Supressing intellectual discovery?

[emeliza]

I think 'anti' is in the eye of the beholder.

Some things that are written that I think are good and have a fairly unbiased or maybe just a bit slant on their thoughts are considered anti by other people. Some people think Rough Stone Rolling is anti. Other people think Rough Stone Rolling gives too my leeway to Joseph Smith. That to me means it meets the criteria I would want in a book.

Personally, if I read something and it has nothing good to say about whatever it is opposing, I generally won't read it. That to me is anti. However if it is something that might critic certain parts and might even be very unfavorable towards the subject, but still has the ability to point out things that are good about the subject, it is generally worth the read to me.

[MosesStone1980]

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

From this, and from cinepro's uniquely personal posting style, I surmise either way, I won't be getting any clarification from him; that, indeed, being part of the grand enjoyment of the online persona of cinepro.

[MosesStone1980]

I think 'anti' is in the eye of the beholder.

Some things that are written that I think are good and have a fairly unbiased or maybe just a bit slant on their thoughts are considered anti by other people. Some people think Rough Stone Rolling is anti. Other people think Rough Stone Rolling gives too my leeway to Joseph Smith. That to me means it meets the criteria I would want in a book.

Personally, if I read something and it has nothing good to say about whatever it is opposing, I generally won't read it. That to me is anti. However if it is something that might critic certain parts and might even be very unfavorable towards the subject, but still has the ability to point out things that are good about the subject, it is generally worth the read to me.

Thank you for your personalized approach.

One day we will be blessed by the lifting of the curtain, and truly seeing EVERYTHING as they really are, and really will be.

[Calm]

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.

I am grateful that we have a chance to speak up on this board to clarify certain comments when people aren't careful to state what is and isn't their own opinion. I have done so a few times in real life (most notably in a museum tour on the subject of the Immaculate Conception), but most of the time it isn't appropriate and honestly, I am troubled when I know people are walking away with the wrong idea.

I also always qualify my own comments with stuff like "to the best of my understanding, you might want to find out more details on your own in case I've missed something" etc. etc. If someone cares enough to repeat something as a teaching of truth (as opposed to a personal standard or opinion), I really do believe there is an obligation for studying for at least basic understanding which is why I love that the LDS leaders emphasize reading the scriptures and have assigned these two years for studying basic doctrine through the Gospel Principles manual (and if my new drug keeps working as well as it did last night, I may actually be to attend classes to see how it's being taught in a real life setting ).

I always assume these days (and tell my young friends to do the same though I don't know if they remember my advice) that what someone is telling me is their personal interpretation of their faith. If that is what I want (which it is usually in real life because I am trying to find out what they themselves care about), then I won't do much more. If I am trying to find out what the official beliefs are, I will ask them if there is a website that belongs to their church (or if they are nondenominational, one that they feel closely aligned with) where I can find out more without having to take up their time. I find this a polite way of learning both the personal and the official POVs. If there are significant differences between the two, I don't make a big deal of it though (maybe would on here because the context is different than in real life).

[Rivers]

Here's the way I look at it: When you take a class in school, the teacher spends most of the time teaching you the most fundamental things pertaining to the subject. The teacher usually has a limited time to teach the important material and often leaves many interesting details out. If a student wants to dig deeper into the subject of the class, he/she will go to the library and find additional material to read. Sometimes simply reading the everything in the textbook is going much deeper than what is taught in the lectures.

I think it is similar with the Sunday School curriculims. The church wants the teachers to focus on the fundamental principles of the gospel that our necessary for the members' spiritual welfare. If members of the church want to know more detail, they will dig deeper into the scriptures. If they still want to know more they go to Desseret Book or Seagul to and get commentaries, RSR, Masacare at Mountain Meadows, books from the Setting the Record Straight series, etc. There are loads of meatier material out there for the members if they want it.

I think Gospel Doctrine teachers should encourage members to study these other materials on their own time. The Doctrine and Covenants encourages exhaustive studying of all kinds of subjects.

I knew somebody who worked at Desseret Book who actually discouraged members from buying RSR. Unbelievable if you ask me.

