Openness And Transparency At The Church Archives

[Nevo]

The Church's current approach seems to be to make "open and transparent" history available to people with doubts/questions while still trying to insulate the general membership from potentially troubling information. The Church History Department is producing excellent work but so far very little of it has found its way into church lessons, magazines, and media. Even the new seminary manual, which is supposed to be a step forward re: openness and transparency, leaves a lot to be desired. The Church is going to continue to lose a lot of good members over its aversion to being upfront about certain aspects of Joseph Smith's history.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Nevo

[juliann]

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.

Then give them some credit for opening the archives, putting the JS Papers online, creating a serious of Gospel Topics essays and any number of things. There does become a point where astute observations devolve into whining. Just sayin'

[juliann]

The Church's current approach seems to be to make "open and transparent" history available to people with doubts/questions while still trying to insulate the general membership from potential troubling information. The Church History Department is producing excellent work but so far very little of it has found its way into church lessons, magazines, and media. Even the new seminary manual, which is supposed to be a step forward re: openness and transparency, leaves a lot to be desired. The Church is going to continue to lose a lot of good members over its aversion to being upfront about certain aspects of Joseph Smith's history.

I actually don't think "the church" is the problem anymore. It is the local culture that hands out social censure for those who do talk openly in meetings. That is going to take a lot longer to change than opening doors. This is where the rubber hits the road for all of us. We have to be willing to face the censure to break open the bottle neck  if anything is going to change in real life.

[JLHPROF]

Then give them some credit for opening the archives, putting the JS Papers online, creating a serious of Gospel Topics essays and any number of things. There does become a point where astute observations devolve into whining. Just sayin'

 

Agreed - at some point it does become necessary for a Church member who wants to know history to actually pick up a book and not rely on the 30-45 mins a week of gospel doctrine.

I still think the Church chooses not to "emphasize" certain historical facts (to borrow from Pres. Hinckley) but I think the days of misleading manuals and silly theories are slowly moving into the Church's history themselves.

[stemelbow]

I actually don't think "the church" is the problem anymore. It is the local culture that hands out social censure for those who do talk openly in meetings. That is going to take a lot longer to change than opening doors. This is where the rubber hits the road for all of us. We have to be willing to face the censure to break open the bottle neck  if anything is going to change in real life.

I'd say Nevo has a point and so do you. Largely the problem is the culture and social censure as you say. But it also seems apparent the materials and manuals leave plenty to be desired. I'm just saying those manuals aren't helping to dissolve the "local culture that hands out social censure for those who talk openly in meetings". nah...the manuals, generally speaking, can be as Teryl Givens put it, "deplorable".

[mormonnewb]

Then give them some credit for opening the archives, putting the JS Papers online, creating a serious of Gospel Topics essays and any number of things. There does become a point where astute observations devolve into whining. Just sayin'

Point well taken. The Church is taking significant steps to providing a "meatier" version of our history. As always, I wish we were taking the steps at a faster pace, but perhaps I should be grateful that we are moving forward.

To paraphrase Dr. King, "The arc of Mormon historicity is milky, but it bends toward meat."

Edited October 2, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Robert F. Smith]

The Church's current approach seems to be to make "open and transparent" history available to people with doubts/questions while still trying to insulate the general membership from potentially troubling information. The Church History Department is producing excellent work but so far very little of it has found its way into church lessons, magazines, and media. Even the new seminary manual, which is supposed to be a step forward re: openness and transparency, leaves a lot to be desired. The Church is going to continue to lose a lot of good members over its aversion to being upfront about certain aspects of Joseph Smith's history.

That is nonsense, Nevo.  There is no evidence that the LDS Church is open and transparent only to doubters and questioners.  The internet and the widely advertized Joseph Smith Papers Project have made the mass of early documents easily available to everyone (members and non-members alike).  Books and articles have been and are being written on all aspects of the very thought-provoking material now available.

 

I can still recall the late anti-Mormon Olive Wilcox of Orrick, Missouri, once telling me on no uncertain terms that "The Far West Record" showed Joseph to be a dictator.  So I read her copy and found it showed exactly the opposite about Joseph.  This is typical of the jaundiced view which ill-wishers have taken, and which predisposes them to interpret everything in a negative light.

