Church Censorship Of Truthful History

[DBMormon]

One of the issues that apoligist come racing to defend is the accusation that the church hides truthful difficult history. On this board and in other places there are discussions about the Artwork of the church misrepresenting things such as the translation method. Statements are made including by me that the church is very hesitant to make the general membership aware of things such as polyandry through it's own channels even though that is an important part of our history.

The critic sites example after example and they are explained away as "lots of artwork is not accurate both in and out of the church, besides artist render their own rendition, the church doesn't tell them what to paint". they say "History is not the purpose of Sunday meetings, it is about building faith and testimony". With that said and using the FAIR Site

http://en.fairmormon...ip_and_revision as the point of starting, how does one reconcile the following statement by Bro. Bitton, Assistant Church historian under Leonard Arrington.

"On one occasion Leonard and I were advised to leave a chapter on polygamy out of our book. We listened to such reactions, tried to be sensitive to different audiences, and made the best judgment we could. Polygamy is a large and

important part of our history. Questions continue to be raised about it. Thinking that we could render service by producing a concise, low-key treatment of the subject, we proposed such a work to our superiors. They declined. Whether because of general press reaction or because of the presence of Fundamentalists still clinging to the practice, polygamy is such a sensitive subject that some General Authorities preferred to avoid mentioning it at all. Church magazines. were not supposed to mention the practice. Books produced by Deseret Book studiously avoided it"

Quote is from "ten years in Camelot" by Davis Bitton

http://www.dialoguej...e_V16N03_11.pdf

maybe with good reason, but that is censorship. That is hiding truth. That is not being forthright. That is not telling the whole truth. It is also not Sunday Curriculum but an effort to share what it is... History, through the appropriate history channel of the church. Too many of you will race on something like this to say, "the church doesn't hide anything." "They hide it right in the ensign" But your not honest with yourself. They do keep people in the church quiet about publishing troubling factual info. unless you want to call Mr. Bitton liar, one must come to terms with that.

Now, Me? It would have bothered me a few months back, because I see you folks defending and and arguing against any thought the church does that, and in doing so you set up a false standard for me and others. at the end of the day, it's ok. The are protecting faith. While I would expect the "untrue church" to do things like this and While I wish the true church wouldn't, I can see why they would and if in their shoes perhaps I might as well at times.

So lets be more honest in our defense of the church. It helps everyone

Edited June 14, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

the book he is speaking of is a book the church historical department published as a history of the church.

My hope here is that we can discuss

1.) if truth is hidden by the church on purpose?

2.) is that justified? and why?

3.) If yes to #2 how far can one go down that slippery slope before it is innapropriate?

4.) Other definitive examples of this occuring?

5.) Do we defend the church on this point when we really don't have to or are wrong in doing so because they do in fact do it?

6.) Because I walk a fine line, how long before the strengthening members committee has a file on me?

Edited June 14, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

couple other quotes from this article

One member of the Historical Department, a librarian, regularly went through anything we published, underlined passages he considered inappropriate, and sent these annotated copies to his personal contacts among the General Authorities. We were certainly aware of this and simply hoped that small minds would be so recognized by those in positions of responsibility. We had our own channels of clearance and communication and never regarded ourselves as immune from criticism. But the behind-the-scenes, over-the-backfence rumor-mongering was insidious.

If you visit the East Wing of the Church Office Building you will find in the hallway a gallery of portraits. These are the Church Historians, from Oliver Cowdery to G. Homer Durham. But where is Leonard Arrington? Nowhere to be seen. The official explanation is that to be a Church Historian one has to be a General Authority. A brief period of our history, awkwardly embarrassing to someone, is thus erased. Orwell's Truthspeak did not have to wait for 1984.

Edited June 14, 2012 by reelmormon

[CV75]

So lets be more honest in our defense of the church. It helps everyone

I did not read the entire article, but I believe in dealing with such concerns, the Church’s General Authorities appropriately prioritize promulgating revealed truth and exercising the keys for administering and recording the saving ordinances over promulgating historical facts that, according to Bro. Bitton’s quote, seem to detract or distract from that.

I find it interesting that he used phrases such as “preferred to avoid,” “not supposed to” and “studiously avoided,” which do not connote coercion or policy. It seems that, as agents of the Church, the aim of the GAs and Church-owned publishers to be in accordance with current Church doctrine is most appropriate.

