Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[mnn727]

Suppress: To retain without disclosure; to conceal; not to reveal; to prevent publication of; as, to suppress evidence; to suppress a pamphlet; to suppress the truth.

wivesofjosephsmith.org is not the church. Todd Compton is not the church. FAIR is not the church. None of the anti sites which provide listings of Joseph's wives are the church.

LDS.org is the church. "Your search for polyandry has returned 0 results in All Church Content."

JosephSmith.net is the church. "Your search for polyandry has returned 0 results in JosephSmith.net." Interesting enough, JosephSmith.net also says "Your search for polygamy has returned 0 results in Joseph Smith.net" Did you mean Poland?

In the new Teachings of the President's of the Church manual which devotes an entire two years of studying the life and ministry of Joseph Smith, there is one mention of plural marriage, much less polyandry. It is on pg 22.

Someone in the church is deliberately making the decision to not disclose Joseph's practice of polygamy/polyandry to the church masses through their channels of communication.

Is that, or is that not, a form of suppression?

Edited to fix typo.

I answered this about 10 pages ago but here it is again:

1 you keep searching for polyandy when you should be searching for polygamy - you will get 109 results

2. The manual deals with polygamy in the introduction, I pasted it in my previous post - look it up yourself this time -- basically the Priesthood manuals are teaching us principles for today, they are not a history manual.

so in answer to your question NO there is no suppression here at all.

[Paul Ray]

Well, as much fun as this really is, I am out the door to catch a plane and will not return until next week. I will expect you folks will all have this whole suppression thing worked out by then, and all of of us disenfranchised apostates will return to the fold because we trust that you are not hiding the truth from us because "it is in our best interests."

All the truth you need to find can be found if you know who to ask and/or how to find it.

... and yes, I'm still of the opinion that truth will lead you back to us (LDS) in God's true church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, as much fun as this really is, I am out the door to catch a plane and will not return until next week. I will expect you folks will all have this whole suppression thing worked out by then, and all of of us disenfranchised apostates will return to the fold because we trust that you are not hiding the truth from us because "it is in our best interests."

Like selek, I am more concerned with the unseen lurkers here than I am with "disenfranchised apostates."

And we already have the suppression thing worked out. Here it is in a nutshell: When antagonists accuse the Church of suppression, they are incapable of substantiating the accusation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Other than pointing out that certain documents are archived not for public perusal and the financial records of the Church are not disclosed, only to an independent audit team each year.

[Free Agent]

Its on www.familysearch.org

Hidden there in plain sight for anyone with a computer to see.

It actually is hidden, unless one goes there with the specific intent of looking for multiple wives of Joseph Smith. There is no icon, no link, no cute little graphic that pops up that says "for further info" click here. I tried the experiment yesterday. I punched in Joseph Smith, marriages, date range and a lot of people besides the Prophet come up. As I said before, you would have to go there knowing what you are looking for. Kind of like finding a needle in a haystack.

Looks like we might get this going again. Staccato, I appreciate your thoughts here.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It actually is hidden, unless one goes there with the specific intent of looking for multiple wives of Joseph Smith. There is no icon, no link, no cute little graphic that pops up that says "for further info" click here. I tried the experiment yesterday. I punched in Joseph Smith, marriages, date range and a lot of people besides the Prophet come up. As I said before, you would have to go there knowing what you are looking for. Kind of like finding a needle in a haystack.

Looks like we might get this going again. Staccato, I appreciate your thoughts here.

You seem to be really interested in the plural marriage thing. I encourage you to find an outlet for this curiosity by searching the publications available. Meantime, the odds of plural marriage being the subject of a General Conference talk or correlated Sunday School lesson are very, very small.

[Free Agent]

Perhaps you haven't heard.

His guess was and most likely still is "suppression".

Sometimes you have to tell people something instead of thinking they will alreday know it.

Come here, staccato, I will help you.

The reason polygamy isn't taught in Sunday School manuals today is because it isn't relevant today.

We focus on what we need to know to live our lives in harmony with the will of God, today.

We don't focus on teaching history in Sunday School meetings.

I think that's enough for now. Please think about that. Thank you.

Really, we don't focus on teaching history? We may not "focus" on it, but we certainly teach a lot of it. And not all of it is what we need to live our lives in harmony with the will of God.

[Free Agent]

You seem to be really interested in the plural marriage thing. I encourage you to find an outlet for this curiosity by searching the publications available. Meantime, the odds of plural marriage being the subject of a General Conference talk or correlated Sunday School lesson are very, very small.

I'm not focused at all on the "plural marriage thing". Please, ask a non member about Mormonism, and most people equate the two. Its up to us to set them straight. Just because we don't practice it today doesn't mean the information isn't relevant to some of us. That's like saying we shouldn't study any American History. And Life, you didn't really respond to what I said about accessing the FamilySearch website. It's pretty hard to find the info.

[Paul Ray]

Really, we don't focus on teaching history? We may not "focus" on it, but we certainly teach a lot of it. And not all of it is what we need to live our lives in harmony with the will of God.

