Supressing intellectual discovery?

[MosesStone1980]

A certain "owner" of another mormon dialogue website maintains on his personal homepage that the church doesn't want its members to discover the "truth" about its history; hence, their stance on anti-mormon literature, etc.

"They" also show examples in teaching handbooks where the church is basically encouraging sheltered study of subjects by telling teachers:

"It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text."

His example above from Teachings of Presidents of the Church-Brigham Young.

[nicolasconnault]

A certain "owner" of another mormon dialogue website maintains on his personal homepage that the church doesn't want its members to discover the "truth" about its history; hence, their stance on anti-mormon literature, etc.

"They" also show examples in teaching handbooks where the church is basically encouraging sheltered study of subjects by telling teachers:

"It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text."

His example above from Teachings of Presidents of the Church-Brigham Young.

Of course, this explains the publication of the Joseph Smith papers, which includes the debunking of the traditional view of the process of translation of the Book of Mormon...

[David T]

Which is why the Church is publishing - in print and free online -the Joseph Smith Papers, including original manuscripts of the revelations and unprecedented detail of their editing processes, and has funded the book Massacre at Mountain Meadows , and why members of the Church History Department are regularly contributing to academic Mormon Studies Journals.

And it's clear the Church hates and distrusts Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling so much they gave him a chief editorial role for the JSPP.

EDITED TO ADD:

Some General Authorities in the past (namely and famously President Packer) have expressed displeasure with secular and 'complete' presentations of Church History that aren't presented for a devotional purpose. While I understand he still holds more or less such positions (he was reportedly highly opposed to the Mountain Meadows book until the very end... until he read it, and then understood its importance), it is clearly not the current majority position in the Church hierarchy.

[nicolasconnault]

Some General Authorities in the past (namely and famously President Packer) have expressed displeasure with secular and 'complete' presentations of Church History that aren't presented for a devotional purpose. While I understand he still holds more or less such positions (he was reportedly highly opposed to the Mountain Meadows book until the very end... until he read it, and then understood its importance), it is clearly not the current majority position in the Church hierarchy.

I understand Pdt Packer's misgivings: there is no such thing as an objective treatment of history. Even if there were, it would make for awfully dry and boring reading

[Jeff K.]

Knowledge without the correct context is not knowledge since context must be a key ingredient to understanding. This was made abundantly clear in "Rough Stone Rolling". A book I heartily recommend.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

A certain "owner" of another mormon dialogue website maintains on his personal homepage that the church doesn't want its members to discover the "truth" about its history; hence, their stance on anti-mormon literature, etc.

"They" also show examples in teaching handbooks where the church is basically encouraging sheltered study of subjects by telling teachers:

"It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text."

His example above from Teachings of Presidents of the Church-Brigham Young.

If someone always focuses on the negative

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Which is why the Church is publishing - in print and free online -the Joseph Smith Papers, including original manuscripts of the revelations and unprecedented detail of their editing processes, and has funded the book Massacre at Mountain Meadows , and why members of the Church History Department are regularly contributing to academic Mormon Studies Journals.

No way...not our Church. Don't confuse them with the facts.

[blueadept]

Knowledge without the correct context is not knowledge since context must be a key ingredient to understanding. This was made abundantly clear in "Rough Stone Rolling". A book I heartily recommend.

Agreed. It's hard to find a book that both members and critics can read especially in regards to LDS church history and feel fine with. RSR accomplishes that and gives both sides a starting point for a discussion. Highly recommended.

[emeliza]

A certain "owner" of another mormon dialogue website maintains on his personal homepage that the church doesn't want its members to discover the "truth" about its history; hence, their stance on anti-mormon literature, etc.

"They" also show examples in teaching handbooks where the church is basically encouraging sheltered study of subjects by telling teachers:

"It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text."

His example above from Teachings of Presidents of the Church-Brigham Young.

I am one of those people who always gives the 'benefit of the doubt' but my understanding of the above sentence wasn't to keep people from studying it out themselves (the History of the Church books tell most history and aren't frowned upon), but was instead telling people it is okay to just use the free book for this class and not spend a lot of money.

[MosesStone1980]

Knowledge without the correct context is not knowledge since context must be a key ingredient to understanding. This was made abundantly clear in "Rough Stone Rolling". A book I heartily recommend.

In my possession, just need to finish reading it.

[MosesStone1980]

I am one of those people who always gives the 'benefit of the doubt' but my understanding of the above sentence wasn't to keep people from studying it out themselves (the History of the Church books tell most history and aren't frowned upon), but was instead telling people it is okay to just use the free book for this class and not spend a lot of money.

Agreed.

Thanks for your direct response.

[MosesStone1980]

Not sure if the following deserves its own thread; however, where do most people here draw the line vis-a-vis what "anti" literature is worthy of attention and which crosses the line making it unworthy to response?

Battling with a skunk leaves one nothing but stinky.

[Blah]

Not sure if the following deserves its own thread; however, where do most people here draw the line vis-a-vis what "anti" literature is worthy of attention and which crosses the line making it unworthy to response?