“Censorship” might apply in other situations, but in ensuring that doctrine the clearly taught through Church representatives and media is not censorship.

[CV75]

couple other quotes from this article

Yikes! The more you quote from the article, the more dishonest the proposition that true doctrine was smothered appears!

[Log]

1.) if truth is hidden by the church on purpose?

It is possible that someone with some stewardship over something or other thinks or thought that the purpose of a church history should solely concern itself with the faith-promoting events in the church's history.

2.) is that justified? and why?

It is justified if it is done by the servants of the Lord as they perceive their errand to be, and it is not mine to question their decisions or suggest they should have done what I wanted them to do.

3.) If yes to #2 how far can one go down that slippery slope before it is innapropriate?

It is only inappropriate if it is contrary to the Lord's will, and it is outside of my stewardship to judge whether those who have that stewardship have gone contrary to the Lord's will.

4.) Other definitive examples of this occuring?

Brigham Young said there will always be cats in the bag to embarrass the Church, so probably.

5.) Do we defend the church on this point when we really don't have to or are wrong in doing so because they do in fact do it?

You must decide when and whether to honor your covenant to defend the Church. If you feel that those who have other duties and stewardship in the Church are derelict in those duties, it really would be best, in my view, to take your concerns to those who have stewardship over them.

6.) Because I walk a fine line, how long before the strengthening members committee has a file on me?

Reel, why don't you ask them? But - here's a more pertinent question - why hover at the edge of this particular cliff?

[thesometimesaint]

Say I want to buy a new car. I travel to the various new car dealerships trying to find the one that is the best fit for me and my circumstances. Does it really help me to make a decision on which car to buy to know the personal quirks of Henry Ford, or Bob Lutz, or Akio Toyoda?

Edited June 14, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Kevin Christensen]

Thought experiment, if we accept it as a given that censorship of any kind is an unmixed evil, and that truth is a knowledge things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come why doesn't God arrange for us to be born omniscient, knowing everything from everyone and everywhen, including not only the secret thoughts and deeds of everyone, but also all eternal consequences of every act we consider before we act.

What would be gained by this circumstance? What purpose would it serve for a baby? Would a person be better off if the possibility of disillusion were removed in this way? Is there any other way to remove that possibility?

As far as scriptural reasons for controlling access to knowledge, I wrote this in Paradigm Crossed:

How much attention should we give unsolved problems? In what forum? The social dynamic of Mormonism handles that issue by itself. Those inclined to make inquiries do so, and those not so inclined encourage us to keep to ourselves until we've got something to contribute. The scriptures do recognize four valid motives for managing access to information: (1) pedagogy—when the information cannot be understood without significant preparation or experience (3 Nephi 17:2-3; Hebrews 5:11-14), (2) confidentiality on personal matters (D&C 42:88, 92), (3) sacredness (3 Nephi 17:17; D&C 63:64), and (4) social danger¹⁸³ —this restriction never applies to ideas, but only to spelling out methods.

Information management in these cases derives from genuine love on the part of the teacher and free consent on the part of the student. Full knowledge remains available to those who seek it.

Our scriptures caution all of us against limiting knowledge in order to cover sins, gratify pride and vain ambition, or to exercise control, dominion, or compulsion over people in any degree of unrighteousness (cf. D&C 121:37). Pure knowledge, we are told, greatly enlarges the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile (D&C 121:42). That is, if the knowledge is pure, we can expect to see an increase of love and empathy, as when Enos first prays for himself, then for his family, and then for his enemies. It follows then, that impure knowledge leads to hypocrisy, impatience, and intolerance, all of which signify a contracting of the soul (D&C 121:39). This does not mean, however, that pure knowledge, sharp criticism, and love are always strangers to each other.