 

The LDS Church (as with all religious organizations) will always lose members.  Even God couldn't convince a third of his children to stay with Him.  However, a small rate of attrition does not destroy a church, synagogue, or mosque.  Some religious organizations lose huge numbers and are on the verge of demise.  The dynamism of the LDS faith doesn't accord with your bleak assessment.

[DBMormon]

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.

While more open then ever there are still things you can not get which are in the First Presidency vault.    I was told that by Mark Ashurst McGee in my podcast interview

[ksfisher]

While more open then ever there are still things you can not get which are in the First Presidency vault.    I was told that by Mark Ashurst McGee in my podcast interview

 

And Angel Moroni seems unwilling to tell us where the golden plates have gone as well.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'll dig in my backyard for the golden plates, I think they're buried there. I used to love digging holes as a kid. Maybe I'll find them! If I do, I'll hand them over to Thomas S. Monson.

[Scott Lloyd]

While more open then ever there are still things you can not get which are in the First Presidency vault.    I was told that by Mark Ashurst McGee in my podcast interview

I've written in the past -- and posted here on this and other message boards -- about the reasonable policies that govern accessibility of the Church's archival holdings.

 

Richard E. Turley Jr., past managing director of the Church History Department and currently the Assistant Church Historian and Recorder, summarized it in this way for a story I wrote several years ago: (Link: http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/41160/Preserving-the-past.html)

 

"It would be difficult for me to find a comparable private institution in terms of size that provides as much information about itself to the public," Brother Turley said. ...

 

With its vast holdings, the department does not make everything available, and occasionally encounters criticism for the restrictions it does have. Yet the ethical considerations of privacy and confidentiality that govern department policies are in line with standards that are described in professional archival literature, Brother Turley said.

He described such considerations in volume 1 of The Journals of George Q. Cannon. These apply to "matters that are sacred, private or confidential. Matters of great sacredness deserve reverence. Divulging some kinds of information may violate principles of privacy, and persons who confess to religious leaders or communicate other information in a confidential setting expect that leaders will maintain their confidences."

 

 

In response to a question from the audience, Matthew J. Grow of the Church History Department spoke of the same policies in the address he gave at the FairMormon Conference in August:

 

The vast percentage of the things the Church holds are accessible and available to anyone.

 

The archives, like other business or corporate or government or university archives, have specific restrictions on what is not accessible to everyone. Those fall in three categories: the first category is sacred. To us that means things that talk explicitly about the temple rituals are not accessible. The second category is private. Private refers generally to legal situations involving living individuals. The third category is confidential. That refers generally to one of two things. Either the minutes of the presiding quorums of the Church or to disciplinary councils whose records are sealed.

 

What falls outside of those three things, which is the vast percentage of what the church holds, the archives are open. Come down to the Church History Library in Salt Lake City and you’ll find that out.

 

 

Link: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64028-fairmormon-conference-quotes/

 

I didn't hear your podcast and don't have time to listen to the whole thing now (one reason I prefer written articles and transcripts to recordings), but I would be surprised if what Mark said on that occasion conflicts in any way with what I have quoted above.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Paddy]

I actually don't think "the church" is the problem anymore. It is the local culture that hands out social censure for those who do talk openly in meetings. That is going to take a lot longer to change than opening doors. This is where the rubber hits the road for all of us. We have to be willing to face the censure to break open the bottle neck if anything is going to change in real life.

Agreed. While the church is making great strides in openness and transparency it struggles to integrate this into the dominate correlated discourse, which tends to view different or critical information as anti Mormon.

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed. While the church is making great strides in openness and transparency it struggles to integrate this into the dominate correlated discourse, which tends to view different or critical information as anti Mormon.

I wonder about your use of the phrase "correlated discourse." It seems to reflect the all-to-common mindset that Correlation is some autonomous entity that free-lances on its own, separate and apart from the direction of the Church and its leadership.

 

Actually, that (mis)conception turns reality on its head. Correlation exists to serve the Brethren, not the other way around.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

That is nonsense, Nevo.  There is no evidence that the LDS Church is open and transparent only to doubters and questioners.  The internet and the widely advertized Joseph Smith Papers Project have made the mass of early documents easily available to everyone (members and non-members alike)

 

I agree that the Church has made some good information available on the Internet. But making information available somewhere and actually teaching it to members are two different things. The Church is still clearly reluctant to address sensitive issues in manuals, magazines, media, conference talks, etc.—that is, in the places where average members ("Chapel Mormons") are most likely to be reached.

