Church Censorship Of Truthful History

[DBMormon]

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

Will say though there was a lot less then i expected. there were others but I thought this served the purpose

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/02/why-agency?lang=eng&query=anti-mormon

http://www.lds.org/new-era/2007/07/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng&query=anti-mormon

I also found a source that encouraged reading it through ancedotal comments

http://www.lds.org/liahona/1994/03/the-thing-of-most-worth?lang=eng&query=anti-mormon

[Calm]

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.

I am not arguing with that, just wanted to know what was specifically said for greater context. Were any examples given, for example.

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

I would agree that there are some (though in percentagewise I would say "some" equals "very few") members who equate "different viewpoint" with "anti-mormon". But since non-LDS can share the same viewpoints (and do in many, many cases) as LDS and since 'some members' isn't "the Church" (depending on the context, I am okay if one equates "the Church" with an overwhelming majority of members since all members are the teachers, etc. of the Church), I really don't see how the accusation that some members label different viewpoints as "anti-mormon" supports your claim in any way. It seems an irrelevant point to me.

[DBMormon]

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"

one way to see it!

[Craig Paxton]

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.

Just so I'm understanding your premise...you're claiming that the church does not censor any of the material it prints? Is this correct? If not please help me understand your premise...

Edited June 14, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[DBMormon]

only talking about viewership and participation.... my threads rock!!!

[DBMormon]

I am officer greg parker with the strategic response unit... help me help you..... is everybody ok in there?

[ERayR]

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.

Sure they don't allow indiscriminate handling of original historic documents but that has to do with protecting those documents. If you make the proper request with legitamate purpose copies can and are provided.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

In my personal experience, I was never taught such a thing, either at home or at Church. The closest I have seen to such a thing coming from a Church source is Elder Ballard's admonition to "give the Lord equal time." That seems reasonable to me.

So, I guess my anecdotal evidence cancels out yours.

lds.org contains a broad database of curriculum. Perhaps you can find something on there that supports the notion that the Church tells its members not to read anti-Mormon material.

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.

That strikes me as an understatement.

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.

I rarely see content on this board that inaccurately describes something as anti-Mormon. Perhaps you can cite a more-or-less recent example.

[mapman]

In my opinion, there isn't a "truthful history." History isn't as straightforward as people often make it out to be. To see this, think whether there is a "truthful history" of your own life. What would that even mean? There's no way to include all the data in a coherent way if one is writing a history. Most data you could collect is irrelevant, it's impossible to know with 100% certainty how accurate something is, and there are important things that often do not have enough data to be able to make any conclusion at all. What history is is drawing from the data and constructing a narrative for whatever purpose you have. One person can take the data and write a political history, another a feminist history, another a sacred narrative, etc.

That being said, I think it would behoove the Church to talk more about the controversial issues, as it is clear that there are people who lose their testimonies over not knowing some information from the Church. Also, even if it wouldn't be appropriate to include all the details in one publication (like the manuals), I think it would be good to talk publicly about them somewhere. I've seen indications that the Church has started to do this (the Joseph Smith Papers and Mountain Meadows Massacre book for example) and will continue to do so in the future, for which I'm glad.

EDIT: Although I don't think that there is one true history, some narratives have much weaker evidence given to them and should be rejected.

Edited June 14, 2012 by mapman

[Calm]

Will say though there was a lot less then i expected. there were others but I thought this served the purpose

http://www.lds.org/e...ery=anti-mormon

http://www.lds.org/n...ery=anti-mormon

Would you please provide the quote you think equates "non-LDS" with "anti-mormon". If it is that all the library books were "intense anti-mormon" books, well, I have been in libraries where the only non anti-mormon book on the shelves was the Book of Mormon. It was disappointing especially after finding in one case the Encyclopedia of Mormonism in the library discard/for sale pile. And I don't mean by "anti-mormon" "non-lds". I mean those who presented the faith and the history in sensationalistic and very, very inaccurate ways with the intent to portray the Church in a bad light. None ever pretended to be academic. Since I was in those library sections intentionally to read the viewpoints of nonLDS about how they saw the faith, not finding credible books was very frustrating. I suspect this is much less common now as there are many more academic books dealing with Mormonism available to libraries.