Take note that those who send out the young unprepared, or who create faulty background expectations for them, have just as much to answer for as those who stand in the great and spacious building, zealously or morbidly pointing out problems. Whether they intend to or not, both camps can lead innocent individuals to feel shame at clinging to the iron rod, and to lose their way, and wander lost in the broad roads. The disillusioned got their illusions somewhere.¹⁸⁴

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=7&num=2&id=193

And there is Peter Novick speaking at Sunstone:on the problem of "objective" history for human historians:

according to Novick, is the problem of selecting from the mass of

historical data . . . the handful that we can fit in even the largest book, and the associated problem of how we arrange those bits that we choose. The criterion of selection and the way we arrange the bits we choose are not given out there in the historical record. Neutrality, value-freedom, and absence of preconceptions on the part of the historian would not result in a neutral account, it would result in no account at all because any historian, precisely to the extent that she was neutral, without values, free of preconceptions, would be paralyzed, would not have the foggiest notion of how to go about choosing from the vast, unbelievably messy chaos of stuff out there.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=596

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Log]

Say I want to buy a new car. I travel to the various new car dealerships trying to find the one that is the best fit for me and my circumstances. Does it really help me to make a decision on which car to buy to know the personal quirks of Henry Ford, or Bob Lutz, or Akio Toyod?

More to the point - if one joins the Church or continue on without having received a witness of the Spirit that one can identify as such, then the personal histories of the leaders of the Church can function as a substitute for that. And such an one will stay so long as nothing contradicts their naive view of the leader's histories. The Lord designs to test them - so the cats are let out of the bag, one or severally, as he will.

[Damien the Leper]

Say I want to buy a new car. I travel to the various new car dealerships trying to find the one that is the best fit for me and my circumstances. Does it really help me to make a decision on which car to buy to know the personal quirks of Henry Ford, or Bob Lutz, or Akio Toyoda?

But I would like to see the CarFax. That's not going to be an issue is it?

[DBMormon]

Reel, why don't you ask them? But - here's a more pertinent question - why hover at the edge of this particular cliff?

Log - good point. I don't think I would ask, because I really don't want a file on me, and asking might wake a sleeping dog? that question was joke by the way though It is a fact that this committee keeps an eye on members who cause problems, that is their job.

why hover? the edge I refer to is being faith promoting, finding ways to see the church as true without dismissing or explaining away serious issues so that others don't just think all LDS are blind to them or excuse them.

Also, If Church Historians are not allowed to discuss polygamy in books on church history, where will it be acknowleged?

now again as I stated, the withholding of truth as a crime is not the issue as I now see some value in it at times but rather the apoligetics dismissing that as false rather then saying yes, we do that at times and here is why?

Edited June 14, 2012 by reelmormon

[ERayR]

One of the issues that apoligist come racing to defend is the accusation that the church hides truthful difficult history. On this board and in other places there are discussions about the Artwork of the church misrepresenting things such as the translation method. Statements are made including by me that the church is very hesitant to make the general membership aware of things such as polyandry through it's own channels even though that is an important part of our history.

The critic sites example after example and they are explained away as "lots of artwork is not accurate both in and out of the church, besides artist render their own rendition, the church doesn't tell them what to paint". they say "History is not the purpose of Sunday meetings, it is about building faith and testimony". With that said and using the FAIR Site

http://en.fairmormon...ip_and_revision as the point of starting, how does one reconcile the following statement by Bro. Bitton, Assistant Church historian under Leonard Arrington.

Quote is from "ten years in Camelot" by Davis Bitton

http://www.dialoguej...e_V16N03_11.pdf

maybe with good reason, but that is censorship. That is hiding truth. That is not being forthright. That is not telling the whole truth. It is also not Sunday Curriculum but an effort to share what it is... History, through the appropriate history channel of the church. Too many of you will race on something like this to say, "the church doesn't hide anything." "They hide it right in the ensign" But your not honest with yourself. They do keep people in the church quiet about publishing troubling factual info. unless you want to call Mr. Bitton liar, one must come to terms with that.

Now, Me? It would have bothered me a few months back, because I see you folks defending and and arguing against any thought the church does that, and in doing so you set up a false standard for me and others. at the end of the day, it's ok. The are protecting faith. While I would expect the "untrue church" to do things like this and While I wish the true church wouldn't, I can see why they would and if in their shoes perhaps I might as well at times.

So lets be more honest in our defense of the church. It helps everyone

Before you go too far down this road, again, perhaps you should consider what the mission of the church is. Is it to teach history and reveal all the blemishes or is it to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I maintain it is to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you want history and blemishes look them up yourself. Despite the hand wringing histrionics to the contrary they are available with not much effort. A poor job of hiding.

