Amateurs...

[CA Steve]

I didn't use the word interest. I said inclination. I'm sure there was a great deal of interest but having an inclination to delve into the mass of documents with so many other things they had to do would be a different matter. It is and has been a very time consuming and detailed project. The project was begun in 2001 and is hoped to be finished in 2015.

Just to be clear, is it your assertion that no one had the inclination to delve into these documents until 2001?

[PacMan]

Wow. Things can really take off if you stay away for just a bit.

Rob,

Not a lot of time, but a couple of comments.

First, your whole conspiracy theory is based on the presumption that (1) the church knew about the account, (2) the church saw there was a reason to hide it, and (3) the church did, indeed, conceal its existence. No doubt they knew about it, but as I mentioned above, I can

[PacMan]

Rob,

Almost forgot:

It is not necessary to show motive to show suppression. But if you have a better explanation for the decision to keep Joseph Smith's earliest account of the First Vision secret from LDS Church members until just after the Tanners asked for a copy of it, I'd like to hear it.

Umm...no. Your allegation is that the church affirmatively kept something secret (hence the church's alleged "decision"), which requires intent. So barring a church official saying "yeah, we just wanted to hide it," you darn well better come up with some sort of motive because you have no other evidence for you crazy notion other than your unsupported supposition. As I just said, there's no reason to think the church thought the document was was a big deal. And once the Tanners got involved, they replied in such a way that only indicates that they had nothing to hide.

Not only can you not show that they did anything intentionally, but you can't even show that they acted unreasonably, or negligently!

PacMan

[Deborah]

Just to be clear, is it your assertion that no one had the inclination to delve into these documents until 2001?

The question is why do you care? The fact is scholars had access to these documents prior to then but there was no effort to really organize them until they could organize and finance a group to do so, using the Jefferson Papers project as a template of how to proceed. The documents aren't necessary for salvation but they are interesting as a history and a look at the character of a beloved Prophet. Therefore they have not been a priority and I'm not sure why critics are more interested in this than most Mormons except in their desire to find the smoking gun to finally bring the church down. I think they will be sorely disappointed. In my reading so far of Vol 1, the prophet is shown as a very human man, who was full of charity, forgiveness and desire to serve God.

That occasional scholars went through some of these documents shows there was interest. Truman Madsen and others had access to these and Br. Madsen discusses things that he discovered in his lectures.

[Deborah]

I don't think the force of that argument hinges on them being "hidden," but I would like to see a link to Ensign issue you had in mind.

See post #20 for documents.

1970 James B. Allen,

[CA Steve]

The question is why do you care? The fact is scholars had access to these documents prior to then but there was no effort to really organize them until they could organize and finance a group to do so, using the Jefferson Papers project as a template of how to proceed. The documents aren't necessary for salvation but they are interesting as a history and a look at the character of a beloved Prophet. Therefore they have not been a priority and I'm not sure why critics are more interested in this than most Mormons except in their desire to find the smoking gun to finally bring the church down. I think they will be sorely disappointed. In my reading so far of Vol 1, the prophet is shown as a very human man, who was full of charity, forgiveness and desire to serve God.

That occasional scholars went through some of these documents shows there was interest. Truman Madsen and others had access to these and Br. Madsen discusses things that he discovered in his lectures.

No actually the question is exactly as posed. Are you asserting that there was no inclination before 2001?

[Deborah]

I don't think the force of that argument hinges on them being "hidden," but I would like to see a link to Ensign issue you had in mind.

Here is an Ensign article much later than the Era article Ensign

And here is a second article from Ensign: Ensign-2

There are other sources which can be accessed on LDS.org

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You are doing the same thing the others are doing--ignoring the chronology and the testimonies I cited, all of which creates a narrative in which the conclusion that the Church Historian's Office was suppressing the document is a reasonable inference, not a "crazy notion" or "unsupported supposition."

When people get caught hiding something, it is quite common for them to act as if they have nothing to hide. It is also quite common for their defenders to demand that their critics read the suppressors' minds if we can't prove their motives, or to accuse us of claiming to read their minds if we even suggest a plausible motive. "Heads we win, tails we lose."

Still waiting for a serious response...and Deborah's attempt at a witty retort wasn't it.

