Openness And Transparency At The Church Archives

[cinepro]

I've been listening to the excellent Brent Metcalfe interview at Mormonstories, and found his perspective on the current state of the Church Archives to be quite interesting:

 

 

 

You know people have referred to the Leonard Arrington-era of the Church History Department as the "Camelot Days", well the fact is, whatever those "Camelot Days" were, there has never been as much transparency and openness in the Church archives and the historical department as there is today.  If that was "Camelot", this is Nirvana!  We're in a whole new era of transparency that I think the Church should be credited for.

- Brent Metcalfe, Mormonstories Interview 497, 25:19

 

That comment is in the context of a story about a meeting with President Monson in the early 1980s, which is quite interesting for its illumination about President Monson's attitude towards openness in Church history, which wasn't necessarily shared by all the other apostles.

Edited October 1, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

I've been listening to the excellent Brent Metcalfe interview at Mormonstories, and found his perspective on the current state of the Church Archives to be quite interesting:

 

 

 

 

That comment is in the context of a story about a meeting with President Monson in the early 1980s, which is quite interesting for its illumination about President Monson's attitude towards openness in Church history, which wasn't necessarily shared by all the other apostles.

This is what I've been saying for years, but I still encounter from time to time the generation-old ignorance that the archives are "closed" or "restricted."

 

Maybe with a critic like Metcalfe saying it, the reality will penetrate a few crania.

[Scott Lloyd]

This reminds me of Marlin K. Jensen's de facto farewell address as Church Historian and Recorder at the Mormon History Association Conference in 2012.

 

Referring to the Arrington era, he said:

 

"If the late Leonard Arrington's term of service in the Historical Department is remembered by some as 'ten years in Camelot,' I'd like mine to be known as 'eight years and thanks a lot!'

 

[Robert F. Smith]

I've been listening to the excellent Brent Metcalfe interview at Mormonstories, and found his perspective on the current state of the Church Archives to be quite interesting:

.....................................................

That comment is in the context of a story about a meeting with President Monson in the early 1980s, which is quite interesting for its illumination about President Monson's attitude towards openness in Church history, which wasn't necessarily shared by all the other apostles.

My anti-Mormon friends find the openness at the Church History Library (Archives) to be extraordinary -- among them one man who was once barred from entry.  He enjoys going there regularly.

 

People often forget that Fawn Brodie was even offered access to the Archives in the early 1940s, but she refused.

[Buzzard]

I suspect that some won't be satisfied until they have the combination to the First Presidency vault. And I suspect that many of them haven't been near the History Library in years, if ever. 

[mormonnewb]

Yes, the Archives are open, but how many of us will ever get there to view it? Instead, the Church delivers to us for easy consumption a very closed version of our history.

Sure, I can hunt down the Joseph Smith papers and find out all about, say, JS's many wives. But the Church is more than happy to hand me a booklet all about JS with no reference to the same.

Likewise, I'm sure the archives tell the whole story of, say, ETB's teachings on race. Yet, the booklet handed to every member of the Church will not contain a mumbling word on the topic. Heck, it might even contain the one or two kind things he ever had to say about blacks.

It's very hard for me to celebrate an off-the-menu Camelot when the Church is still serving heaping mounds of the same old gruel.

[Duncan]

Yes, the Archives are open, but how many of us will ever get there to view it? Instead, the Church delivers to us for easy consumption a very closed version of our history.

Sure, I can hunt down the Joseph Smith papers and find out all about, say, JS's many wives. But the Church is more than happy to hand me a booklet all about JS with no reference to the same.

Likewise, I'm sure the archives tell the whole story of, say, ETB's teachings on race. Yet, the booklet handed to every member of the Church will not contain a mumbling word on the topic. Heck, it might even contain the one or two kind things he ever had to say about blacks.

It's very hard for me to celebrate an off-the-menu Camelot when the Church is still serving heaping mounds of the same old gruel.

 

 

you can order stuff from the archives dot dot dot, I do it frequently! you have to pay sometimes but that's how it is!

[theplains]

Yes, the Archives are open, but how many of us will ever get there to view it? Instead, the Church delivers to us for easy consumption a very closed version of our history.

 

Not to worry. You can still obtain books containing the past teachings of former LDS Presidents.

Fortunately paper has a long life span. I'm not too keen about having electronic versions.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Teancum]

After listening to the many hours of interview that Dehlin did with Metcalf I was very surprised at how positive and kind his outlook is towards the church.  Of course he is not a believer. But he is not an enemy either.

 

I recommend this 6 part series.

[boblloyd91]

My anti-Mormon friends find the openness at the Church History Library (Archives) to be extraordinary -- among them one man who was once barred from entry.  He enjoys going there regularly.

