint about where to look for that... like how many pages back, or something?

Post #84 has a pretty good definition of it.

I agree that there are a lot of valuable thoughts in this thread. I was just referring to all the posts about the idea that the Church suppresses information, when instead we could have been talking about some of the truths which are more important than some other truths. That was a big diversion, IMO, and although we managed to get some good thoughts into those posts, I would rather have seen us talk about some of the more important truths we do have.

I think we ended up getting sidetracked because important truths is hard to define. One truth to one member may be less important to someone else, depending upon each individual's perspective, experiences, etc.

Sorry to bold it. Sometimes my quote function doesn't put things in quotes.

[Alf O'Mega]

I am delighted to withdraw the Thomas Bullock example. I have long said that I see encouraging signs of increased openness from the Church archives, and this is a heartening example. I am also very impressed with the ongoing Joseph Smith Papers project. Perhaps someday a sponsor for a Brigham Young Papers project can be found.

So where does the argument for suppression stand? It appears that the best examples are to be found in the past. I am hopeful that the reversals in openness in the early to mid-eighties and again in the early nineties are aberrations in a longer trend toward more professional management of the priceless historical resources under the Church's stewardship.

Does anybody know where we stand on items like the John Nuttall diaries for 1885 to 1887, the John Taylor diaries, the First Presidency's Office Journal, the minutes of the Council of Fifty, or the William Clayton journals?

Also, it appears that the Church is being more careful about future leaks from private journals of general authorities. A relative of a newly called seventy told me that he (the GA) was required to sign an agreement to assign all his personal journals and papers to the Church upon his death. So scholars of twenty-first century Mormonism will have to rely on the Church's generosity for any firsthand materials from general authorities.

[jwhitlock]

I'm too exhausted to provide examples and get battered up. I'm in charge of the RS Birthday Party Enrichment tonight so I need to focus. Let's just say for sake of keeping the peace that the word suppression means different things to different folks.

In normal discussion, it's most useful to stick to standard definitions of words.

In the case of "suppression", if someone says the Church suppresses information, that's going to be an inappropriate (and false) use of the word - according to the standard definitions.

You can decide for yourself that a word means anything you want it to mean; however, you're probably not going to have any kind of useful discussion with others on those terms.

[Scott Lloyd]

Let's just say for sake of keeping the peace that the word suppression means different things to different folks.

As already shown here, suppress has a very specific dictionary definition as pertaining to the topic at hand. For the sake of keeping peace, one ought not use pejorative terms where they do not apply.

[selek]

I am delighted to withdraw the Thomas Bullock example. I have long said that I see encouraging signs of increased openness from the Church archives, and this is a heartening example. I am also very impressed with the ongoing Joseph Smith Papers project. Perhaps someday a sponsor for a Brigham Young Papers project can be found.

I, too, would be delighted by such a prospect.

So where does the argument for suppression stand? It appears that the best examples are to be found in the past.

Except that no one has provided a single concrete example that any such "suppression" occured. You are engagin in a rhetorical trick- your example was defeated and so you declare victory.

I am hopeful that the reversals in openness in the early to mid-eighties and again in the early nineties are aberrations in a longer trend toward more professional management of the priceless historical resources under the Church's stewardship.

Except that no one has demonstrated such reversals actually exist. The restrictions on access were because of procedural changes and correcting lapses in proper archival procedures- and no one has demonstrated otherwise. Unfortunately, rabid emoting, loaded innuendo, and sour grapes whining are not proof.

Does anybody know where we stand on items like the John Nuttall diaries for 1885 to 1887, the John Taylor diaries, the First Presidency's Office Journal, the minutes of the Council of Fifty, or the William Clayton journals?

No idea.

Also, it appears that the Church is being more careful about future leaks from private journals of general authorities. A relative of a newly called seventy told me that he (the GA) was required to sign an agreement to assign all his personal journals and papers to the Church upon his death. So scholars of twenty-first century Mormonism will have to rely on the Church's generosity for any firsthand materials from general authorities.

So you heard it from a friend-of-a-friend-who-said-that-he-was-told a GA was required to sign a confidentiality agreement?

