Johnnie Cake Posted June 10, 2016 Author Posted June 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, Danzo said: I'm sorry, I did it, Everything that the church has every withheld was my fault. Since my earliest childhood days, I have worked non stop to destroy evidence, burn books, alter Sunday school lessons, and silence all critics. If there is anything you don't know about church history, I kept it from you. If you ever learned anything that was incorrect about church history, I was the one feeding you the incorrect information. Apology Accepted 1
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 30 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Rodheadlee was just making the same silly assertion the other day when I brought up the fact Joseph Fielding Smith cut out the 1832 First Vision account and hid it in his safe for decades. From one of my favorite films: "Si no dejan publicar la verdad, va a triunfar la mentira, el empobrecimiento, y el embrutecimiento." ("If they don't allow the truth to be published, then lies, poverty, and brutality will triumph.")
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Just now, Johnnie Cake said: Apology Accepted I guess I've never thought of it in terms of an apology. I don't think anyone purposely deceived me, and I knew about a lot of the history years before I ever questioned my belief. For me, you figure things out, you learn from them, and you go forward.
Johnnie Cake Posted June 10, 2016 Author Posted June 10, 2016 31 minutes ago, smac97 said: Whether it does or does not "apologize" for its treatment of Leonard Arrington isn't really the point. Whether an apology is even in order isn't really the point. The point is that our critics will find fault with us not matter what we do. Dunno. CFR, I guess. I'm surprised that you're surprised. A central facet of discussions about The Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics Essays, and other efforts by the Church over the past several years is that these efforts reflect a marked change and improvement in the Church's openness. Consider the following recent remarks by Elder Ballard (emphases added): I know you want to cast the Church in the worst possible light ("the church did in fact hide and sequester its troubled history"), as well as its defenders ("How many times have we had on this and other boards apologists and believers claim other wise"), but the Church has been improving in terms of addressing the controversial aspects of its history for years now. Apologize to you for what? Why are you owed an apology for how the Church may or may not have treated Leonard Arrington years ago? Isn't that . . . you know, between him and the Church? How do you know that he didn't receive an apology? How do you know if he even felt an apology was expected or required? Thanks, -Smac I'm sensing some pent up anger and frustration -Smac97 Maybe take some time off, go outside for a walk or get a massage. Dude life is wonderful
JAHS Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 20 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Who should they apologize to? I don't know. Maybe they could start with all the Mormons who have left the Church when they found out their leaders were covering up the history . . . They don't need to apologize to me. I understand why some of the information was held back. For one thing we don't and can't know all the details and the reasons why some things happened in the history of the church. Why release troubling information that might tear down a person's testimony, when we don't really understand completely why some of those things were done? A lot of how one reacts to Church history depends on attitude. Those who go into it with the attitude that nothing they read will ever shake their testimony, can study and glean those things that are helpful and put those things aside for now that might be questionable; knowing that in the end we will eventually understand the reasons. Others who do not treat it this way may allow those few questionable things to plant destructive doubts in their minds that may enlarge to the point where those things become more important than the gospel itself. Why feed those doubts? We also sometimes unfairly judge the conduct of past church leaders based on today's current culture, doctrines, and commandments. There were a lot of things members of the early church did that we don't do now, based on the "line upon line" method that God uses to teach and govern His children. I have found that when considering church history and some of the more questionable things that were done, there is a list of things to keep in mind: - the source of the information - misinformation, inaccuracy, innuendo - people promoting their own agendas - exaggerations or outright lies - faulty or selective memories of those writing things down many years after the fact. - historical myths - personal opinions, perceptions, and bias of the author - information taken out of context - understanding that church leaders were human and can make mistakes. - the time, culture, conditions of the church and people at the time. - progress of the church and established doctrines at the time it was written - my own opinion, personality, and understanding and interpretation of what I am reading People who allow historical problems to govern the strength of their testimonies need to work on strengthening their testimonies from the right source; the Holy Ghost.
smac97 Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 27 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Relax -Smac...take a breath... Sage advice. I'm out of this thread. I probably shouldn't have chimed in ... Thanks, -Smac 1
Jeanne Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 44 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Well, the LDS Church did build a monument at Mountain Meadows, complete with a plaque saying how great the LDS Church was for building the monument. Well, on behalf of my great-great grandfather, I so apologize and say I am sorry for his participation in this horrific episode in mormon history. Under direction from his leaders in Millard County, he participated in this. I am so ..so sorry and I speak for many cousins here. 3
Danzo Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 58 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Apology Accepted Thank you, I feel so much better now. 1
consiglieri Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Danzo said: I'm sorry, I did it, Everything that the church has every withheld was my fault. Since my earliest childhood days, I have worked non stop to destroy evidence, burn books, alter Sunday school lessons, and silence all critics. If there is anything you don't know about church history, I kept it from you. If you ever learned anything that was incorrect about church history, I was the one feeding you the incorrect information. I thought Elder Packer passed away . . .
consiglieri Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 51 minutes ago, JAHS said: Why release troubling information that might tear down a person's testimony, when we don't really understand completely why some of those things were done? Because it's the truth.
