Church Censorship Of Truthful History

[Freedom]

A good example of selective history is the Book of Mormon. The editors choose to only include stories involving the lineage of Lehi, Jared and Mulek. Events involving other groups were excluded, however their presence is everywhere indicated. Not only that, but the type of stories of these three family lines were carefully chosen to reflect the doctrines of two foundation documents: The Exodus, and the Allegory of the Olive Tree. Not only that, but the stories are almost always parallel stories of good versus evil. I didn't mean to derail the thread, but if we can acknowledge that current history is selective to such an alarming degree, we need to acknowledge that ancient history would also be selective to an even greater degree. Not to acknowledge this would be hypocritical.

[why me]

but if we can acknowledge that current history is selective to such an alarming degree, we need to acknowledge that ancient history would also be selective to an even greater degree. Not to acknowledge this would be hypocritical.

Now freedom, really, the lds church needs to embrace and publish its history in every manual and in every book. The ensign must become a history magazine where the first visions accounts, polyandry etc should be in every Ensign for the members to read over and over again. The lds church needs to satisfy its critics and must stop teaching doctrine and resort to teaching its history. Only in this way, will the critics be placated unless of course, the critics disagree with the interpretation of lds history written by lds historians. This mean that the lds church should hire well informed critics to write lds history for the membership to read.

Edited June 14, 2012 by why me

[Freedom]

Now freedom, really, the lds church needs to embrace and publish its history in every manual and in every book. The ensign must become a history magazine where the first visions accounts, polygandry etc should be in every Ensign for the members to read over and over again. The lds church needs to satisfy its critics and must stop teaching doctrine and resort to teaching its history. Only in this way, will the critics be placated unless of course, the critics disagree with the interpretation of lds history written by lds historians. This mean that the lds church should hire well informed critics to write lds history for the membership to read.

Church materials should be of the quality of first university history text books. Their comprehensive nature is proof to me that, prior to 1960, women did not exist. Or perhaps of the depth and breadth of the a world class encyclopedia. You know, the ones where the life and times of Henry Ford is completely encapsulated in 4 paragraphs. And you think that Church History gets glossed over, well don't get me started on how the Old Testament is taught in primary. I read through the sunbeam manual and not a single mention of rape or incest. I left the church over this. Well, I left the church because the services were over and my photocopies were ready. By I left the church nonetheless.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Freedom

[Jim B.]

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

I wouldn't say hidden. Perhaps obscured. I believe a number of controversial topics are meticulously ignored.

2.) is that justified? and why?

Probably justified. I see it as a balancing act. If the church started regularly addressing topics that have been suppressed (for argument's sake, don't rip me a new one for using that word) for generations, many more members would probably feel betrayed to the point of losing their faith. On the other hand, by continuing down the same path, not as many people will be in the position of reconciling some of the more unpleasant parts of church history with their previously held beliefs. Statistically speaking, it is probably wise to maintain the status quo.

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

Actual censorship.

4.) Other definitive examples of this occuring?

Don't know.

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?

I would never attempt to defend the indefensible. It is up to the individual to determine what is indefensible. I would not defend censorship. I don't know of specific examples where things were actually hidden or censored.

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

Does it matter?

[selek1]

Speaking of "honesty"- I (for one) would appreciate it if our erstwhile OP held himself to the same standards as he is demanding of the Church.

His argument is predicated upon a narrow, specious, question-begging definition, and is laden not with fact, but with innuendo, pregnant implication, and abysmal rumor-mongering.

First and foremost, ReelMormon deliberately mischaracterizes the Church's behavior.

Censorship is normally defined as "the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."

Note the emphasis: censorship is suppression (the application of force to silence ideas, information, or opinions),

Yet nowhere in any of ReelMormons litany of outrages is there any mention of force (either physical, intellectual, or ecclesiastical) being used to silence anyone.

As someone else pointed out, the most "egregious" examples in his arsenal are of counseling, advising, and recommending.

As such, his characterization of the Church's action is dishonest, even according to the common definition of censorship.

Second, ReelMormon's arbitrary redefines "censorship" to include even the most basic editorial actions. According to his redefinition, any ommission is automagically "censorship".

Of course, ReelMormon himself fails that test, since he omits any number of incidents in which the Church has striven to release the full and unaltered (warts and all) history.

This type of special pleading is not evidence of an erstwhile quest for truth in all it's glory, but of an implicit prosecutorial agenda..

He's not interested in fact- he's trying to make a case.

Third, ReelMormon invokes the standard-issue Anti-Mormon boogeyman, the "Strengthening The Membership Committee".