Wow! That's an iron-clad condemnation of Mormon historical practices if ever there was one! Break out the tar and feathers, boys! The spirit of Missouri rides again!

[Scott Lloyd]

I am delighted to withdraw the Thomas Bullock example. I have long said that I see encouraging signs of increased openness from the Church archives, and this is a heartening example.

The question was whether the Church suppresses its history. For whatever reason the Thomas Bullock minutes of the meeting were not made available to the author of the article you cited, it is now clear from a reading of those minutes that it could not have been due to historical sensitivity, as those minutes contain nothing that might be viewed as historically embarrassing to the Church.

I am also very impressed with the ongoing Joseph Smith Papers project. Perhaps someday a sponsor for a Brigham Young Papers project can be found.

Hope springs eternal. I think it bears repeating, though, that the papers were accessible before the project was undertaken, just not in compiled, published form.

So where does the argument for suppression stand? It appears that the best examples are to be found in the past

.

Yet no one here has cited such an example. I wonder why that is.

I am hopeful that the reversals in openness in the early to mid-eighties and again in the early nineties are aberrations in a longer trend toward more professional management of the priceless historical resources under the Church's stewardship.

Again, my impression is that the archives were in some degree of disarray under Arrington's administration. (A gifted historian, apparently he was not as good an administrator.) Just my guess, but it probably took a year or two to get things on an even footing, before Turley was brought on as managing director. And it is my impression that openness has prevailed since Turley's tenure began. (Incidentally, his status has now been elevated to Assistant Church Historian under Elder Jensen.)

Does anybody know where we stand on items like the John Nuttall diaries for 1885 to 1887, the John Taylor diaries, the First Presidency's Office Journal, the minutes of the Council of Fifty, or the William Clayton journals?

I don't. Do you have a reason for bringing them up?The standards of sacredness, privacy and confidentiality have been mentioned here more than once. Do you think something else comes to bear with these items?

Also, it appears that the Church is being more careful about future leaks from private journals of general authorities. A relative of a newly called seventy told me that he (the GA) was required to sign an agreement to assign all his personal journals and papers to the Church upon his death. So scholars of twenty-first century Mormonism will have to rely on the Church's generosity for any firsthand materials from general authorities.

Assuming this bit of hearsay is true, I would again cite the archival standards of sacredness, privacy and confidentiality.

[Alf O'Mega]

Except that no one has provided a single concrete example that any such "suppression" occured. You are engagin in a rhetorical trick- your example was defeated and so you declare victory.

Van Wagoner cites a letter from F. Michael Watson stating that the minutes were unavailable for public scrutiny. Whether the suppression was motivated by embarrassment, or the inability to decipher it in order to confirm that it was unembarrassing, or some other reason (none was publicly given), I am happy that the suppression has ended in this case.

Except that no one has demonstrated such reversals actually exist. The restrictions on access were because of procedural changes and correcting lapses in proper archival procedures- and no one has demonstrated otherwise.

Call it what you like, there were scholars who had examined sources in the archives who were later denied access to those same sources. These were not anti-Mormons, but respected, faithful historians.

So you heard it from a friend-of-a-friend-who-said-that-he-was-told a GA was required to sign a confidentiality agreement?

Wow! That's an iron-clad condemnation of Mormon historical practices if ever there was one! Break out the tar and feathers, boys! The spirit of Missouri rides again!

Note that I didn't condemn anything. I remain hopeful that the trend toward openness will continue, even when the Church has a monopoly on certain sources.

I still owe you a reply, Scott, but I have to go.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't. Do you have a reason for bringing them up.?The standards of sacredness, privacy and confidentiality have been mentioned here more than once. Do you think something else comes to bear with these items?

No, see, the argument goes that the "True Church" (said in a mocking way) ought to disclose everything all the time to anyone and everyone, else it is obviously participating in shady, underground deceptions.

[selek]

Van Wagoner cites a letter from F. Michael Watson stating that the minutes were unavailable for public scrutiny. Whether the suppression was motivated by embarrassment, or the inability to decipher it in order to confirm that it was unembarrassing, or some other reason (none was publicly given), I am happy that the suppression has ended in this case.