Battling with a skunk leaves one nothing but stinky.

Any literature that is primarily "anti-" anything is not worth my time, whether it is anti-Mormon, anti-Muslim, anti-[your political party here], anti-drug, anti-literacy, etc... Anyone who cannot state their position without attacking someone/something else is toxic.

(And yes, I recognize the irony of being anti-negativity. Sue me.)

[TAO]

Agreeing with Blah.

I will read anti-material occasionally, but usually I get sick after the first bit, and cease reading it.

The only thing I am truly critical of is negativism itself, so to say =)... negative thoughts have such a bad impact on the world, that they do.

[Mortal Man]

A certain "owner" of another mormon dialogue website maintains on his personal homepage that the church doesn't want its members to discover the "truth" about its history; hence, their stance on anti-mormon literature, etc.

"They" also show examples in teaching handbooks where the church is basically encouraging sheltered study of subjects by telling teachers:

"It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text."

His example above from Teachings of Presidents of the Church-Brigham Young.

Well, I don't know about that, but I would like to know why all the church presidents from Brigham Young to Heber J. Grant were lifelong bachelors.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Any literature that is primarily "anti-" anything is not worth my time, whether it is anti-Mormon, anti-Muslim, anti-[your political party here], anti-drug, anti-literacy, etc... Anyone who cannot state their position without attacking someone/something else is toxic.

Agreed...I don't read anti-anything. If i want to know something I ask a member of that faith.

[blueadept]

Agreed...I don't read anti-anything. If i want to know something I ask a member of that faith.

While I appreciate the intention, I never understood the reality of 'throwing out the baby with the bath water.' Good-intention people do believe a lot of the 'anti' stuff. These good-intention people, on occasion, will listen to your side as well.

Personally, I would correct your statement by saying "...I would ask someone knowledgeable of that faith."

I've witnessed a few times a good-intention Catholic explaining something to the LDS missionaries. I had the correct understanding of how to interpret what was said. I also knew there was no way the missionaries received the same understanding. Unfortunately, this is a common observance.

My 2 cents

[Jeff K.]

I think there is a difference between criticism or presumed inconsistency and being "anti". In the former a person follows a logical approach and does not seek a specific end, but merely attempts to understand, or critique the logic behind an idea or belief. In the latter, the end result is what matters and the person will twist and turn logic in numerous ways in order to make the logic approach the preconceived outcome. The latter is what makes most of us sick and tired because the same old hackneyed approach does nothing to enlighten only to denigrate. The former can offer wonder new vistas of thought and philosophy of implementation.

Some people vacillate between the two, some are very good at camophlaging their preconcieved notions to appear as the former, and so on....

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

While I appreciate the intention, I never understood the reality of 'throwing out the baby with the bath water.' Good-intention people do believe a lot of the 'anti' stuff. These good-intention people, on occasion, will listen to your side as well.

Personally, I would correct your statement by saying "...I would ask someone knowledgeable of that faith."

I've witnessed a few times a good-intention Catholic explaining something to the LDS missionaries. I had the correct understanding of how to interpret what was said. I also knew there was no way the missionaries received the same understanding. Unfortunately, this is a common observance.

My 2 cents

Often I find those with the

[blueadept]

Often I find those with the

[thesometimesaint]

blueadept:

I thought we to be wise as serpents, but gentler than doves.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have yet found a LDS missionary who gained a greater insight when being misinformed by someone who has 'faith of a little child' from my experience.

Did I mention that I'm jealous that young LDS adults rank the highest among Christians that truly know their faith while Catholics and Jews rate the worst in understanding theirs?

Come on in the water is warm.

[cinepro]

A certain "owner" of another mormon dialogue website maintains on his personal homepage that the church doesn't want its members to discover the "truth" about its history; hence, their stance on anti-mormon literature, etc.

"They" also show examples in teaching handbooks where the church is basically encouraging sheltered study of subjects by telling teachers:

"It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text."

His example above from Teachings of Presidents of the Church-Brigham Young.

As you can tell by the comments in this thread, the Church has made great strides in the last five years towards being more open and honest about certain aspects of its history.

I suspect the site in question is either being willfully misrepresentative, or was written before 2005.

[MosesStone1980]

Cinepro,

you seem to be one of the boards most enigmatic creatures.

I can't figure if you are a previous member who is still kind towards the church in general, or an active member who demonstrates dislike to the imperfections of the leaders and to a lesser extent, the general mood of its members?

I mostly want to understand how to interpret your seemingly cryptic posts.

I certainly mean no offense.

[blueadept]

Cinepro,

you seem to be one of the boards most enigmatic creatures.

I can't figure if you are a previous member who is still kind towards the church in general, or an active member who demonstrates dislike to the imperfections of the leaders and to a lesser extent, the general mood of its members?

I mostly want to understand how to interpret your seemingly cryptic posts.

I certainly mean no offense.

While it mainly depends upon the topic to understand cinepro, you have company of other board members in summarizing cinepro's posts......lol