New Joseph Smith Paper website! Very cool!

[ttribe]

Clayton produced a lot of papers for Joseph Smith. Maybe his journal isn't considered one of those (although it was relied on extensively to create the History of the Church) so that it is outside the scope of the project. Either way, the Church will be justifiably accused of hiding its history until it publishes materials such as Clayton's Nauvoo journal.

Ahh, the holy grail of the critic - the Clayton Nauvoo Journal. I'm curious, just how much more "embarrassing" information do you think is necessary for the critics to condemn JS and do you really think there is anything substantially new in said journal?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Clayton produced a lot of papers for Joseph Smith. Maybe his journal isn't considered one of those (although it was relied on extensively to create the History of the Church) so that it is outside the scope of the project. Either way, the Church will be justifiably accused of hiding its history until it publishes materials such as Clayton's Nauvoo journal.

The papers that fall under the rubric laid out at the beginning of the project will be included, according to one of the project members whom I just spoke with via email. Excellent.

There, now we can all move along. If you want to read Clayton, get a foretaste in the only-slightly-problematic Signature Books volume. It's an interesting read. Parenthetically, one of the biggest aspects of the journal which some Church leaders prefer not to make public are those dealing directly with temple ceremonies, not necessarily high crimes and misdemeanors.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ahh, the holy grail of the critic - the Clayton Nauvoo Journal. I'm curious, just how much more "embarrassing" information do you think is necessary for the critics to condemn JS and do you really think there is anything substantially new in said journal?

They can check out substantial portions here:

http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/1137/

What's interesting is that I doubt 5thC has availed him/herself of what's already available even while complaining about what isn't, and he isn't precisely sure what isn't, (s)he has just heard such is the case. In other words, (s)he's not actually trying to research the materials but to criticize the church regarding materials he probably wouldn't read anyway, based on the fact that (s)he hasn't read the already-available stuff.

(I could be wrong, maybe (s)he has read it, maybe (s)he is doing research on it, but from his/her comments here it certainly doesn't seem like it, and (s)he certainly doesn't manifest familiarity with the process of requesting such materials etc., (s)he just thinks everything should be published in a book to be read by someone else to pick out the nasty bits, which of course, isn't how practically any archive like it operates.)

[Fifth Columnist]

Ahh, the holy grail of the critic - the Clayton Nauvoo Journal. I'm curious, just how much more "embarrassing" information do you think is necessary for the critics to condemn JS and do you really think there is anything substantially new in said journal?

Ask James Allen if there is anything substantially new in Clayton's journal. By the way, Allen criticized George Smith for relying on the few excerpts that were leaked when Smith didn't have the rest. Well, duh. The Church won't release the rest. If the journal is innocuous, then go ahead and release it like they have done with all the rest of Clayton's journals.

[Fifth Columnist]

Parenthetically, one of the biggest aspects of the journal which some Church leaders prefer not to make public are those dealing directly with temple ceremonies, not necessarily high crimes and misdemeanors.

How much of his journal deals with temple ceremonies? And why won't the Church release the rest?

By the way, James Allen thought it would be a great idea to publish the journal (and he has read it all). It was only when it went up the chain of authority that the whole idea got nixed.

[David T]

How much of his journal deals with temple ceremonies? And why won't the Church release the rest?

By the way, James Allen thought it would be a great idea to publish the journal (and he has read it all). It was only when it went up the chain of authority that the whole idea got nixed.

Just wondering, Fifth Columnist: have you read the full published edition that is available?

[CA Steve]

LOaP,

Do you know if there are plans to include any or all of the KEP?

[Fifth Columnist]

They can check out substantial portions here:

http://signaturebook...m/2010/02/1137/

What's interesting is that I doubt 5thC has availed him/herself of what's already available even while complaining about what isn't, and he isn't precisely sure what isn't, (s)he has just heard such is the case. In other words, (s)he's not actually trying to research the materials but to criticize the church regarding materials he probably wouldn't read anyway, based on the fact that (s)he hasn't read the already-available stuff.

I became interested in the issue after reading the Dialogue article I linked to above. I only trotted it out to counter the argument made repeatedly in this thread that the Church doesn't hide its history. Clayton's Nauvoo journal is a good example that the Church does hide its history.

If Clayton's entire journal was available, I would read it because it would allow me to gauge the validity of James Allen's criticisms of Smith's book. If Allen is correct, that there aren't any other damaging or embarrassing nuggets left to be exposed by the journal, then why won't the Church allow it to be published? The way the Church is handling this doesn't pass the smell test.