Yes, really. We use the scriptures, which we know are historical documents, but if you'll notice, our focus is to liken the scriptures unto ourselves by applying the principles from the scriptures to our own lives, today.

The scriptures, themselves, were written by people who applied the principles of the gospel to their own lives, not by people who were trying to focus on teaching history.

Edited to add: I was referring to what we teach in our meetings on Sunday. We offer courses on other days in other places that focus on history simply for the sake of understanding history.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm not focused at all on the "plural marriage thing". Please, ask a non member about Mormonism, and most people equate the two. Its up to us to set them straight. Just because we don't practice it today doesn't mean the information isn't relevant to some of us. That's like saying we shouldn't study any American History. And Life, you didn't really respond to what I said about accessing the FamilySearch website. It's pretty hard to find the info.

I don't expect it to get a banner headline on the site. The info, however, is available.

[Scott Lloyd]

It actually is hidden, unless one goes there with the specific intent of looking for multiple wives of Joseph Smith. There is no icon, no link, no cute little graphic that pops up that says "for further info" click here. I tried the experiment yesterday. I punched in Joseph Smith, marriages, date range and a lot of people besides the Prophet come up. As I said before, you would have to go there knowing what you are looking for. Kind of like finding a needle in a haystack.

The information is there for someone who is interested in it. It would not be that difficult for you to go to the Family History Library or a church family history center and ask someone to help you find it. It would be even easier to find someone closer to home who knows his/her way around the site to help you.

The point is, the information is not covered up or hidden; ergo, it is not suppressed. If it were, even an experienced or skilled user of the site would not be able to find it.

It really does seem that you are being argumentative on this, Free Agent.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not focused at all on the "plural marriage thing". Please, ask a non member about Mormonism, and most people equate the two. Its up to us to set them straight. Just because we don't practice it today doesn't mean the information isn't relevant to some of us.

That's a good argument for having the information available and accessible somewhere, even from Church-friendly sources like FAIR or Church-affiliated sources such as BYU's Maxwell Institute. It's not a good argument for insisting that it be part of the Sunday curriculum of the Church.

[Calm]

Really, we don't focus on teaching history? We may not "focus" on it, but we certainly teach a lot of it. And not all of it is what we need to live our lives in harmony with the will of God.

IMO, the history that is taught is for giving context to doctrine except for the Church History Institute class, which is taken by those interested in history, and maybe the Presidents of the Church institute class (it's been a long time since I looked at that so I don't know if they put in historical info independent of teaching some concept). If you know of examples of history taught for other purposes (with the exceptions I mentioned).

[Scott Lloyd]

IMO, the history that is taught is for giving context to doctrine except for the Church History Institute class, which is taken by those interested in history, and maybe the Presidents of the Church institute class (it's been a long time since I looked at that so I don't know if they put in historical info independent of teaching some concept). If you know of examples of history taught for other purposes (with the exceptions I mentioned).

In that regard, latter-day Church history as taught in the Church is analogous to the role of history in ancient scripture. That is, it serves as a vehicle or thread to illustrate and learn gospel doctrines and teachings, not the other way around.

Thus, every fourth year in gospel doctrine class, we study "the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History," not merely "Church History."

[Calm]

In that regard, latter-day Church history as taught in the Church is analogous to the role of history in ancient scripture. That is, it serves as a vehicle or thread to illustrate and learn gospel doctrines and teachings, not the other way around.

Thus, every fourth year in gospel doctrine class, we study "the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History," not merely "Church History."

Exactly. Our faith is a "narrative" faith, we tell of it through stories/history but the history is not the point, it's the faith.

[Alf O'Mega]

The question was whether the Church suppresses its history.

Then I guess I have been off-topic. My example was only intended to demonstrate that the Church has suppressed particular documents. That it also has mythologized some of its own history is true, but that's not really the same thing as suppressing it. Sounds to me like you have an unassailable position there. In my opinion, the Church does not "suppress 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.

It certainly could have been due to historical sensitivity (however misplaced), but to assert or exclude this as a reason for the suppression is speculation. (And it was suppressed: "to keep from public knowledge: as a: to keep secret b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of.")

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.

Actually, it was G. Homer Durham who was running the show from 1977 on. I will post an article from the September 1983 Sunstone Review later, but here is an excerpt about Arrington's role in the archives:

Because of Arrington's background and the enthusiastic way he approached inquiry and introduced a broader degree of research using primary sources, he is often attributed with more power in the archives than he actually exercised. Don Schmidt, who is head of the now-merged division of library-archives, points out that "at no time was Leonard Arrington in charge of the archives." Other archivists suggest that there is a sort of myth that "Leonard Arrington opened the archives" when in fact he had very little to do with the organization itself. His influence and support were keenly felt and the myth developed around the caliber of work coming out of the historical division that he headed but, an archivist asserts, "he was never the decision-maker there."

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?