 

A couple of years ago Elder Paul V. Johnson reported an exciting development to an audience of seminary and institute teachers: "We plan to add helps to the curriculum for certain questions that are commonly raised. . . . With the spread of the Internet, attacks on the Church aren’t limited by geography, so we must do more to help students understand the issues they likely will face" (Paul V. Johnson, “A Pattern for Learning Spiritual Things” [seminaries and Institutes of Religion satellite training broadcast, Aug. 7, 2012]).

 

The current Doctrine and Covenants and Church History seminary teacher manual is the result of that effort. The manual is probably the most "open" and "transparent" seminary manual the Church has ever released (see, for example, the discussion of the Mountain Meadows Massacre). Unfortunately, though, there are still a lot of obfuscations and omissions. Here are just a few:

 

• The manual acknowledges the existence of multiple First Vision accounts but is completely silent on the differences between them.

  "You may want to explain that Joseph Smith wrote this account of the First Vision in 1838 as part of an official history of the Church to be published to the world. There are nine known accounts of the First Vision . . . . You may also want to explain that the multiple accounts of the First Vision were prepared at different times and for different audiences. In these accounts, Joseph Smith emphasized different aspects of his experience of the First Vision, but the accounts all agree in the essential truth that Joseph Smith did indeed have the heavens opened to him and see divine messengers, including God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

  Students (or at least that subset whose teachers elected to raise the issue of multiple accounts at all) are likely to go away thinking that the various accounts "all agree" that Joseph saw "divine messengers [plural], including God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." I don't think students are well served by this sort of obfuscation.

   

• An entire lesson is dedicated to the persecution Joseph suffered for sharing his First Vision experience, but Joseph's teenage involvement with treasure hunting, and his use of a divining rod and seer stone to discover lost and hidden objects, is passed over without a word—as is his 1826 trial as a "disorderly person." During the five year span between Moroni's visit and the recovery of the plates, students only learn that Joseph worked for Josiah Stowell and that he married Emma Hale. A supplementary note intended for the teacher explains:

  "Since the early days of the Restoration, critics have attacked Joseph Smith’s character because he was employed as a youth to dig for money. Critics labeled his efforts as “money-digging” or “treasure-seeking” in an effort to blot his character. Joseph Smith grew up in a time and culture in which treasure-seeking or digging for buried gold and silver was common and accepted. In his history, Joseph Smith explains that he and his family were hired to dig for silver (see Joseph Smith—History 1:56)."  

  I don't find this explanation especially transparent. It seems to suggest, without actually saying so, that the only time Joseph that was ever employed to dig for money was when he was hired by Stowell. It also implies that Joseph was just manning a shovel like any other hired hand. Bushmanian candor is sadly lacking here.

   

• The curriculum writers' skittishness in treating rural folk practices continues in the lesson on Section 8. Even though they know perfectly well that Oliver Cowdery's other "gift" in that section was the use of a divining rod, they write:

  "Summarize Doctrine and Covenants 8:6–9 by telling students that the Lord blessed Oliver Cowdery with gifts that would help him fulfill his role in the Restoration of the gospel. Among these gifts was the 'gift of Aaron,' with which, the Lord told Oliver, he would do 'marvelous works.' We do not know exactly what the “gift of Aaron” entails. Remind students that Aaron was the brother of Moses in the Old Testament and that he helped Moses fulfill his prophetic responsibilities."

  Again, this strikes me as less than candid. No, we don't know all the details, but we do know that a divining rod was involved. Why hide that fact? (For an example of what actual openness and transparency looks like, see the "Revelations in Context" article here.)

 

The Doctrine and Covenants and Church History course of study is the only formal instruction on Church history that the youth get before going out into the mission field. I think we can do a better job of providing them with honest, straightforward answers. Rather than waiting for doubts and troubling questions to arise, at which point the student is sent to a Joseph Smith Papers or Gospel Topics page, why not just be forthright with them up front?