Again, if it isn't so bad, why won't they allow it to be published.

[Fifth Columnist]

Just wondering, Fifth Columnist: have you read the full published edition that is available?

I have not read Smith's book. Honestly, when I first came across the issue (a number of years ago) I was a TBM and didn't feel comfortable reading "anti-Mormon" stuff - i.e., Smith's book. So, I read Allen's review first. That led me to the Dialogue article. I more or less accepted Allen's view of things at the time, but I did wonder about a few things (particularly that Allen wanted to publish the journal and the GAs did not).

Now that my thinking has evolved and I have a much different view of what constitutes anti-mormon literature, I really should read Smith's book. I haven't thought much about the issue for a long time and this discussion jogged my memory of what I had learned earlier.

[Fifth Columnist]

LOaP,

Do you know if there are plans to include any or all of the KEP?

It seems to fit the criteria so it probably should be included. Brian Hauglid is supposed to publish it in a book first, however.

[LifeOnaPlate]

How much of his journal deals with temple ceremonies? And why won't the Church release the rest?

What exactly aren't they releasing, I'm not clear on what you're referring to. As noted, there is a Nauvoo journal that will be included in the project. Much of the other stuff was released in the (somewhat problematic) Intimate Chronicle book. There was an interesting review of the book by Allen, and then a response by George D. Smith and response by Allen, then Smith, in Sunstone or someplace, I don't recall. I imagine Google would turn it up.

[David T]

What exactly aren't they releasing, I'm not clear on what you're referring to. As noted, there is a Nauvoo journal that will be included in the project. Much of the other stuff was released in the (somewhat problematic) Intimate Chronicle book. There was an interesting review of the book by Allen, and then a response by George D. Smith and response by Allen, then Smith, in Sunstone or someplace, I don't recall. I imagine Google would turn it up.

(pssst... 5th Columnist already linked to that series of articles in Dialogue )

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOaP,

Do you know if there are plans to include any or all of the KEP?

I know they're being published, but don't remember if they are part of the JSPP proper or not. I think not, but could be wrong. Either way, they are being published.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I became interested in the issue after reading the Dialogue article I linked to above. I only trotted it out to counter the argument made repeatedly in this thread that the Church doesn't hide its history. Clayton's Nauvoo journal is a good example that the Church does hide its history.

If Clayton's entire journal was available, I would read it because it would allow me to gauge the validity of James Allen's criticisms of Smith's book. If Allen is correct, that there aren't any other damaging or embarrassing nuggets left to be exposed by the journal, then why won't the Church allow it to be published? The way the Church is handling this doesn't pass the smell test.

Again, if it isn't so bad, why won't they allow it to be published.

If these particular materials are "its history," then its clear that up until now "the Church" (?) has not allowed unlimited access to these documents. Restricted materials in archives are not unheard of at all. It's clear the church has been burned in the past by people using archival materials in polemic literature as well as in publishing what church leaders would consider sacred information. That's one of the main reasons the archives aren't simply flung open. (Other reasons include things like preservation, hierarchical red tape, and money. Books aren't free to publish, you know, or edit or compile, etc.) Once bitten, twice shy, as they say. I favor open access, personally. I would like it to be easier to get to as many materials as I can get to. But it doesn't surprise me when I encounter restricted materials. Why? As I mentioned, i'ts a pretty commonplace practice in archives.

So to me, what "doesn't pass the smell test" is your seeming lack of awareness regarding how so many archives are typically handled and controlled, as well as how the Church handles its own. The library, for instance, requires that people request certain materials with a stated purpose, and reserves the right to turn down requests. This isn't unusual.

http://www.iisg.nl/restricted.php

Have you ever submitted a request? Why or why not? Why are you complaining when you haven't even read the stuff already available? Stuff the Church didn't release but that George Smith got a hold of and published? It seems to me you don't actually care. You're more interested in the Dan Brown-esque fascination with the secret catacombs where conspiracies and mold grow together and hushed up documents conceal the horrid truth about Mormonism. I doubt hardly anyone downtown has any good idea about what much of the archival material actually says.

OK, I let myself get a little carried away there, it's been a long morning. But I think you get my point.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here you go. http://goo.gl/HEMz

Ah I missed the link, thanks. How does that counter anything I have personally said in this thread? It upholds my point: materials that fall under the stated purpose of JSPP are being published in regards to the Clayton materials. So?

[LifeOnaPlate]

If Clayton's entire journal was available, I would read it because it would allow me to gauge the validity of James Allen's criticisms of Smith's book.