I just cite them as other examples of suppressed documents I have run across in the published literature. Some references:

Nuttall habitually recorded many details of each day's activities in these diaries which are now at Brigham Young University. Strange as it may seem, all the Nuttall diaries are present and accounted for except those for the years 1885 through 1887. The Taylor diaries are presently located in the First Presidency's Office Vault and are not available for research. No one is allowed to see them, not even Taylor's descendants, although the Church normally allows children and grandchildren open access to the diaries of their parents and grandparents. In the case of the Taylor materials, it has made a curious exception. Both Raymond Taylor and Samuel W. Taylor have asked to see the diaries of their grandfather without success. Indeed, the Church has been slow even to acknowledge that it has them. The Cannon diaries are also in the vault and unavailable, although in 1971 I was allowed to read the entries in Cannon's diaries for 26 and 27 September 1886 and to photograph them. These photos appear in Anderson's book [J. Max Anderson, The Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact (Salt Lake City: Publishers Press, 1979)]. Neither Anderson nor I, however, has been allowed to look into the Cannon diaries aside from those two days. The First Presidency's Office Journal is another story of the same telling (Fred C. Collier, "Tannering Fundamentalism," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 13:2 [summer 1980], 131â??132).

Since then, of course, the first volume of George Q. Cannon's journals was published in 1999 (Michael N. Landon, ed., The Journals of George Q. Cannon: Vol. 1: To California in '49 [salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1999]). This volume covers a three-month period at the end of 1849. The remaining 40 volumes (through 1901) will apparently appear in due course. However, Cannon's early journals were already available to scholars, and even as eminent a historian as Davis Bitton did not receive full access to the remainder for his biography of Cannon (George Q. Cannon: A Biography [salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1999]):

With the exception of the earliest journals (1849-54), the Cannon papers have generally been unavailable to researchers. An exception was Adrian W. Cannon, a grandson, who was given permission to make a typescript of the journals; but even this typescript has remained generally unavailable to researchers and, according to those who have examined it, selective and incomplete, although much better than no record at all. As a family-approved biographer, Bitton received access to the typescript and was allowed to check quotations in the original diaries when necessary (David J. Whittaker, review of George Q. Cannon: A Biography and The Journals of George Q. Cannon: Vol. 1, Journal of Mormon History 27:1 (Spring 2001), 265).

Since several nonapostolic members of the Council of Fifty began testifying to this event as early as August 1844, the contemporary minutes of that March 1844 charge to the Twelve are undoubtedly contained in the still unavailable minutes of the Council of Fifty. These minutes are in the vault of the LDS First Presidency's office and fill 200 pages for the March-May 1844 period (D. Michael Quinn, "Joseph Smith III's 1844 Blessing and the Mormons of Utah," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:2 [summer 1982], 76).

[William Clayton's] Journal 2, "Nauvoo, Illinois," is comprised of three notebooks measuring about six inches tall by four inches wide, which Clayton kept from November 27, 1842, to January 30, 1846. This journal was included in an inventory of LDS archives in 1858 as the "Journal of William Clayton, 1843-1844, 1842-1845, 1845-1846." Subsequently, Clayton's "Nauvoo, Illinois" journal was transferred to the LDS first presidency's office, which has restricted access to it (George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995], lvâ??lvi).

As promised, here is an unsigned article from Sunstone Review 3:9 (September 1983), 4â??7, entitled "Access to Church Archives: Penetrating the Silence." It is not very well edited, so I have had to add some bracketed interpolations.

There is something curious about a story in which there seems to be a good deal of inside information yet no names attributed to the disclosure. Though there were numerous people who generously offered insights, chronological and procedural data, the wide majority firmly requested that their names not be used. One expressed a fear that ever[y] person in his department may be invited to "come up and chat" and then asked "did you say this?" The irony of it all is that not one person said anything mildly subversive, inordinately critical or even very questionable. Yet a deep fear, one that pervades the departments of LDS archives and Church history and is even found among non-Mormon journalists, persists. What is this fear? What is its source and basis?

One person said, "This is a story that needs to be written but there are reprisals for the one who writes it." Another: "I don't want to be seen as one who is criticizing the brethren," although his comments were very objective and non-acerbic. Still another: "The historians were seen as a part of the problem although I don't think we were."

The most representative voice was this one: "If the brethren would only look at the conservative nature of the articles coming out, at the nature of the work being done by LDS historians as compared to what the historians of the world are doing, they would see things a bit differently. We love the Church; we are committed to it."

In a quiet, unheralded manner, the LDS archives began to implement a new restriction policy on 23 February 1982. Certain scholars who requested materials that they had been working with in an unrestrained fashion were told that their sources were either on restriction or being reassessed. Two days later in a B. H. Roberts Society lecture, James Clayton, historian at the University of Utah, made this statement:

. . . recently, I understand that the archives of the LDS church have been closed to all research into the diaries, letterbooks, and other sensitive materials of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve going back to the 1830s, diaries and letters long open and currently being used by scholars. Many projects of considerable worth are now stymied or will be finished with incomplete sources. The dismissal of Leonard J. Arrington as Church Historian, the most significant Mormon historian since B. H. Roberts, the apparent refusal to complete already signed contracts with other historians working on a multivolume history of the Church, the movement of the Historical Department from the main source of manuscripts at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City to Brigham Young Universityâ??these events raise serious questions regarding the nature and direction of historical inquiry on Mormonism . . .