[Sky]

If the Church was truly afraid of anybody studying its history, then the money spent to build the new Church History Library in Salt Lake City would be counterproductive. So contrary to the claims of many critics, the Church does not suppress its history or intellectual discovery. It is an open book that anybody can access if they so desire. Indeed, the Church is proud of its heritage, warts and all, as it has helped to shape the Church into what it has become today.

[daz2]

The institutional Church seems to be of two minds about sources. In recent years, the Church history department has been probably as open as it was during the Arrington spring/Camelot--with the official Church backing more open and less hagiographic history. So, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, more candid and accurate information is available from "official" sources.

But "official" is not the same as "correlated." The correlated materials--lds.org--are not complete. For example, I can find no reference on it to Joseph Smith's having taught, as well as Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith, that it was appropriate for women (or others who do not hold priesthood) to bless the sick. On the flipside, I do not find on lds.org the prior teachings (folklore) about race/lineage priesthood/temple--curse of Cain, etc . . . Those are both part our history (female healing and racialist folklore) but are not discussed in correlated materials.

And teachers in the Church are encouraged not to include anything in lessons that is not correlated. And things like the seer stone in Joseph's hat, while mentioned in conference talks and on lds.org, are not mentioned in correlated manuals (last I checked).

Thus, unless a Mormon makes an effort to search beyond lds.org, or the manuals, he or she may be surprised.

[cinepro]

And teachers in the Church are encouraged not to include anything in lessons that is not correlated. And things like the seer stone in Joseph's hat, while mentioned in conference talks and on lds.org, are not mentioned in correlated manuals (last I checked).

If you consider the Ensign "correlated", Elder Nelson's talk to the Mission Presidents published in 1993 mentions Whitmer's claim about the seer stone and the hat.

[cinepro]

From this, and from cinepro's uniquely personal posting style, I surmise either way, I won't be getting any clarification from him; that, indeed, being part of the grand enjoyment of the online persona of cinepro.

I'm a currently active member.

But beyond that, all my posts make perfect sense to me, so I can't really help you out there...

[Daniel Peterson]

Americans as a whole are a pretty ahistorical people, though there are exceptions. I regret that very much. I just don't think it's feasible or desirable to try to make our short weekly Gospel Doctrine classes into graduate seminars on the historiography of Mormonism. We're lucky to cram as much history down the throats of our membership as we do, and, in fact, Latter-day Saints are more historically oriented (by far) than Americans typically are. Both because of Church history classes and historical sites and pioneer treks and that sort of thing, and because of the emphasis on family and personal history.

The Church puts lots and lots of resources into historical research and preservation. The on-going Mountain Meadows Massacre project (the second volume of which is still pending), the massive Joseph Smith Papers Project, and the relatively recent collection of archival materials on DVD illustrate this beyond reasonable dispute

[daz2]

If you consider the Ensign "correlated", Elder Nelson's talk to the Mission Presidents published in 1993 mentions Whitmer's claim about the seer stone and the hat.

I may not have been clear enough. There are some things that are mentioned on lds.org (which is entirely coordinated) including the Ensign and conference talks, but are not mentioned in manuals. The seer stone and hat is mentioned on lds.org (and in the Ensign)--to my knowledge it is not mentioned in lesson manuals (last I checked). Similarly, the multiple versions of the First Vision are described in several articles in the Ensign, but not mentioned in the lesson manuals. The Joseph Smith PH/RS manual implicitly did, because it included two versions, one from PoFGP and other from Wentworth letter.

[Jeff K.]

It seems your issue is that what you particularly want covered is not being covered. Given the limited amount of time and space, it would seem reasonable that everything is not covered, but the key important items are. Your argument seems to rely on your judgement call for what should be put in the manuals versus someone elses judgement call. You can't make everyone happy and the manuals are supposed to be manuals, not tomes. A manual on car care doesn't necessarily include tensile strength of aluminum, even though the metal may make up a portion of the auto. In other words, the manual deals with teaching the basics, not potential profundities or arcane material. I note those items are clearly available to all who wish to do the extra research.

[Calm]

The seer stone and hat is mentioned on lds.org (and in the Ensign)--to my knowledge it is not mentioned in lesson manuals (last I checked).

IIRC, it is mentioned in the CES manual, but I can't access it online at this time.