He implies- without evidence- that sinister agents of the Mormon Church are lurking behind curtains, under eaves, and beneath beds just waiting to snap up the questioning and the disaffected in order to convene a Star-Chamber-esque inquisition.

All that is lacking from his screed is a worshipful paean to the September Six and a maidenly curtsying toward the altar of D. Michael Quinn.

Such sinister innuendo is a Pavlovian note designed to invoke the worst excesses of both the Red Scare of the 1950's and of the hypnotic invocation of "House Un-American Activities Committee".

It is a dishonest caricature intended not to uncover the truth, but to trigger an unthinking recoiling from the Church and her leaders.

Finally, in private correspondance, ReelMormon has admitted that his (preferred) tactic is to say or do controversial things in order to incite an energetic response from the Saints.

I have repeatedly warned him against such a tactic as "hitting us for reactions", for several two reasons: 1) trolling is trolling whether for the Saints or against them, and 2) inciting the Saints poisons the well, and makes us less inclined to take his concerns seriously.

My warnings have been steadfastly ignored.

I am now inclined to offer a third reason: namely that attempting to incite the Saints by use of hyperbole or offensive rhetoric is itself a dishonest attempt to manipulate, rather than reason with the Saints.

ReelMormon claims to want "honesty" and an "honest" discussion from the Church vis-a-vis her history.

I, for one, am puzzled at how he can genuinely desire such things when his own actions and tactics are themselves dishonest.

[ERayR]

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

I wouldn't say hidden. Perhaps obscured. I believe a number of controversial topics are meticulously ignored.

2.) is that justified? and why?

Probably justified. I see it as a balancing act. If the church started regularly addressing topics that have been suppressed (for argument's sake, don't rip me a new one for using that word) for generations, many more members would probably feel betrayed to the point of losing their faith. On the other hand, by continuing down the same path, not as many people will be in the position of reconciling some of the more unpleasant parts of church history with their previously held beliefs. Statistically speaking, it is probably wise to maintain the status quo.

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

Actual censorship.

4.) Other definitive examples of this occuring?

Don't know.

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?

I would never attempt to defend the indefensible. It is up to the individual to determine what is indefensible. I would not defend censorship. I don't know of specific examples where things were actually hidden or censored.

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

Does it matter?

Go back and read post #12 and give it some thought.

[why me]

. And you think that Church History gets glossed over, well don't get me started on how the Old Testament is taught in primary. I read through the sunbeam manual and not a single mention of rape or incest. I left the church over this. Well, I left the church because the services were over and my photocopies were ready. By I left the church nonetheless.

The old testament is different because it is old. And it is perfectly okay to gloss over it. The critics do not care about the old testament. But they do care about LDS history. Now the church needs to publish a 1000 page book updated every other year with new insights in lds history from the critic perspective. In fact, I think that the lds church needs to recruit its historians from exmormon boards in order to get a fair perspective and interpretation on it with an introduction why a person is justified to leave the church.

And FAIR should be disbanded because it is one sided.

[why me]

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

I wouldn't say hidden. Perhaps obscured. I believe a number of controversial topics are meticulously ignored.

2.) is that justified? and why?

Probably justified. I see it as a balancing act. If the church started regularly addressing topics that have been suppressed (for argument's sake, don't rip me a new one for using that word) for generations, many more members would probably feel betrayed to the point of losing their faith. On the other hand, by continuing down the same path, not as many people will be in the position of reconciling some of the more unpleasant parts of church history with their previously held beliefs. Statistically speaking, it is probably wise to maintain the status quo.

Does it matter?

Something happened in the late 80's. The Ensign changed direction and began not to address controversial issues. Before that, the ensign did have a question and answer section where issues were discussed openly. Also, before the internet, most members knew about seer stones, first vision accounts, the strangeness of Brigham's journal of discourses etc because most members had them in their home libraries. The church was rather open about it all. Also, many of Joseph's plural wives when they died, their tombstones had the last name of Smith for the women who were his polygamous wives. And members could visit those graves if they wished to since most are buried in Utah.

I don't think that the church has intentionally hid their history in the last 30 years. I just think that the leadership did not see it as important. But I do think that the tide is changing. And I would not be surprised if such issues will again be discussed in the ensign. Also the newspaper Mormon Times seems to cover some issues and many members in Utah get this paper. And then we have the JSP which will be free for all.

It has only been in the last 30 years that the Ensign has begun not to address the issues.

Edited June 14, 2012 by why me

[Craig Paxton]

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?

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

Of course it is hidden by the church on purpose. Take the Presidents of the church lesson series….all mention of polygamy was removed…even words like wives were changed to wife…with NO asterisk or indication that editing had taken place….I would say that that was on purpose.