Clayton's remarks became the wellspring for a torrent of remonstrations, most of which reduced to this rallying cry: The archives are closed! The New York Times picked up on the local media accounts and by the first of March the embroilment had received nationwide attention. The Times Article described a "fountain of rumors within the Mormon community which appear to be overstatements" regarding "the narrowing church attitude toward Mormonism's past." It suggested that the Church responded to the new restrictions by saying the documents had been "withdrawn temporarily for reclassification and reevaluation and they are still available with permission from the managing director of the Church historical department."

Though the most pivotal shift in archives' operations came in 1972 when various Church departments were reorganized, there was movement as early as 1969 to make a more thorough assessment of the archives' possessions. Boxes of materials that had been tucked awayâ??possibl[y] as early as 1858 when Johnston's army came to Utahâ??were opened and the arduous process of indexing began. These were primarily the financial summary books from the massive accounting system set up by Brigham Young, although one archivist suggested that the boxes included "some very interesting material." By 1972, there was still such a prodigious backlog of uncatalogued material from the Joseph Fielding Smith era that it became apparent that a new system was needed.

The Church historian's office had always been headed by a General Authority. For about five decades, Joseph Fielding Smith held the position traditionally entitled Church Historian and General Recorder. In 1970 Elder Howard Hunter followed for a short period which ended in 1972. Hunter brought with him a certain perspective he gained by his knowledge of the esteemed Huntington Library in his home stake in San Marina, California. His manner was warm and participatory and he was the first to suggest that professional historians should be brought to the department.

Then in 1972 the Church historian's office underwent a substantive transformation. In what has been called the first major wave of reorganization, its name was changed to the Historical Department of the Church and three departments fell under its jurisdiction. Elder Alvin R. Dyer was appointed as the managing director of the department. Earl Olson, who had been at the archives most of his professional life, was given the title of Church archivist. (One historian said of Olson, "He really runs the place.") Don Schmidt headed up the second division as Church librarian. Leonard Arrington, a professional historian who held no conspicuous ecclesiastical position, was named Church historian, representing an unprecedented break with tradition.

In his essay on the ten years that followed Arrington's appointment. Davis Bitton, who served with James Allen as assistant Church historian, writes in the Fall of 1983 Dialogue that Arrington "had been by far the most productive scholar working in the fields of Mormon history. He had good connections in the academic community and among historians. . . . He was well known to virtually every scholar or student of Mormon history." Because of Arrington's background and the enthusiastic way he approached inquiry and introduced a broader degree of research using primary sources, he is often attributed with more power in the archives than he actually exercised. Don Schmidt, who is head of the now-merged division of library-archives, points out that "at no time was Leonard Arrington in charge of the archives." Other archivists suggest that there is a sort of myth that "Leonard Arrington opened the archives" when in fact he had very little to do with the organization itself. His influence and support were keenly felt and the myth developed around the caliber of work coming out of the historical division that he headed but, an archivist asserts, "he was never the decision-maker there."

The reorganization in 1972 was significant in many ways. It provided an assemblage of professional historians and archivists to take the work load off those authorities whose ecclesiastical duties left little time for the tasks required by such a massive volume of unevaluated materials with no accession numbers. It provided for the development of a systematized approach to cataloging procedures and established a house for scholarly research and publication of Mormon history. It followed what historian Andrew Ehat calls "that old era fraught with problems of unprocessed materials" and a policy where access to the archives was cautious and ill-furnished. "When Joseph Fielding Smith was Church historian a person had to become a part of the woodwork in order to get access," said a historian who was present through the transition. In the new phase, it appeared that documents were being used with more access and freedom of interpretation. Historical scholarship flourished, as evidenced by the addendum to the Dialogue article which shows an impressive bibliography produced by the history division during its stay in the Church office building.

The second wave of reorganization began in 1974 with the merging of the two departments into one unitâ??the Library-Archives Divisionâ??and the addition of an Arts and Sites Division with Florence Jacobsen as curator. Olson's title was changed to Assistant Managing Director of the History Department. More young professionals were brought onto the scene, and given top positions in the divisions. Bitton's article describes a kind of euphoria over the new circumstances: "Our leaders were behind us, liked us, encouraged us. We had available one of the great collections of primary source material in the world. There was much that needed to be done."

By the spring of 1977, there was a rift in that euphoria. Dyer had been disabled by a stroke and there was a brief interregnum in which Elder Joseph Anderson, an Assistant to the Twelve (now called Seventy) took the helm as managing director. That spring, Elder Homer G. Durham, an educator and former president of Arizona State University who had recently been appointed a Seventy, became the new managing director. Arrington's title had been changed from Church historian to director of the history division in 1975 but another Church historian was not appointed until Durham was officially given the title in 1977. Initially, people felt Durham would be an involved, progressive leader, given his background in education and administration. On the contrary, says a historian who left shortly after the shift, "Durham came in with very firm ideas about the way things should be. We expected someone sympathetic to the researcher and got a conservative whose response was quite reactionary. He ruled with an iron hand." He says a feeling of apprehension began to develop among the hierarchy over the work done by the history division. An aura of "You people in the Church historical department had better be careful. You are being watched" seemed to develop.