[caudicus]

I have often been surprised out how staunch critics can get in attacking the church, when they have no clue what they are talking about.

One of my favorites is the critical response to Abraham 2:24, where God commands Abraham to tell the Egyptians that his wife is, indeed, his sister. The idea being that the Mormon notion of God is inconsistent (thus false) if God can tell someone to lie.

Problem #1 - This is consistent with the Biblical account in Genesis 12:17-20 and Genesis 20:2.

Problem #2 - Genesis 20:12. Sarah WAS Abraham's sister. In fact, "she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."

What are your favorites?

That one seems pretty obscure to me. My favorite one is the "Mormons aren't Christians." It is a great example of how people redefine terms to suit their own argument.

I think most critics start from the wrong place, personally, and, now that I have been hanging around while, most of their arguments seem silly.

Horses? Sure, I guess. Book of Abraham Facsimiles? Yeah, thats pretty good. The real problems with the LDS faith, though, are the problems they share with all of the other Abrahamic religions. The Old Testament is full of lies, the New Testament wasn't written by the apostles, and the earliest Christians didn't believe Jesus had a physical form. It is tough for a proper restoration to occur when that restoration is already making many false assumptions.

[mfbukowski]

Here is an Ensign article much later than the Era article Ensign

And here is a second article from Ensign: Ensign-2

There are other sources which can be accessed on LDS.org

I'd say that about ends the issue.

[Vance]

PacMan,

You are doing the same thing the others are doing--ignoring the chronology and the testimonies I cited, all of which creates a narrative in which the conclusion that the Church Historian's Office was suppressing the document is a reasonable inference, not a "crazy notion" or "unsupported supposition."

Suppressing? No, you have provided NO evidence for this conclusion.

"Not releasing"? Yeah, there is evidence for that.

You have no evidence toward motive, therefore you have no evidence for "suppressing".

You refusal to acknowledge these facts won't change them.

When people get caught hiding something, it is quite common for them to act as if they have nothing to hide.

And when people aren't hiding something, they also act like there is nothing to hide.

Sorry, but that isn't evidence for your case.

It is also quite common for their defenders to demand that their critics read the suppressors' minds if we can't prove their motives, or to accuse us of claiming to read their minds if we even suggest a plausible motive.

First you claim to read their minds, now you are claiming that we demand you read their minds. What is up with that?

You are making a claim imputing motive, that is "suppressing". You have NO EVIDENCE for motive. So you have no basis for the claim.

Why are you surprised that people are buying your tripe?

"Heads we win, tails we lose."

Depending on the flip of a coin are you?

Still waiting for a serious response...

Still waiting for a serious case, with ACTUAL evidence.

[caudicus]

The serious response is that there are discrepancies in the accounts. To some people, this matters a great deal, to others... not so much.

The church authorities have had access to controversial material that may put the church in the bad light. Did they access this material? Who knows. Certainly, they were buying up anything they could get their hands on, so it seems obvious there is some component of the church that is seeking to do an active cover up. This is normal for any human organization. People feel a compulsion to protect whatever organization they have invested in... emotionally, financially, or otherwise. Just look at the US Government. They've never tried to hide anything at all, right?

Whatever their reasons, some stuff has, in fact, been covered up. I can give start throwing out 'Let Me Google That For You" links if you like, but I am sure you can manage "Salamander Letters" and various other items. For critics, it is great stuff, for TBM's... it makes no difference, so don't worry about it.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

I'd say that about ends the issue.

Huh? Some articles acknowledging the existence of the 1832 account after it was made public in 1965 "ends the issue"?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Merriam-Webster's definition of suppress:

"to keep from public knowledge; (a) to keep secret; (b) to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of."

Nothing about motive.

QED.

[volgadon]

No actually the question is exactly as posed. Are you asserting that there was no inclination before 2001?

Massive projects require organisation and preparation, often years before the official commencement.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

Huh? Some articles acknowledging the existence of the 1832 account after it was made public in 1965 "ends the issue"?

What precisely would you like? For what? The church has published what happened in its most popular, well-read magazine. What do you want?

[Vance]

Vance,

Merriam-Webster's definition of suppress:

"to keep from public knowledge; (a) to keep secret; (b) to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of."

Nothing about motive.

QED.

Or,

From Merriam-Webster's definition of suppress:

1 : to put down by authority or force : subdue

Sorry you missed it.