2.) Is that justified? and why?

Well from the churches stand point yes its justified…they don’t want to have an honest discussion of polygamy at church so just sweep it under the rug and play like it never existed…problem solved.

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

Lying is never appropriate…if the church has even indicated an edit I might give them a pass on this one…I can certainly understand why they desire to move on and away from polygamy.

4.) Other definitive examples of this occurring?

The official history of the church is full of so-called-face-saving- edits …such as editing out Joseph’s tobacco and alcohol use…well after the word of wisdom was penned.

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?

On a scale of 1 to 10 on the importance scale…this is about a 2, but it certainly doesn’t make them very trustworthy as a source one can take to the bank.

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

Too late brother…better keep looking over your shoulder…and watch for cars following you in your rear view mirror

Edited June 14, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Jim B.]

Go back and read post #12 and give it some thought.

Done. Now what?

Something happened in the late 80's. The Ensign changed direction and began not to address controversial issues. Before that, the ensign did have a question and answer section where issues were discussed openly. Also, before the internet, most members knew about seer stones, first vision accounts, the strangeness of Brigham's journal of discourses etc because most members had them in their home libraries. The church was rather open about it all. Also, many of Joseph's plural wives when they died, their tombstones had the last name of Smith for the women who were his polygamous wives. And members could visit those graves if they wished to since most are buried in Utah.

I don't think that the church has intentionally hid their history in the last 30 years. I just think that the leadership did not see it as important. But I do think that the tide is changing. And I would not be surprised if such issues will again be discussed in the ensign. Also the newspaper Mormon Times seems to cover some issues and many members in Utah get this paper. And then we have the JSP which will be free for all.

It has only been in the last 30 years that the Ensign has begun not to address the issues.

Fair enough. I wasn't reading the Ensign, or much else to do with religion, back in the 80s. I've got no reason not to take you at your word.

[selek1]

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

Of course it is hidden by the church on purpose. Take the Presidents of the church lesson series….all mention of polygamy was removed…even words like wives were changed to wife…with NO asterisk or indication that editing had taken place….I would say that that was on purpose.

And yet you offer no substantive effort that it was, in fact, "hidden".

The information is still out there for even the most cursory search to "expose".

That I refuse to discuss my diet in Church does not conceal the fact that I had to buy a belt to hold up my trousers.

2.) Is that justified? and why?

Well from the churches stand point yes its justified…they don’t want to have an honest discussion of polygamy at church so just sweep it under the rug and play like it never existed…problem solved.

While I readily concede (as have many others here) that the Church prefers to dedicate its time to productive lessons which advance its four-fold mission, your characterization is dishonest.

The Church neither sweeps polygamy under the rug nor pretends that it never existed. We have no fear of an honest discussion on polygamy. When the issue is raised, it is acknowledged and discussed frankly.

This is no different than a medical conference focussing on treatment and symptoms of cancer instead of indulging the crackpot-de-jeur who wants to pontificate on the artistic merits of the latest Pee-Wee Herman film.

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

Lying is never appropriate…

Agreed- but then again, willfully misrepresenting the Church's position for polemical advantage is itself a form of lying.

4.) Other definitive examples of this occurring?

The official history of the church is full of so-called-face-saving- edits …such as editing out Joseph’s tobacco and alcohol use…well after the word of wisdom was penned.

Again, this is a tendentious and agenda-driven caricature.

Based solely on your own antipathy towards the Church, you impute a less-than-honest motive to the editors that you can neither know nor demonstrate to be true.

You assert that the edits were done to "save face", but you have no evidence to support that assertion. In doing so, you are impugning the motives and ethics of men and women whom you have never met and whose reasoning you cannot possibly know.

Ultimately, the same criticism which bedevils ReelMormon's complaints also undermines yours.

How can you claim to genuinely desire "honesty" and "honest discussion" from the Church when your own actions and tactics are themselves dishonest?

Edited June 14, 2012 by selek1

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

How come you get to print in red and I can only print in black and white? Are your words more important than mine or are you shouting?

[selek1]

How come you get to print in red and I can only print in black and white? Are your words more important than mine or are you shouting?

Zerinus is neither more important nor shouting- merely pretentious

In the standard editor, there are a number of buttons in the tool bar.

If you use your cursor to highlight the text you wish to change, you may then click on the "Text Color" button- which looks like an orange "A" and is between the "Size" box and the "Smiley" button.

This will open a color pallate. Click on the color in which you wish your text to appear.

As a general courtesy, red is reserved for moderator posts and edits, so as to set them apart from the normal poster.