 

People often forget that Fawn Brodie was even offered access to the Archives in the early 1940s, but she refused.

 

Who are your anti Mormon friends?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, the Archives are open, but how many of us will ever get there to view it? Instead, the Church delivers to us for easy consumption a very closed version of our history.

Sure, I can hunt down the Joseph Smith papers and find out all about, say, JS's many wives. But the Church is more than happy to hand me a booklet all about JS with no reference to the same.

Likewise, I'm sure the archives tell the whole story of, say, ETB's teachings on race. Yet, the booklet handed to every member of the Church will not contain a mumbling word on the topic. Heck, it might even contain the one or two kind things he ever had to say about blacks.

It's very hard for me to celebrate an off-the-menu Camelot when the Church is still serving heaping mounds of the same old gruel.

I have a hard time sympathizing with someone who can't muster the ambition to walk in the door of a library or even click on a website.

[mormonnewb]

I have a hard time sympathizing with someone who can't muster the ambition to walk in the door of a library or even click on a website.

YOU lacking sympathy for another?  Who woulda thunk it?

However, let's be clear. I'm not talking about the Church not covering everything in its manuals. How could it? It only makes sense that there are some things that invite further study. I'm talking about those few areas in which the Church does cover a topic, but does so in a way that obscures the whole truth (eg, the translation process).

I find it hard to give the Church credit for it's "openness" with providing a true account online or in its archives, but teaching a "less true" account in primary, SS, seminary, etc.

Edited October 1, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Duncan]

YOU lacking sympathy for another?  Who woulda thunk it?

However, let's be clear. I'm not talking about the Church not covering everything in its manuals. How could it? It only makes sense that there are some things that invite further study. I'm talking about those few areas in which the Church does cover a topic, but does so in a way that obscures the whole truth (eg, the translation process).

I find it hard to give the Church credit for it's "openness" with providing a true account online or in its archives, but teaching a "less true" account in primary, SS, seminary, etc.

 

 

first world problems! sheesh!

[The Nehor]

Yes, the Archives are open, but how many of us will ever get there to view it? Instead, the Church delivers to us for easy consumption a very closed version of our history.

Sure, I can hunt down the Joseph Smith papers and find out all about, say, JS's many wives. But the Church is more than happy to hand me a booklet all about JS with no reference to the same.

Likewise, I'm sure the archives tell the whole story of, say, ETB's teachings on race. Yet, the booklet handed to every member of the Church will not contain a mumbling word on the topic. Heck, it might even contain the one or two kind things he ever had to say about blacks.

It's very hard for me to celebrate an off-the-menu Camelot when the Church is still serving heaping mounds of the same old gruel.

Until the Church invites the devil to give a full comprehensive course on Church History with every vile insinuation included and then has it taught every other year as part of a new "fair and balanced" Sunday School rotation some people will still accuse of hiding things.

We open the archives to just about everyone and our enemies want us to do all their research and their teaching for them. Talk about lazy!

[mormonnewb]

Until the Church invites the devil to give a full comprehensive course on Church History with every vile insinuation included and then has it taught every other year as part of a new "fair and balanced" Sunday School rotation some people will still accuse of hiding things.

We open the archives to just about everyone and our enemies want us to do all their research and their teaching for them. Talk about lazy!

 

I don't want the Church to teach the truth to its ENEMIES (all four of them).  I want it to teach the truth to its FAITHFUL, so that they don't feel lied to and end up leaving the Church later in life.

[The Nehor]

I don't want the Church to teach the truth to its ENEMIES (all four of them).

I know more then four personally. Unless they all live very close to me. And unless the ones I knew before are all dead and/or redeemed I think your numbers might be off.

Edited October 2, 2014 by The Nehor

[bjw]

I don't want the Church to teach the truth to its ENEMIES (all four of them).  I want it to teach the truth to its FAITHFUL, so that they don't feel lied to and end up leaving the Church later in life.

I agree with this. You would not someone else teaching your children first about sex or marriage, and I think the same applies here. If members learn a whitewashed version, then hear the truth later, they feel betrayed. I remember several years ago I had a crisis of faith over some of these issues, and while I'm grateful for fair, farms, and this site, it would have been better to learn it at church first.

[Tacenda]

After listening to the many hours of interview that Dehlin did with Metcalf I was very surprised at how positive and kind his outlook is towards the church. Of course he is not a believer. But he is not an enemy either.

I recommend this 6 part series.

That was my takeaway also.

[Tacenda]

I agree with this. You would not someone else teaching your children first about sex or marriage, and I think the same applies here. If members learn a whitewashed version, then hear the truth later, they feel betrayed. I remember several years ago I had a crisis of faith over some of these issues, and while I'm grateful for fair, farms, and this site, it would have been better to learn it at church first.