So, "to put down by authority or force" expresses a willful effort. For which, you have no evidence.

And, "to put down by authority or force" implies a nefarious motive. And YOU KNOW IT.

An honest critic would say "didn't release".

A dishonest critic would say, "withheld".

A maliciously dishonest critic would say, "suppressed".

[Vance]

From, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression

The term Suppression may refer to:

* Oppression

* Censorship

* Voter suppression

* Cultural suppression

* Suppression of religion

* Political suppression

* Thought suppression, the process of deliberately trying to stop thinking about certain thoughts

Clearly implying nefarious motives.

Q.E.D.

[Deborah]

For critics, it is great stuff, for TBM's... it makes no difference, so don't worry about it.

But why is it great stuff? Why is there such delight in trying to tear down a church that has done so much good in the world and a people who try to live their lives as best they can and in serving others, and whose members as you say don't really care?

[Rivers]

Adeu in the Book of Mormon.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

A word does not convey every dictionary definition whenever it is used. I notice you didn't object to my use of the word suppress that the dictionary also gives as a possible definition "to inhibit the genetic expression of." No one thought I meant that the LDS Church was putting down anything by force.

Somehow, based solely on my use of the word suppressed, you feel justified in concluding that I am "maliciously dishonest." Yet the evidence (only one piece of which we have been discussing) that the LDS Church engaged in a decades-long practice of withholding documents that were potentially embarrassing to it is somehow insufficient to justify saying merely that the documents were "suppressed." You act as if you are offended by my use of that word, which attributes no evil motives to anyone (I have already explained this), while you explicitly attribute evil motivations to me.

Go find something useful to do.

[Vance]

Vance,

A word does not convey every dictionary definition whenever it is used.

No, but its other meanings to can and do create mis-impressions. Which why you are using the term "suppress" rather than the more accurate "did not release". You purposely want to give that mis-impression. Else why would you defend the use of "suppress"

I notice you didn't object to my use of the word suppress that the dictionary also gives as a possible definition "to inhibit the genetic expression of."

Irrelevant. And you know it.

No one thought I meant that the LDS Church was putting down anything by force.

Able to read everybody's mind are you?

While you are in the mind reading mode, can you tell me if "no one thought" you meant a nefarious motive as in

*Oppression

* Censorship

* Voter suppression

* Cultural suppression

* Suppression of religion

* Political suppression

* Thought suppression, the process of deliberately trying to stop thinking about certain thoughts

?

Somehow, based solely on my use of the word suppressed, you feel justified in concluding that I am "maliciously dishonest."

Why do you INSIST on its continued usage? Especially when you have no evidence to support its use?

Why can't you just be honest and use "did not release"?

Yet the evidence (only one piece of which we have been discussing) that the LDS Church engaged in a decades-long practice of withholding documents that were potentially embarrassing to it is somehow insufficient to justify saying merely that the documents were "suppressed."

Again you have NO EVIDENCE of this. AND YOU KNOW IT.

"Did not release" is the accurate description based upon the evidence.

Your willful stubbornness here reveals a LOT about your character.

You act as if you are offended by my use of that word, which attributes no evil motives to anyone (I have already explained this), . . .

Which I refuted.

You meretricious defense here does go toward your motive.

. . . while you explicitly attribute evil motivations to me.

Well, why else do you insist upon giving false impressions to your readers if not for evil motives?

Go find something useful to do.

Well, at least I don't spend my time tear down the faith of others.

[mfbukowski]

Adeu in the Book of Mormon.

Surely you can do better than this. At least you could spell it right. Not too impressive.

[mfbukowski]

Rob

You have yet to reply to my comments on another thread where you stated that Trinity was a Neoplatonic doctrine, and that Neoplatonism started the fourth century, when I pointed out that in fact Platonism, of which Neoplatonism was a resurgence, was actually a pagan doctrine of Greek philosophy from the fourth century BC, thus making the Trinity based on pagan Greek philosophy.

You had no reply then.

You may have forgotten, but I haven't. The Trinity is based on pagan doctrine.

To me, that fits perfectly with this thread

[Vance]

To me, that fits perfectly with this thread

I agree.

"Mormons aren't Christian because they reject the (Nicean) trinity".