Also as a general courtesy (yes, Zerinus, that's a dig), such color changes are best used sparingly.

[Craig Paxton]

And yet you offer no substantive effort that it was, in fact, "hidden".

The information is still out there for even the most cursory search to "expose".

That I refuse to discuss my diet in Church does not conceal the fact that I had to buy a belt to hold up my trousers.

While I readily concede (as have many others here) that the Church prefers to dedicate its time to productive lessons which advance its four-fold mission, your characterization is dishonest.

The Church neither sweeps polygamy under the rug nor pretends that it never existed. We have no fear of an honest discussion on polygamy. When the issue is raised, it is acknowledged and discussed frankly.

This is no different than a medical conference focussing on treatment and symptoms of cancer instead of indulging the crackpot-de-jeur who wants to pontificate on the artistic merits of the latest Pee-Wee Herman film.

Agreed- but then again, willfully misrepresenting the Church's position for polemical advantage is itself a form of lying.

Again, this is a tendentious and agenda-driven caricature.

Based solely on your own antipathy towards the Church, you impute a less-than-honest motive to the editors that you can neither know nor demonstrate to be true.

You assert that the edits were done to "save face", but you have no evidence to support that assertion. In doing so, you are impugning the motives and ethics of men and women whom you have never met and whose reasoning you cannot possibly know.

Ultimately, the same criticism which bedevils ReelMormon's complaints also undermines yours.

How can you claim to genuinely desire "honesty" and "honest discussion" from the Church when your own actions and tactics are themselves dishonest?

01.Arggg...the OP is with respect to the church using censorship with its history... editing whole words or sentences without some indication that it was edited IS a form of censorship.

02. CFR on polygamy being taught in church? It certainly isn't in any of its lesson manuals...so where exactly IS the church teaching polygamy in church?

03. CFR? Please show me where I have lied? Is it a lie to say that lying is never appropriate?

04. What motive do you ascribe the editing out of Joseph failure to live the word of wisdom? Lack of space? It is after all 7 volumes

[DBMormon]

.

Edited June 14, 2012 by reelmormon

[sjdawg]

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.

I would suggest that a church that is asking a person to dramatically change their life and give 10% of their future income to the organization has an increased responsibility to share information than a used car salesman does. I would also suggest that the Church shouldn't be in the business of persuasion but should be in the business of Truth.

Also when I was growing up the Church went out of its way to consistently remind us not to spend time researching anything that might be considered anti-mormon. (Not sure if this is still the case). So, if the LDS Church doesn't provide a complete picture and the LDS Church tells you not to spend time studying anything that might be considered anti-mormon then where exactly is one supposed to gain a complete understanding of the pros and cons of Mormonism? I'm ok with the LDS church not teaching the history they don't like as long as they have stopped discouraging people from studying other sources.

I would also argue that the marital status, honesty, and morality of early church leaders is very relevant to the truthfullness of the LDS Church today. If one believes that certain actions might seperate one from the promptings of the Holy Ghost or direct revelation then actions contrary to those believes might suggest that leadership was not guided by revelation.

Edited June 14, 2012 by sjdawg

[Craig Paxton]

I would suggest that a church that is asking a person to dramatically change their life and give 10% of their future income to the organization has an increased responsibility to share information than a used car salesman does. I would also suggest that the Church shouldn't be in the business of persuasion but should be in the business of Truth.

Also when I was growing up the Church went out of its way to consistently remind us not to spend time researching anything that might be considered anti-mormon. (Not sure if this is still the case). So, if the LDS Church doesn't provide a complete picture and the LDS Church tells you not to spend time studying non-LDS sources then where exactly is one supposed to gain a complete understanding of the pros and cons of Mormonism? I'm ok with the LDS church not teaching the history they don't like as long as they have stopped discouraging people from studying other sources.

I would also argue that the marital status, honesty, and morality of early church leaders is very relevant to the truthfullness of the LDS Church today. If one believes that certain actions might seperate one from the promptings of the Holy Ghost or direct revelation then actions contrary to those believes might suggest that leadership was not guided by revelation.

As a church apologist once told me when I asked him why the church isn't more forthcoming with an honest portrayal of its history with those investigating the church...he said..."lol craig...why if we did that no one would join the church.." (True story)

[DBMormon]

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 think ultimately it has to be able to do both. It can not only use history when it benefeits but ignore it when troubling. I can't on one hand ask others to be honest in their conduct with their neighbors and then not do so myself as an institution. And omission is just as dishonest as commisioned dishonesty. Telling someone you don't know who robbed the bank and not saying anthing when in both cases you do is still wrong on both sides.