Edited October 4, 2014 by Nevo

[Paddy]

I wonder about your use of the phrase "correlated discourse." It seems to reflect the all-to-common mindset that Correlation is some autonomous entity that free-lances on its own, separate and apart from the direction of the Church and its leadership.

Actually, that (mis)conception turns reality on its head. The Correlation exists to serve the Brethren, not the other way around.

Certainly not how it was intended. I could have used the word "common discourse" but the principle is the same. Correlation is a way to standardise and consolidate teachings, practices, learning materials, etc. and it has become dominate because that is its purpose. It is was it is.

However, your statement does highlight the cultural propensity to immediately be "semantically" defensive about something that goes outside the normal or accepted discourse.

[Scott Lloyd]

Certainly not how it was intended. I could have used the word "common discourse" but the principle is the same. Correlation is a way to standardise and consolidate teachings, practices, learning materials, etc. and it has become dominate because that is its purpose. It is was it is.

However, your statement does highlight the cultural propensity to immediately be "semantically" defensive about something that goes outside the normal or accepted discourse.

What you seem resistant to is the idea that the standardization and consolidation (if that's how you define it) comes at the behest and mandate of the leadership of the Church, not apart from it.

[Paddy]

What you seem resistant to is the idea that the standardization and consolidation (if that's how you define it) comes at the behest and mandate of the leadership of the Church, not apart from it.

No. I am happy with that idea. But it's interpretation and application often is wrestled from the brethren and becomes apart of the cultural mix - in both good and bad ways. This is pretty normal is it not? Which then goes back to my original point that there is a tension between making information available and it permeating the current correlated paradigm.

[Scott Lloyd]

No. I am happy with that idea. But it's interpretation and application often is wrestled from the brethren and becomes apart of the cultural mix - in both good and bad ways. This is pretty normal is it not? Which then goes back to my original point that there is a tension between making information available and it permeating the current correlated paradigm.

I think I understand what you are saying.

 

The other day in a different thread, Senator told of his experience at a temple dedication where after the meeting someone dressed him down for being too exuberant during the Hosanna Shout. What this presumptuous individual didn't realize is that the Hosanna Shout is to be "whole-souled," as one writer put it, energetic and, well, loud.

 

Perhaps this man is an example of the "correlated" mindset you are talking about -- except that his presumptuousness was quite contrary to what the "correlated" behavior that was expected.

 

Am I coming close to what you are getting at?

[DBMormon]

I've written in the past -- and posted here on this and other message boards -- about the reasonable policies that govern accessibility of the Church's archival holdings.

 

Richard E. Turley Jr., past managing director of the Church History Department and currently the Assistant Church Historian and Recorder, summarized it in this way for a story I wrote several years ago: (Link: http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/41160/Preserving-the-past.html)

 

 

In response to a question from the audience, Matthew J. Grow of the Church History Department spoke of the same policies in the address he gave at the FairMormon Conference in August:

 

Link: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64028-fairmormon-conference-quotes/

 

I didn't hear your podcast and don't have time to listen to the whole thing now (one reason I prefer written articles and transcripts to recordings), but I would be surprised if what Mark said on that occasion conflicts in any way with what I have quoted above.

I agree just saying it is not a free for all

[Paddy]

I think I understand what you are saying.

The other day in a different thread, Senator told of his experience at a temple dedication where after the meeting someone dressed him down for being too exuberant during the Hosanna Shout. What this presumptuous individual didn't realize is that the Hosanna Shout is to be "whole-souled," as one writer put it, energetic and, well, loud.

Perhaps this man is an example of the "correlated" mindset you are talking about -- except that his presumptuousness was quite contrary to what the "correlated" behavior that was expected.

Am I coming close to what you are getting at?

Yes that's pretty close.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

The other day in a different thread, Senator told of his experience at a temple dedication where after the meeting someone dressed him down for being too exuberant during the Hosanna Shout. What this presumptuous individual didn't realize is that the Hosanna Shout is to be "whole-souled," as one writer put it, energetic and, well, loud.

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

When Jesus rode into Jerusalem in triumph, with palm fronds being waved, I'll bet it got very loud with Hosannas!!  Matt 21:8-11, Mark 11:8-10, John 12:12-13.  Some of the establishment evidently being disturbed by it.  John 12:19.