There is never going to be an explanation that will be satisfactory to the critics and anti-Mormons so why waste resources, that should be spent on the central mission of the church, to satisfy someone too lazy to do their own research.

[DBMormon]

Reel, why don't you ask them? But - here's a more pertinent question - why hover at the edge of this particular cliff?

Log - good point. I don't think I would ask, because I really don't want a file on me, and asking might wake a sleeping dog? that question was joke by the way though It is a fact that this committee keeps an eye on members who cause problems, that is their job.

why hover? the edge I refer to is being faith promoting, finding ways to see the church as true without dismissing or explaining away serious issues so that others don't just think all LDS are blind to them or excuse them.

Also, If Church Historians are not allowed to discuss polygamy in books on church history, where will it be acknowleged?

[Log]

Also, If Church Historians are not allowed to discuss polygamy in books on church history, where will it be acknowleged?

I like the current division of labor - in effect, we have the Maxwell Institute which serves to defend the church, and publish interesting features of its history in a faith-promoting context, while the Church focuses on establishing the doctrine and principles of the Gospel. One thing I believe might be beneficial would be for the Church to direct members to the Maxwell Institute for questions of history, scholarship, and the like.

now again as I stated, the withholding of truth as a crime is not the issue as I now see some value in it at times but rather the apoligetics dismissing that as false rather then saying yes, we do that at times and here is why?

Which apologetics are you referring to?

[DBMormon]

Which apologetics are you referring to?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Censorship_and_revision/Hiding_the_facts

http://fr.fairmormon.org/Church_history/Censorship_and_revision/LDS_histories_over_many_years_omit_plural_marriage

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Censorship_and_revision

without saying "the church never hides or fails to reveal truth" they implication of these is just that.

[Log]

I guess I'm not understanding what you're saying.

http://en.fairmormon...iding_the_facts

http://fr.fairmormon...plural_marriage

http://en.fairmormon...ip_and_revision

without saying "the church never hides or fails to reveal truth" they implication of these is just that.

In the first link - is not the point that the Church has not supressed these things (ie, "hides the truth")? Is that fact not rather well-documented within that link, as well as the second? I guess I'm very unclear on what you are claiming.

I don't have a problem - at all - with "failing to reveal" the truth. I wear clothes for a reason.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Log

[DBMormon]

These sites seem to mock the fact that critics claim the church hides info. or fails to disclose it. and yet at times they do. perhaps justified and needed but still true.

Edited June 14, 2012 by reelmormon

[Log]

These sights seem to mock the fact that critics claim the church hides info. or fails to disclose it.

If a critic uses a church source to publish information that the critic claims the church hides, yeah, I can see the fun in pointing out the hypocrisy of the critic.

... and yet at times they do. perhaps justified and needed but still true.

I will agree that the Church does not actively disclose all truth. Neither do I. Neither should the Church. Neither should I. Neither should you. Why should we expect the Church to actively disclose all things at all times?

Edited June 14, 2012 by Log

[Log]

Reel, let me add further this - when one is in the business of persuasion, it is emphatically NOT one's job to provide the prospective client reasons to reject the product. That's the prospective client's job, if they are so inclined to do. One's duty is to disclose all relevant facts and present one's principal in the best light possible, consistent with truth.

The missionaries act appropriately when they don't disclose that Joseph had like 30 or whatever number of wives, some of whom were as young as 14, and some of whom were already married to other men. Not only is it probable the missionaries don't know that fact, but even if they did know, it is not relevant to their job of informing investigators about, and bearing testimony of, the truth of the Restoration, the prophethood of Joseph Smith, the truth of the Book of Mormon, and so forth.

Does the fact that Joseph had like 50 wives have any relation to the fact that Christ visited a branch broken off from the House of Israel in the Americas? Does the fact that Brigham Young had like 200 wives have any relation to the fact that the Priesthood was restored?

And, again, the Church's job is altogether different - "The Church provides the organization and means for teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to all of God’s children. It provides the priesthood authority to administer the ordinances of salvation and exaltation to all who are worthy and willing to accept them." Again, we see that the marital arrangements of the early Saints has no direct relevance. History, as such, doesn't seem to be directly relevant to the role of the Church 'tall, except insofar as pertains to teaching the Gospel.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Log

[CV75]

And, again, the Church's job is altogether different -

The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts by those having proper authority and integrity to do so is not inherently bad. Legitimate censorship of this type can be portrayed in a negative light, especially by God’s accusers and/or those manipulated by the false precepts of men.