Very true, and it can take years to get over it. I think I'm almost there...

[VideoGameJunkie]

Tacenda, you're great and very strong! I bet you can fully overcome your faith crisis. I know I had a quick one when I learned some church history that didn't sit well, but I just remember that I should focus on the now and follow what Thomas S. Monson and the modern apostles have to say in today's time. Live life in the now.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, you're great and very strong! I bet you can fully overcome your faith crisis. I know I had a quick one when I learned some church history that didn't sit well, but I just remember that I should focus on the now and follow what Thomas S. Monson and the modern apostles have to say in today's time. Live life in the now.

It has been my life, this church. Once I dropped belief in the church, my belief in God or who I thought God was, stopped.

And when I look at the lifestyle of the orthodox LDS, I want to hold on. It just seemed that the lifestyle helped me with a conduit to God.

Atleast in my case, and I'm sure the Catholic, the Muslim, the Born Again and the Buddhist feel that way also, that living their religion helps them too.

I guess my Mormonism is so ingrained in me, I haven't been able to find anything to replace it, and believe me I've tried.

Anyhow, thanks VGJ for the vote of confidence!

[VideoGameJunkie]

Anytime Tacenda! I think you're a very sweet and caring person.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, the Archives are open, but how many of us will ever get there to view it? Instead, the Church delivers to us for easy consumption a very closed version of our history.

Sure, I can hunt down the Joseph Smith papers and find out all about, say, JS's many wives. But the Church is more than happy to hand me a booklet all about JS with no reference to the same.

Likewise, I'm sure the archives tell the whole story of, say, ETB's teachings on race. Yet, the booklet handed to every member of the Church will not contain a mumbling word on the topic. Heck, it might even contain the one or two kind things he ever had to say about blacks.

It's very hard for me to celebrate an off-the-menu Camelot when the Church is still serving heaping mounds of the same old gruel.

Nonsense.

 

Scholars have had access to and have been publishing the contents of the LDS Church Archives for over 40 years now.  Wide ranging discussions have been held in public forums all during that time, and easily accessible books and articles have been read and debated by people from all walks of life.  The only big difference in recent decades is that much of it has been digitized and is available online.

 

So, I am not sure what you are complaining about.  Are you dissatisfied with the fact that the LDS Church still uses introductory materials for those who are unfamiliar with Church history and doctrine?  Do you believe that the naive and uninformed should be given meat before milk?  Do you believe that the ordinary learning process should be upended and reversed?

[mormonnewb]

Nonsense.

Scholars have had access to and have been publishing the contents of the LDS Church Archives for over 40 years now. Wide ranging discussions have been held in public forums all during that time, and easily accessible books and articles have been read and debated by people from all walks of life. The only big difference in recent decades is that much of it has been digitized and is available online.

So, I am not sure what you are complaining about. Are you dissatisfied with the fact that the LDS Church still uses introductory materials for those who are unfamiliar with Church history and doctrine? Do you believe that the naive and uninformed should be given meat before milk? Do you believe that the ordinary learning process should be upended and reversed?

Introductory materials are fine, but not INACCURATE materials. An introductory math textbook will not cover polynomial equations, but it will cover basic math concepts correctly. It won't say that 2+2=5 or provide illustrations of a 5-sided triangle (or JS translating directly from the plates).

Likewise, an elementary spelling workbook will not tell readers that "i" always comes before "e" in an effort to provide "milk before meat." It will also provide the most common exceptions, so that young students aren't decieved into years of misunderstanding, only to be later disillusioned by the truth.

[Robert F. Smith]

Introductory materials are fine, but not INACCURATE materials. An introductory math textbook will not cover polynomial equations, but it will cover basic math concepts correctly. It won't say that 2+2=5 or provide illustrations of a 5-sided triangle (or JS translating directly from the plates).

Likewise, an elementary spelling workbook will not tell readers that "i" always comes before "e" in an effort to provide "milk before meat." It will also provide the most common exceptions, so that young students aren't decieved into years of misunderstanding, only to be later disillusioned by the truth.

So, you are saying perhaps that the LDS manuals and introductory materials are "inaccurate" or misleading through false statements or via omission?  And that this includes past manuals which used illustrations of Joseph translating which did not accord with what history in fact tells us?  Most such manuals were written by people who did not know how Joseph translated, and the already extant illustrations used were used sincerely by less than well-informed people.  All the while, accurate illustrations were available and had been used previously (as we have seen on this board).  Sounds more like a herky-jerky comedy of errors, rather than a conspiracy to deceive.  Is disillusionment justified on such bases?  That would be silly, and suggests the kinds of unrealistic demands which come from martinets.  Our expectations should clearly be more open and honest.  The LDS Church is, after all, a very human endeavor.