Now we each do that everyday "does this dress make me look fat" "who is Santa Claus" "Is this product you sell any good?"

each day we embellish things, withhold info to protect others ect... but the church who stands to proclaim absolute truths must do so absolutely.

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

I do so only so all your wives won't leave you...

I hate to see you lose debates with me and then that!!!! lol <---- joke

​Why should we expect the Church to actively disclose all things at all times?

I think investigators deserve to know what they are signing up for. While it may prevent many from joining, it will also prevent many from leaving.

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.

We are not talking about business but salvation and life eternal.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=093b7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Honesty Is a Principle of Salvation

Complete honesty is necessary for our salvation. An Apostle of the Lord has said: “Honesty is a principle of salvation in the kingdom of God. … Just as no man or woman can be saved without baptism, so no one can be saved without honesty” (Mark E. Petersen, in Conference Report, Oct. 1971, p. 63; or Ensign, Dec. 1971, p. 72).

God is honest and just in all things (see Alma 7:20 ). We too must be honest in all things to become like him. The brother of Jared testified, “Yea, Lord, I know that thou … art a God of truth, and canst not lie” (Ether 3:12 ). In contrast, the devil is a liar. In fact, he is the father of lies (see 2 Nephi 9:9 ). “Those who choose to cheat and lie and deceive and misrepresent become his slaves” (Mark E. Petersen, in Conference Report, Oct. 1971, p. 65; or Ensign, Dec. 1971, p. 73).

does the church operate under a different set of rules? While I agree it may seem like the best option at times is it really?

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.

I agree but I also think every investigator and member should have the truth available to them and they should know it is available to them at a church source. By not discussing the full story it makes it appear they have something to hide, which to some level you admit that the church doesn't want to talk polygamy because it would lower conversions. True but an investigator deserves the "complete truth" as best we understand it.

Elder Jensen - ""There's no sense kidding ourselves. We need to be very upfront with [this generation], tell them what we know, and give answers to what we have, and let them call on their faith for things that we don't completely understand."

how many wives joseph had or brigham had doesn't affect me, but the church not telling me has.

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.

i see this as an out, a way to dismiss not having to be upfront and truthful. I need to make sales to feed my family therefore it is ok that I lie about this product lasting forever and is made of top quality parts.

[DBMormon]

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.

one is criticized for exploring anti-mormon material and yet you can't find polyandry history in many more places then that easily. So which is it? Do you want me looking at anti sites because "Church history is 'hidden in plain sight'" and the truth is available there or can you admit it is not available at a faith promoting church site... please don't tell me FAIR or SHIELDS. they are not church sites

show me polyandrous discussion in any LDS church site material

which ensign?

used to teach sacrifice in a conference talk right?

[DBMormon]

The Church will write its history according to how it prioritizes the important and the unimportant,

important - anything that paints us in favorable light

unimportant - anything factual that paints us in a bad light.

"I show unto men their weakness that they may be humble" or "how about a light upon a hill"

[DBMormon]

The Church does not restrict access to historical data for other historians to write it according to their perspective and priorities;

But the church does restrict access to historical items in it's possesion at various times in it's history in order to not allow hurtful facts to be utilized.

[Calm]

Also when I was growing up the Church went out of its way to consistently remind us not to spend time researching anything that might be considered anti-mormon. (Not sure if this is still the case).

Not asking for citations, but just anecdotal examples to put your comment into context, please.

So, if the LDS Church doesn't provide a complete picture and the LDS Church tells you not to spend time studying non-LDS sources

Can you provide examples (citations this time please) where the Church equated "non-LDS sources" with "anti-mormon".

[zerinus]

How come you get to print in red and I can only print in black and white? Are your words more important than mine or are you shouting?

You can type in any color you like, as far as I know.

[sjdawg]

Not asking for citations, but just anecdotal examples to put your comment into context, please.

Can you provide examples (citations this time please) where the Church equated "non-LDS sources" with "anti-mormon".

1. In my personal experience I was taught both at home and at Church reading anything anti-mormon was evil and would destroy my testimony.

2. I'll edit my post to say anti-mormon as opposed to non-LDS. I'll agree that my wording could have been better. Although, with the wide definition of anti-mormon that is sometimes used (more on boards such as this than anything official from the LDS Church) I would argue that anyone promotes a different viewpoint or interpretation than the LDS Church may be accused (sometimes accurately, sometimes falsely) of being Anti-mormon

[The Nehor]

So a body of people who own the printing press deciding they don't want to print something is now worthy of the scare-word "Censorship"

I need to call the magazine that rejected the short story I sent in. Once I tell them they're censoring me I'm sure they'll relent and send me a check instead.