Soon after his appointment, Durham had a private conference with each member of the division. It is reported that afterwards there "was a softening of the position he had manifest in the weekly staff meetings. He showed a greater sympathy and understanding of what we were doing. He found that we were not the incautious, radical left wing, graduate-school types he had perceived us to be. Things looked more complex to him than before."

In the summer of 1980, the decision was formulated to send the historians to Brigham Young University as the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute of Church History. While the plan to remove the historians from the Church office building was probably Durham's, it was announced to the historians in a letter signed by Church President Spencer W. Kimball which Durham read aloud at a staff meeting. While the move kept the historians together as a body, it also served to distance them from the library-archives where much of their research was done.

If the historians were uncertain about their credibility in the eyes of their new director and Church historian, the archivists were equally wary about what to expect. Confused, they wondered what came through Durham's initiative and what was being directed from the hierarchy. "He likes to say 'This is from the brethren' on any proposal he gives. No one is sure if he is the initiator or instrument" says an archivist. Since Durham's mode is characterized as unparticipatory and remote ("He doesn't court the staff"), employees find it difficult to know exactly what he has in mind. This writer found it impossible to get even a telephone interview with him as his secretary is trained to screen calls carefully. This style is tagged as "a complication for the archives' staff," by a member.

Professionals in the Church history department found themselves under a new set of expectations. Because of their training in history and archives, they were expected to perform their work more quickly, often at the expense of thoroughness. Durham knew little about the nature and content of the archives and how to direct their use. As more of the manuscripts were being evaluated and catalogued, there was a concomitant process of gradual tightening up with the discovery of certain materials. The policy change that was instituted by reference officials on 23 February was not, then, a big bang but the consequence of an evolution that had been underway for a number of years.

Speculation about specific phenomena which precipitated this action is varied but most agree on certain incidents. Among the perturbations were the activities of non-Mormon and anti-Mormon persons alike who were obtaining materials from the archives, copying and circulating them in a manner that was seen as an abuse of the institution. Jerald and Sandra Tanner published photocopies of the Kirtland Revelation Book and other documents that are considered "sensitive" to matters of Church history. They were denied access to the archives but continue to publish unauthorized versions from the archives obtained by other sources.

Other irritations that may have produced anxieties about the archives' use were the publication of articles and books which cast a different interpretive light and focus on historical incidents not previously mentioned in the official volumes of Church [history]. James Clayton suggests that an honor's thesis by Steven Marshall on the New Mormon History "created problems in how historians were quoted." Marshall used research by the Tanners, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Mormon fundamentalists and authorized LDS writings in his study of emerging Mormon history. Other publications such as Arrington's and Dean May's article in Dialogue about the United Order entitled "Building the City of God, Community and Cooperation Among the Mormons" and James Allen and Glen Leonard's Story of the Latter-day Saints have also been mentioned as alienating forces.

Perhaps the incident most closely tied to the increasing restrictiveness was the unauthorized circulation of a journal that had been carefully guarded from the public at large and in fact was kept in the First Presidency vault. Andrew Ehat, at the time a graduate student at Brigham Young University, had legitimately obtained the journal of William Clayton from the vault. Though materials kept there are largely inaccessible, they may at times be obtained by reputable, predominately Mormon scholars who undergo the rigorous screening by officials in the Church History Department: James Kimball, Olson, and ultimately Durham.

Ehat had established himself as an able research assistant for Truman Madsen, a noted BYU professor, and through his co-authorship with Lyndon Cook of The Words of Joseph, an annotated version of Joseph Smith's writings. His credibility was under question, however, when his 90 typed pages of notes from the journal of Clayton, secretary to Mormon founder Joseph Smith, were lifted from Cook's office and amply circulated. One former BYU student adamantly refused to return his copy, saying "policies governing access to documents in the historical department are overly restrictive and that such restrictiveness prompts people such as himself to seek out copies of historical documents through "underground systems" (as quoted in the Seventh East Press 8 January 1982).

With the involvement of BYU board members and administrative officials, the incident became one which brought considerable light to the subject of access to historical documents. After the Seventh East Press' account of the debacle, tongues were wagging and rumors circulating. Not long after, James Clayton (the great great grandson of William) delivered the B. H. Roberts' speech which served as firebrand for a controversy still smoldering.

Schmidt says he immediately received phone calls "from coast to coast" regarding the "closure of the archives. To a certain extent," he continues, "it had no basis in fact. I happen to be director of the archives and I know it wasn't true." James Kimball of the archives search room agrees that they never used the term "closed" and asserts that the archives are open "to almost anyone with serious intent," Both agree that the Church archives follow the standard archival policies in regards to restricted materials. Public access was restricted in the following cases:

• materials on which the donor has placed restrictions "until my death"
  
• financial contributions, holdings and accounts
  
• records of people who may still be living
  
• some private records such as excommunications, trials and patriarchal blessings
  
• materials regarding the administration of the Church such as minutes of Quorums of Seventy Councils, stakes and wards
  

Schmidt admits that there are other restrictions "by item" and that "any archives have some material they will not give out to the public." Most items written since 1900 are under some restriction as a matter of privacy. There are things that are somewhat embarrassing, not flattering to the individual," he says. Schmidt claims that the policy of access "has not changed much."