[mnn727]

Before you go too far down this road, again, perhaps you should consider what the mission of the church is. Is it to teach history and reveal all the blemishes or is it to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I maintain it is to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you want history and blemishes look them up yourself. Despite the hand wringing histrionics to the contrary they are available with not much effort. A poor job of hiding.

There is never going to be an explanation that will be satisfactory to the critics and anti-Mormons so why waste resources, that should be spent on the central mission of the church, to satisfy someone too lazy to do their own research.

I agree 100%, all of Church history is 'hidden in plain sight' anyone wanting to look up anything certainly can. Its the Churches job to preach the gospel.

[zerinus]

* * *

Quote is from "ten years in Camelot" by Davis Bitton

http://www.dialoguej...e_V16N03_11.pdf

maybe with good reason, but that is censorship. That is hiding truth. That is not being forthright. That is not telling the whole truth.

* * *

So lets be more honest in our defense of the church. It helps everyone

Every historian who writes a history of anything does so from his own perspective, and will emphasise certain aspects and deemphasise others according to what he considers to be more important or less so. The Church will write its history according to how it prioritizes the important and the unimportant, and other historians and scholars are free to write it according to their own perspective and priorities. The Church does not restrict access to historical data for other historians to write it according to their perspective and priorities; and it reserves the right to write it from its own perspective and priorities, without being dictated to by others. If Church written hostories do not meet your requirements or are not according to your taste, there are plenty of others written by independent historians you can turn to. Your real complaint is not that the Church "hides" anything; you just do not like how the Chrch prioritizes the more important and the less important. The answer to that is that it is none of your business to. You are not a Church leader, they are. If you don't like the way the church is being run by those whom the Lord has appointed to lead it, the answer is to leave it and organise your own; or find a church which is run according to your preferences. But it is none of your business to complain about how the Lord's Church is being run by those whom the Lord has appointed to run it. It is the Lord's Church, not your Church or my Church. If He is okay with the way it is being run, it is not my business or yours to complain.

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

With that said and using the FAIR Site

http://en.fairmormon...ip_and_revision as the point of starting, how does one reconcile the following statement by Bro. Bitton, Assistant Church historian under Leonard Arrington.

Quote is from "ten years in Camelot" by Davis Bitton

http://www.dialoguej...e_V16N03_11.pdf

maybe with good reason, but that is censorship. That is hiding truth. That is not being forthright. That is not telling the whole truth. It is also not Sunday Curriculum but an effort to share what it is... History, through the appropriate history channel of the church. Too many of you will race on something like this to say, "the church doesn't hide anything." "They hide it right in the ensign" But your not honest with yourself. They do keep people in the church quiet about publishing troubling factual info. unless you want to call Mr. Bitton liar, one must come to terms with that.

SNIP

Incidentally, I notice that the David Bitton quote involves "advice" which they chose not to follow for the book that was published (I've read it, so I know first hand), and a discussion of preferences among "some" leaders, not a uniform policy imposed on all member publications through every outlet. The principle of common consent seems to be involved, allowing for a range of opinions voiced and actions taken in different settings. The alternative to tolerating such diversity is to impose a single standard on everyone, regardless of personal preference. Procrutean beds are notoriosly uncomfortable.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[why me]

While I would expect the "untrue church" to do things like this and While I wish the true church wouldn't, I can see why they would and if in their shoes perhaps I might as well at times.

So lets be more honest in our defense of the church. It helps everyone

And who is being dishonest? I know of no church that has written its own history for people to read. I don't think that the catholic church has. Nor any other church. For some reason, the critics wish the lds church to write its history. Or to embrace the possible 'negatives' as their own and keep these 'negatives' in the discussion year after year week after week. There should be no manual published without the 'negatives' being mentioned according to critics. It seems quite an order to fulfill.

[why me]

I agree 100%, all of Church history is 'hidden in plain sight' anyone wanting to look up anything certainly can. Its the Churches job to preach the gospel.

Ahhh...but you see the mormon church is different. It must inform about its history in every manual and in every book. Nothing should be omitted, especially those things that the critics wish to see published. The lds church needs to mentioned all controversies in every publication with explanations from critic interpretations.