[selek1]

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.

No- it is editting. It's what editors and publishers do.

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?

Hmmm...let's set aside the tendentious rephrasing of "teaching polygamy in Church."

That done, I've seen polygamy discussed and lessons about polygamy in the chapel and in various classrooms. In Elder's Quorum....in Gospel Doctrins...in Gospel Essentials...in joint exercises (Priesthood and Relief Society). I've talked and taught about it to the fifteen year olds in my Sunday School class.

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

Since linking to every single one of your malificent posts would be tedious, I'll simply refer you back to Post #34 above, and the criticims offered thereto in Post #36.

You have deliberately and willfully misrepresented the Church's position, assigned nefarious motives without evidence, and lied (by omission) about the Church's behavior.

Normally, I would consider the source and disregard the latter- but your entire argument (and ReelMormon's) is predicated on the notion that such omission is in fact, censorship.

If you insist on damning us by that standard, I will cheerfully point out your own self-damnation.

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

What motives I might impute are irrelevant unless (unlike yours) they are based upon evidence.

There are any number of possible motives for the editting. The one you have publically championed is simply the least flattering and most dismissive.

Edited June 14, 2012 by selek1

[Scott Lloyd]

Will say though there was a lot less then i expected. there were others but I thought this served the purpose

From your first link:

One day when I was a freshman at a university in the southwestern United States, I found myself sitting alone in the library, frustrated and confused. On the table in front of me were two stacks: one with the publications I had received from the missionaries, and another with the books I had checked out of the university library. I did not realize at the time that all of the library books were intense anti-Mormon publications. I had no idea that such publications existed, so I assumed that what was written in those books was accurate. Later I would realize they were far from reliable.

Without knowing specifically which publications the author is referring to, how do you know they were not "intense anti-Mormon publications," just as he describes them here?

In your second and third links, anti-Mormon literature is referred to in the abstract as a category; there is no specific citation. So these links also fail to sustain the accusation that the Church equates "non-LDS sources" with anti-Mormon ones.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[sjdawg]

I am not arguing with that, just wanted to know what was specifically said for greater context. Were any examples given, for example.

A few years back someone had been dropping anti-mormon pamphlets and I believe possibly even a movie in the mailboxes of members in our stake (I don't know the content or the subject matter. To this day I have never seen them). We were councilled in our ward that the appropriate course of action would be to drop this material into the garbage can without reading it.

[sjdawg]

In my personal experience, I was never taught such a thing, either at home or at Church. The closest I have seen to such a thing coming from a Church source is Elder Ballard's admonition to "give the Lord equal time." That seems reasonable to me.

So, I guess my anecdotal evidence cancels out yours.

I'm glad. I'm not trying to invalidate your experience. I'm simply relating my own experience. I would suggest that neither of us had "evidence" at all. Simply experience

[sjdawg]

I

I rarely see content on this board that inaccurately describes something as anti-Mormon. Perhaps you can cite a more-or-less recent example.

My point was that whether or not something is anti-mormon can vary depending on the definition one uses.

Here is a thread with several definitions of anti-mormon being promoted. I believe you added your own definition in page one of the thread.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57885-what-is-an-anti-mormon/page__hl__%20definition%20%20of%20%20anti-mormon

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm glad. I'm not trying to invalidate your experience. I'm simply relating my own experience. I would suggest that neither of us had "evidence" at all. Simply experience

That's why I suggested the matter could be documented to some degree by citing something from lds.org. I don't know of anything there that admonishes people to altogether avoid looking at anti-Mormon literature. Do you?

Edited June 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

My point was that whether or not something is anti-mormon can vary depending on the definition one uses.

Here is a thread with several definitions of anti-mormon being promoted. I believe you added your own definition in page one of the thread.

http://www.mormondia...of anti-mormon

Yes, the thread is fairly recent, and I do recall it.

I don't remember anyone there stating or implying that non-LDS sources are equivalent to anti-Mormon sources. I'm not inclined to re-read the whole thread just now. If you have one or more specific posts in mind, perhaps you could cite them.