A response to that statement comes readily from a historian, whose voice is echoed numerous times. "That is simply not true," he asserts. "The state of the current policy is unclear and seems to be capricious. Collections have been removed, materials are no longer indexed in the register and anything generated by General Authorities has been yanked out of the register entirely."

To put things in perspective it may be helpful to divide the content of the archives into two categories. The manuscript collection is a standard term which represents materials produced by individuals and authorities within the Church. These are generally personal documents such as journals, diaries, letterbooks, etc. The second category is called the archives and represents the records of the general Church or institution. They are further broken down into general and local records, to include the institutional and the ward and stake differentiation.

The LDS archives consist of approximately seven thousand items in the manuscript collection. Of those that are currently listed on the register, about eighty are restricted to access. In the category of archival or record series there are about five thousand items with about three hundred on restriction. One historian pointed out that while it may not seem like an inordinate amount of restricted documents they represent "the heart and soul of the archives."

The question of who uses the archives is one where debate resounds, especially in regards to just who deserves access. Schmidt says of the LDS archives, "There's no question about it: They exist for Church officials of the corporation. That is true of any corporate organization. The individual researcher won't get any information from any private corporation. Others are interested and we try to accommodate them but we exist for one purposeâ??the corporation." He says the Church officials use the archives "a lot" but another archivist gives a contrasting opinion. "I would say 70 percent of our users are people researching family historyâ??people from the general public. Twenty percent are scholars and about 10 percent are Church personnel," he estimates.

When asked who they feel should have access to archives, LDS historians' responses vary. Some feel archival material should be opened to serious researchers whatever their intent; some feel it should be limited to those who will show a certain responsibility to the content: and some believe they should be opened to the public, with a rare restriction. "Testimonies can't be tested ultimately by such material. In the short term it can cause frustrations, doubts and anxiety but in the long term it brings a depth of understanding," says one historian. "Intellectual plurality can't be stopped. There will continually be people who will want to read the histories, and who won't be satisfied by shallow interpretations. A dialogue must develop between the intellectual community and the Church," he states.

Madelon Brunson, archivist for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, has tried to establish that dialogue with the users of the collections in her church. "My objective is to treat everyone with equal attention," she states. "I'm opposed to credential checks. If a researcher is irresponsible, that is his or her problem. A researcher can produce whatever interpretation he or she chooses and the work will stand or fall on its own merits. The institution must do the same." She says the heaviest users of the RLDS archives are those researching their genealogy as members in the RLDS church. The second heaviest use comes in the serious researcherâ??one who spends an entire summer or more on a project. The third category is "someone who just wants to see something old" and Graceland students who are mildly interested in the collections. The only restrictions are Church court records and those documents with donor restrictions. "That number is extremely minimalâ??about four reels of microfilm." she says.

Policies in other churches vary. Lee Johnson, director of the archives of the Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science) headed in Boston affirms that people of all faiths are welcome and frequently use their materials. All he asks is that the scholars are "willing to work within the limits set by our founder, Mary Baker Eddy." He points out that the fundamental teaching and the fundamental Church laws are very specifically derived from her, we have generally the same donor for our material," says Johnson. However, researchers must work through a system to prove they have "genuine integrity" before materials will be available to them. "We make sure they are informed people who are genuinely trying to do a fine job before we look at their request," he says. Johnson feels that the nature of scholarship is changing and that there are more people who "take out after the Church or the government" to use information against them. "There is a lot of misunderstanding about churches, about people who are trying to bring decency and civilized behavior to bear. We find ourselves too often misquoted. It's no fun to be put in that position," he observes.

Collections of the Seventh-day Adventist Church have a slightly different classification. They are divided into the Ellen White estate archives with Tim Poirier as director, and the general conference archives with Bert Holovialt as director there. Poirier says that the access to the files in the White estate archives is restricted to members of the board of trustees of the Church. "Those researchers largely within the Church and institution may see them but they are restricted by their personal content," he says. "We have tried to accommodate those who've had questions about Mrs. White and some researchers have access to our files but we want to protect the name of the living descendants," he says. Holovialt says anyone can see the published material on the general conference archives but to see the manuscripts one must be a qualified researcher who first obtains a letter of recommendation from a professor or teacher or sponsor. "There is a fifty-year cut-off date for browsing and a thirty to fifty year date providing the researcher will allow us to peruse his or her folder of notes," he says.

Dennis Rowley, curator of the BYU archives, says that the only restriction in his collections comes when the material has been restricted by the donor, "no others." He does admit that there are certain delicate materials that must be preserved and therefore cannot be handled and that anything written twenty-five years or sooner is not to be seen by the public. "The bulk of materials are available, but maybe not the bulk of the most important materials," he adds.