And yet this example does not meet any fair, unbiased, or common definition of "suppression".

Call it what you like, there were scholars who had examined sources in the archives who were later denied access to those same sources. These were not anti-Mormons, but respected, faithful historians.

That still doesn't meet an unpolemical definition of suppression.

Note that I didn't condemn anything. I remain hopeful that the trend toward openness will continue, even when the Church has a monopoly on certain sources.

No you didn't- you insinuated it, because an outright accusation would remain laughable.

You have repeateedly implied that the Church has or might supress documents, but you have still provided no examples of such behavior.

You are damning with faint praise- yet another rhetorical trick used when the facts and your agenda fail to meet.

[Scott Lloyd]

No you didn't- you insinuated it, because an outright accusation would remain laughable.

You have repeateedly implied that the Church has or might supress documents, but you have still provided no examples of such behavior.

You are damning with faint praise- yet another rhetorical trick used when the facts and your agenda fail to meet.

I find it rather telling that, for all the talk of suppression, the best the critics seem able to do is, in effect, to grumble "I wouldn't put it past 'em."

[LifeOnaPlate]

Whether the suppression was motivated by embarrassment, or the inability to decipher it in order to confirm that it was unembarrassing, or some other reason (none was publicly given), I am happy that the suppression has ended in this case.

I wonder which of the above you favor.

I find it rather telling that, for all the talk of suppression, the best the critics seem able to do is, in effect, to grumble "I wouldn't put it past 'em."

Well, technically, it's difficult to prove that there is a "suppressed document" right now if the document has been properly suppressed.

[staccato]

I'm hard pressed to understand why you expect a "critic" to put anything more on this thread. I used a perfectly valid example of polyandry and got "Joseph Smith is a charlatan" doesn't come up in the search engine either, as your response.

If you don't want to listen to us or want to mock or riducule our experiences, then don't host a peace talk and expect us to come to the table.

[selek]

I find it rather telling that, for all the talk of suppression, the best the critics seem able to do is, in effect, to grumble "I wouldn't put it past 'em."

To quote Herr Pinderschloss, "Dizplacement- it iz an ugly zing, ya?"

I am frequently amazed at how critics' suspicions unconsciously mirror their own behavior and ethics.

Well, technically, it's difficult to prove that there is a "suppressed document" right now if the document has been properly suppressed.

In other words- the complete lack of evidence is the surest sign the conspiracy is working.

Where's that tin-foil hat smiley when you need it?

I'm hard pressed to understand why you expect a "critic" to put anything more on this thread. I used a perfectly valid example of polyandry and got "Joseph Smith is a charlatan" doesn't come up in the search engine either, as your response.

If you don't want to listen to us or want to mock or riducule our experiences, then don't host a peace talk and expect us to come to the table.

Said she who is throwing the bombs........

[Paul Ray]

How long is this talk of "suppression" going to keep going on?

Even if the Church did or now does "suppress" information, which I don't believe is the case, the most important truths of this dispensation are in plain sight of anyone who has the eyes and ears to notice them.

Can't we (LDS) just stop catering to the crowd who can't see and hear what we LDS see and hear?

Can't we (LDS) just talk about what we know to be true?

Imagine what would happen if we (LDS) just talked amongst ourselves about all of the most important truths we do have and know about while the anti crowd listens as we carry on our conversations with each other, answering a question or two from the anti's just to placate them a little bit now and then without getting all bent out of shape with worry that they will not agree with what we tell them.

Some of you folks don't seem to realize that the "anti" crowd will always be out there, even though they may change the players on their team now and then.

And btw, here's one of the most important truths we have and know about that is worthy of more discussion.

God communicates with us in response to our sincere desire to learn from him, personally.

.. and yes, I know, there are some people out there who disagree with that idea and will even speak up and let us know about the fact that they disagree with it, even offering some reasons for why they do not agree with that idea.

... but the plain and simple truth is that God does communicate with us, and we (LDS) know that.

I would now like to hear from fellow saints concerning what God has told all of you lately.

... or at least from those of you who aren't busy trying to convince the anti crowd to believe what you have to tell them.

edited to correct the spelling of words that I do in fact know how to spell... again