[Calm]

A few years back someone had been dropping anti-mormon pamphlets and I believe possibly even a movie in the mailboxes of members in our stake (I don't know the content or the subject matter. To this day I have never seen them). We were councilled in our ward that the appropriate course of action would be to drop this material into the garbage can without reading it.

Thank you.

I have personally (as in 'face to face') heard only very general counsel along the lines of "if what you are reading deprives you of the Spirit, you shouldn't be reading it" so I was wondering about your experience, if others had more precise instructions ever given to them.

add-on which you may not see since you likely have already read the post, but that's okay since it is not that important:

Since I asked for examples from the time you were growing up, it appears that you are quite young. Is this correct or did you forget the qualification you had attached in your effort to remember specific times (I know remember specific details of events of my youth can be much harder then remembering something that occurred a few years ago for me)?

Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[sjdawg]

Yes, the thread is fairly recent, and I do recall it.

I don't remember anyone there stating or implying that non-LDS sources are equivalent to anti-Mormon sources. I'm not inclined to re-read the whole thread just now. If you have one or more specific posts in mind, perhaps you could cite them.

Since you have previously quoted my post where I corrected that statement and mentioned I would alter my original post, I'm not sure why you are now asking for me to find a reference for it. As I said, it was a poor choice of words.

Edited June 15, 2012 by sjdawg

[sjdawg]

That's why I suggested the matter could be documented to some degree by citing something from lds.org. I don't know of anything there that admonishes people to altogether avoid looking at anti-Mormon literature. Do you?

I have no idea. I have never looked for it there and don't plan to. I was only relating my own personal experience.

[selek1]

I have no idea. I have never looked for it there and don't plan to. I was only relating my own personal experience.

In other words, you have no interest in having your preconceptions challenged by fact.

Got it.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Scott Lloyd]

Since you have previously quoted my post where I corrected that statement and mentioned I would alter my original post, I'm not sure why you are now asking for me to find a reference for it. As I said, it was a poor choice of words.

You went on to moderate your acknowledgement of poor word choice with this comment:

Although ... 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.

I'm only saying that, while such a thing (someone being falsely accused of anti-Mormonism) may happen occasionally, I don't see it very often.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Will say though there was a lot less then i expected. there were others but I thought this served the purpose....

http://www.lds.org/n...ery=anti-mormon

This one actually seems to say that it is not a problem to read anti-mormon stuff, just don't spend too much time and energy on it and if it disturbs you, don't feel bad about not reading it.

First, it would be a waste to spend a lot of time and energy reading it.

It is a compilation and collection of short thoughts from readers as well so it is not surprising that it is not precise in what it is saying and that some of it seems to be more encouraging of reading anti materials than others.

Responses are intended for help and perspective, not as pronouncements of Church doctrine.

I don't see how either quote comes close to saying "non-LDS" equals "anti-mormon" though. The closest is this quote below that talks about "critics" but even there it limits the "anti-mormon" to only some of the critics dependent on how they go about their criticisms:

Although some critics of the Church may be doing what they sincerely believe to be right, too many of them are either misinformed about the Church or downright antagonistic toward it. This latter group is often all too willing to rely on deception and dishonesty to achieve their goals. The literature they produce often uses lies or half-truths; it distorts, sensationalizes, or misinterprets Church teachings and history; its intent is to tear down the Church and scare people away from it.

Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

Just so I'm understanding your premise...you're claiming that the church does not censor any of the material it prints? Is this correct? If not please help me understand your premise...

Depends on what definition of the word you are using. The Church censors only in the sense that when I was at work today and wrote up a document I ended up deleting a third of it as inappropriate and unnecessary. In other words in the sense in which all writers could be called censors.

In the sense of suppressing information so the public can't get it they don't have the ability or the inclination to do so.

[Calm]

I also found a source that encouraged reading it through ancedotal comments

http://www.lds.org/l...ery=anti-mormon

Since the anecdote was about a nonmember becoming curious about the faith through reading anti-material I don't see it was encouraging reading it myself.