As the foregoing survey demonstrates, some inconsistencies in the initial policy statements and the conditioning statements of different archives exist. Yet almost without variation, the archives begins by stating that his or her organization employs only the most standard of restrictions. A mention of some small category may be added but upon further questioning there is often an admission or oblique reference to a body of material that is relatively untouchable. In some cases there is no such admission but then a researcher or a cadre of researchers indicate that they had been unable to obtain certain materials. At BYU archives, for example, some books, such as Rodney Turner's thesis on Adam-God are withdrawn from access and then returned and then withdrawn again, as if someone is capriciously exercising assent.

Obviously, private institutions have that privilege. As most archivists point out, it is their prerogative to retain as much of their material as they deem prudent. The prestigious Huntington library for example is exactingly cautious about those wishing to use their materials. Public archives have a different responsibility to their public. University libraries, as Everett Cooley of the University of Utah archives attest, are the public domain. "Anyone has access to our material unless it is placed on restriction by the donor," he explains. "If we purchase something, it is open. In fact I think we have one of the best processes available. During preliminary inventory we give an accession number as soon as the document arrives. Then we do a full cataloging using the register and issue a manuscript number by which the student may locate it more easily. There's no waiting," he says.

LDS history division archivists feel that their collections are "about as open as any private institution," and some feel the access is far greater than most church archives. Ehat speaks of his experience as a researcher in saying "I think archives officials have been more liberal than they needed to be. They could have been more restrictive during that period when various waves or irritations were making the people in control gun shy."

Another historian, Michael Quinn, speaks most affirmatively of his experience with access to materials over the past ten years even though he has been at times uncustomarily outspoken about pressures on historians to write "faith-promoting history." Quinn asserts that he has had "extraordinary access" to documents which have not been often used and that he has experienced "no diminishing of my access" although he grants that his situation is probably not typical. From the evidence of these two historians who have produced work that is significant in emerging Mormon history, it is apparent that there was no wholesale tightening of materials at the disposal of Mormon historians, although Ehat does admit he was refused some documents. "The Church owns records for which access should legitimately be controlled," he says and suggests that the department has been "unjustly dinged" by some who have stolen materials before they were catalogued.

As in Yeats' poem about the dancer and the dance, it is difficult to differentiate between the archivist and the historian, the instrument from the initiator. Clearly the issue is complex and fraught with intricacies, emotions, and reflections of individual personalities. There are feelings of embattlement on all asides and yet there is admission that things are not as bad as they could be nor have been. One historian summarizes the trends of the past year as a "reaction to the growing aggression against the Church. More caution is being exercised as issues are being portrayed as black and white. The other consideration is that the administration is traditionally not anti-intellectual but unintellectually oriented, with very little understanding of or sympathy toward the academic mind. A dialogue must develop between the two communities."

At present that dialogue is strained and in some cases, stonewalled. The fear of speaking is a symbol of its absence. Schmidt was questioned about his reaction to the overwhelming caution and reluctance of his present and former staff to express their opinions freely: his comment mirrors the state of things in its brevity and lack of overt concern. "I wouldn't know the problem," he said.

[mnn727]

It actually is hidden, unless one goes there with the specific intent of looking for multiple wives of Joseph Smith. There is no icon, no link, no cute little graphic that pops up that says "for further info" click here. I tried the experiment yesterday. I punched in Joseph Smith, marriages, date range and a lot of people besides the Prophet come up. As I said before, you would have to go there knowing what you are looking for. Kind of like finding a needle in a haystack.

I timed myself - to 47 seconds from opening my browser to get to the wives of JS. Gee 47 seconds - thats really hidden and rough to find. Very small haystack, very large needle. Perhaps it says something about your computing abilities.

It really does seem that you are being argumentative on this, Free Agent.

I agree

[mnn727]

30 Pages - is that a record?

[Paul Ray]

Then I guess I have been off-topic. My example was only intended to demonstrate that the Church has suppressed particular documents. That it also has mythologized some of its own history is true, but that's not really the same thing as suppressing it.

Ay caramba!

We (LDS, the Church) does NOT "suppress" information.

We (LDS, the Church) "selects" the information we want to present, according to our own agenda, while "disregarding" anything we don't want to present.

By what appears to be your definition of "suppression", I can now accuse you of suppressing other truths that I would prefer to talk about. Why aren't you talking about other things? There is other information out there that you are not presenting, and I'm sure you could share some of that if you wanted to.

Why don't you tell us what we want to hear?

How long are you going to continue to divert us from the other truths we could be talking about?

There are some other things you aren't saying that I would rather hear.

Sounds to me like you have an unassailable position there. In my opinion, the Church does not "suppress its history."

There you go. Now that is something I appreciate hearing. Thank you for unleashing that thought.

What other truths would you like to talk about now?

... and please feel free to be selective. I know some truths are more important than other truths.

[Hammer]

I am going to invest 1 million dollars in financial vehicle. The person managing the money is supposed to be a financial whiz and makes returns of 15% a year even in a down year. I look at the advertising info that promotes the investment plan and talks about how great, wise and smart the money manager is. So I invest. Two years later I find out that the money manager has been convicted of fraud and embezzlements twice in the past 20 year. Now had I known that relevant truth I may have opted to invest my money else where. Or perhaps had I known that the money manager had done his time and been honest and kept the law for the past 10 year I could have opted to over look his past bad behavior and invested anyway.