Why not submit a request? If you live in Utah there's no reason you couldn't submit a request to read the materials. They don't need to be mass published to be read.

[Fifth Columnist]

Why not submit a request? If you live in Utah there's no reason you couldn't submit a request to read the materials. They don't need to be mass published to be read.

I don't want the Church to start asking why I am interested in the information. I'm afraid that if I submit a request, it will get sent to Marlin Jensen or higher and the Church will start asking my local leaders why I would be interested in this. That could lead to some uncomfortable interviews that I would prefer not to have right now. If I lose the option of "faking it" (i.e., get outed), then I face the very real possibility of losing my marriage and access to my children as well as greatly straining extended family relationships.

It could be that requesting access won't lead to anything of the sort, but I don't want to take the chance.

[Fifth Columnist]

Ah I missed the link, thanks. How does that counter anything I have personally said in this thread?

I didn't provide the cite as a general counter to everything you have said in this thread. You asked for a reference that documented my understanding that you were questioning at the time, so I gave you one.

[Deborah]

I don't want the Church to start asking why I am interested in the information. I'm afraid that if I submit a request, it will get sent to Marlin Jensen or higher and the Church will start asking my local leaders why I would be interested in this. That could lead to some uncomfortable interviews that I would prefer not to have right now.

Paranoid a little?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't want the Church to start asking why I am interested in the information. I'm afraid that if I submit a request, it will get sent to Marlin Jensen or higher and the Church will start asking my local leaders why I would be interested in this. That could lead to some uncomfortable interviews that I would prefer not to have right now. If I lose the option of "faking it" (i.e., get outed), then I face the very real possibility of losing my marriage and access to my children as well as greatly straining extended family relationships.

It could be that requesting access won't lead to anything of the sort, but I don't want to take the chance.

I've never heard of a circumstance where a request at the CHL was turned into an ecclesiastical issue. With all due respect, I think there's some undue paranoia going on here. Whatever you're faking, you are losing an opportunity to be yourself, you're presenting a front that you evidently feel is deceptive in some way or deserving of censure, in order to preserve family relationships. That has to be a pretty crappy thing to experience. But I'm personally fairly certain that the concern si unfounded. And besides, it could actually help your situation considerably.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I didn't provide the cite as a general counter to everything you have said in this thread. You asked for a reference that documented my understanding that you were questioning at the time, so I gave you one.

Gotcha, I was thinking you were referring to something we hadn't already addressed, my mistake.

[Fifth Columnist]

I've never heard of a circumstance where a request at the CHL was turned into an ecclesiastical issue. With all due respect, I think there's some undue paranoia going on here.

Maybe so, but the stakes are too high. Also, I think asking for extremely sensitive materials like Clayton's Nauvoo journal or the Kirtland Egyptian Papers would cause the Church to conduct a careful loyalty evaluation. That is why I think they would get local ecclesiastical leaders involved.

Whatever you're faking, you are losing an opportunity to be yourself, you're presenting a front that you evidently feel is deceptive in some way or deserving of censure, in order to preserve family relationships. That has to be a pretty crappy thing to experience.

It is crappy, but I am willing to make the sacrifice to keep my family intact. It is my way of putting something on the alter for the greater good of my family.

[David T]

I think asking for extremely sensitive materials like Clayton's Nauvoo journal or the Kirtland Egyptian Papers would cause the Church to conduct a careful loyalty evaluation.

Do you have a reference for the Church having done this before for others who have requested these documents?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Maybe so, but the stakes are too high. Also, I think asking for extremely sensitive materials like Clayton's Nauvoo journal or the Kirtland Egyptian Papers would cause the Church to conduct a careful loyalty evaluation. That is why I think they would get local ecclesiastical leaders involved.

I doubt very many ecclesiastical leaders are even aware of these materials, or even care, really. You're talking about a message being passed between people who don't pass messages. The CHL staff has little interest in loyalty oaths from everything I've experienced there. It's not perfect and not everything is available to everyone, but this is a relatively minor request in the grand scheme of things. (I've never heard of a "loyalty evaluation," either tbh. There are ways to remain perfectly active in the church without pretending to believe everything everyone believes.)

[blackstrap]

Let's see if I have this correct. 5th says that he has not made a request for documents because he fears being outed in his deception.But,if he were able to read the required documents then he knows that he would find the smoking gun(s) that would allow him to say to his family, " see.I knew it all along and you were all just misguided fools believing such stuff.That is why I pretended etc.,etc.,... "

He would then have the pretext needed to out himself without all that messy church investigation.