When one is asked to pray and rely on a feeling that is supposed to be from God and then base their entire life on these things why do so many here think it is not relevant to know about the character, actions and behaviors of the person claiming that God is speaking to them. This is all I ask. I don't know. Maybe I am just stupid. But it seems that a Church that demands honesty in ALL our dealings with our fellow men would want to be open in all the ways it teaches. I understand that to teach young people one must be wise and prudent. But I think it could be done. I think a book like Bushman's as the base for a high school seminary class about LDS history would be totally appropriate. Do we fear the truth? Do we think that if our youth were taught or aware of this that fewer would serve missions or enter the temple? Do we think disclosing such information to adult investigators would make them less likely to believe JS was a prophet and thus not join the Church? Please help me understand here.

I am joining this thread late-- and I have only read 5 pages, but this statement/thought is so wacko and has been challenged so many times that it hurts!

Spiritual things are not to be judged by the temporal mind set.

D&C 50: 19-20

19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

[Free Agent]

I timed myself - to 47 seconds from opening my browser to get to the wives of JS. Gee 47 seconds - thats really hidden and rough to find. Very small haystack, very large needle. Perhaps it says something about your computing abilities.

I agree

The first time I went to the website I didn't punch in a specific date and didn't have time to cull through. You are right, it comes up quickly. Actually I found it in less than 47. What does that say about your computing abilities? Or is it just better DSL?

Again, my main point is not that the information isn't there, it's not knowing that there is anything to look for. Just because some of you on this board knew about Joseph Smith's wives doesn't mean that everyone does. So someone who attends class, reads their Ensign (oops, maybe misses that one article published every 15 years or so) picks up a few Church books here and there its very feasible they wouldn't hear about it so they would never know to go looking for it on Family Search. And please stop blaming me and others like me because we didn't know. You are always calling into question my testimony, my lack of study on Gospel matters, etc. and yet there are thousands like me posting on boards other than this who have had very similar experiences. Faithful, temple going, calling holding members who all of a sudden open a can of historical worms they didn't know was there. Maybe we spent more time serving in our callings while you guys had your nose in a book. I hate to sound bitter, but the attitude some of you bring towards me and my situation is really puzzling and disheartening.

[Paul Ray]

The first time I went to the website I didn't punch in a specific date and didn't have time to cull through. You are right, it comes up quickly. Actually I found it in less than 47. What does that say about your computing abilities? Or is it just better DSL?

Again, my main point is not that the information isn't there, it's not knowing that there is anything to look for. Just because some of you on this board knew about Joseph Smith's wives doesn't mean that everyone does. So someone who attends class, reads their Ensign (oops, maybe misses that one article published every 15 years or so) picks up a few Church books here and there its very feasible they wouldn't hear about it so they would never know to go looking for it on Family Search. And please stop blaming me and others like me because we didn't know. You are always calling into question my testimony, my lack of study on Gospel matters, etc. and yet there are thousands like me posting on boards other than this who have had very similar experiences. Faithful, temple going, calling holding members who all of a sudden open a can of historical worms they didn't know was there. Maybe we spent more time serving in our callings while you guys had your nose in a book. I hate to sound bitter, but the attitude some of you bring towards me and my situation is really puzzling and disheartening.

I can understand what you're saying, Free Agent, but I think the point others are trying to make is that it is the responsibility of each individual to learn what they want to learn. In other words, you shouldn't blame others because you don't know something when the information is out there to be found.

Do you accept those ideas?

If so, just tell me who's fault it is when you don't know something that you could know.

[Hammer]

I can understand what you're saying, Free Agent, but I think the point others are trying to make is that it is the responsibility of each individual to learn what they want to learn. In other words, you shouldn't blame others because you don't know something when the information is out there to be found.

Do you accept those ideas?

If so, just tell me who's fault it is when you don't know something that you could know.

Some kids go through school and learn all sorts of things, others go through and don't learn even the basics. It is all about potential, circumstances, techniques and individual adaptations and acomadation.

Same with the church.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I see Free Agent's point. She wishes the church lessons would have better prepared her to encounter aspects of the Church's history such as plural marriage. We have to acknowledge that in the Church one is not likely to see a correlated lesson or article or talk discussing plural marriage with any "depth."

I can think of a few reasons why this is so. To mention a few, first, we no longer practice plural marriage in the Church. Second, plural marriage still runs counter to our cultural heritage (as it did when it was practiced, as well.) It can upset people. It's uncomfortable. People aren't generally uplifted or encouraged by learning about it.

It would do us all well to assess the purpose of religious lessons we are taught and analyze their contents based on their purposed, rather than solely on what we would like them to explain.

[Paul Ray]

Some kids go through school and learn all sorts of things, others go through and don't learn even the basics. It is all about potential, circumstances, techniques and individual adaptations and acomadation.

Same with the church.

Yes, and only those who are valiant in the testimony of Jesus will be heirs of Celestial glory.

Some people don't seem to understand what that means, but they can find out if they want to enough.