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Because it's the truth. To quote Mark Twain: "When in doubt, tell the truth." 1
consiglieri Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Just now, jkwilliams said: To quote Mark Twain: "When in doubt, tell the truth." How is it a church that claims to be the only true church on the face of the earth finds it necessary to hide the truth from its members? That's what I can't figure out.
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Just now, consiglieri said: How is it a church that claims to be the only true church on the face of the earth finds it necessary to hide the truth from its members? That's what I can't figure out. I've heard it said that it was done to "protect" the testimonies of the members. I don't understand that at all. If the church had dealt with the issues back when Arrington was around, they could have "controlled the message" and worked the difficult stuff into the church narrative. Because they didn't do that, the information came out anyway, and they had no way to control it. 1
Danzo Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 15 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I thought Elder Packer passed away . . . It was never him, It was me. I had everyone fooled. 2
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 I guess I don't know what to make of all this. I've been told over and over that all the difficult stuff was readily available to anyone who wanted, and those who didn't know about it were "lazy and instransigent." Now the church is praised for increased openness, but doesn't that presuppose that it wasn't particularly "open" in the past? Nothing stays hidden forever, and if your beliefs can't stand up to open discussion, they're probably not all that solid. Here's hoping the church continues on its trajectory toward transparency. 1
JAHS Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 43 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Because it's the truth. Hey. don't you remember? "Some things that are true are not very useful"
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, JAHS said: Hey. don't you remember? "Some things that are true are not very useful" Unfortunately, that seems to have been the guiding principle for some folks.
JAHS Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 42 minutes ago, consiglieri said: How is it a church that claims to be the only true church on the face of the earth finds it necessary to hide the truth from its members? That's what I can't figure out. Your'e talking about truth of the history; not the truth of the Gospel. History involves fallible people who are going to make mistakes. It's not that anyone lied; they just held back some incompletely understood truths that might only cause confusion and loss of testimonies.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: In the new Greg Prince Biography on Leonard Arrington, Prince chronicle's Arrington's view that the church was guilty of "sequestering" (his words not mine) damaging church history. Arrington also felt the need to keep 2 copies of his personal diary out of fear that it too might be "Sequestered" if it fell into the hands of the church. This is in part his motivation for leaving his vast collection of personal papers to Utah State University instead of the church. Many will recall the public fight by the church to acquire those personal papers rather than have them be donated to USU. In short, Arrington didn't trust the church nor its history department.. Arrington, who spent a decade as Church Historian, was brought in to make changes, which he did. He professionalized the history dept of the Church, and he did so at the invitation of the Brethren. Some were faint-hearted about it, and he did get fired, but by then he had accomplished his task, and there was no going back. I bring this up here because as someone whom some might call a church critic, I find this a shocking confirmation of what critics have long believed....that the church is guilty of hiding and sequestering the difficult aspects of its history and now we have confirmation. While some apologists will brush this off as..."nothing to see here folks, move along type news"...fresh in my mind are many of these same apologist denying that the church hides or has hidden any of its history. Well now there is confirmation that it did. I have never heard any scholars who defend the LDS faith say "nothing to see here folks, move along." That is a straw man invention of anti-Mormons who have been very upset by the professionalizing and opening up of the LDS History Dept. You are "shocked" at what any well-informed scholar has long known, and is not in any way new. Of course materials were hidden and access was prevented by an earlier non-professional staff under the guidance of Elder Joseph Fielding Smith (who was Church Historian, but who had no professional training). Most materials were, however, simply lost in the vast system, and nothing was known about many documents until they were professionally catalogued by Arrington's crew of young PhDs. We already knew all this thirty years ago, and Hugh Nibley used to publicly complain that his great grandfather's diary was sequestered from him, even though he had been the one to donate it to the Church History Dept. You have no sense of balance or perspective, Johnnie. To his credit, Arrington tried to change this corporate policy by opening up the windows of the church history department to let the fresh air in...and was fired for doing so... Arrington was quite successful, doing what he had been brought in to do. And we have been making large advances ever since. 3
Ahab Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Arrington believed that the church should air its dirty laundry and let the chips fall where they may. I am not a fan of anyone who likes to see others air their dirty laundry in public, or even airing their own dirty laundry. Airing dirty laundry does not make it clean. Please clean your dirty laundry before you air your laundry in public. I love the smell of clean laundry, in the morning and other parts of the day. Dirty laundry usually stinketh and smelleth like it really needs to be cleaned.
Calm Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: They fired the man for wanting to do exactly what 35 years later they are actually doing themselves...so yes a simple apology or perhaps an admission that we were wrong and you were right could be nice. There is no inherent right to a job. If you don't fulfill your employer's current requirements, getting let go and replaced by someone who will should hardly be surprising. Unless the Church administration attempted to get Arrington blackballed, attacked his reputation or something else along those lines, I don't see any need to apologize for the termination. This is a different issue in my mind from the choice to ignore and even suppress some aspects of history, addressing that for me would take too much typing and I have to limit that these days.
Mystery Meat Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 It is a fascinating topic. I take somewhat of a middle ground. I am probably closer in my opinions to someone like jkwilliams then some of the TBMs (at least on this topic). I do believe that Church should have been more proactive about making this information public and available, even letting some of it finds its way into the lesson manuals and the like. I think a lot of tumult over history now would have been lessened. On the other hand, I somewhat agree with the oft maligned quote "Some truths don't matter." While I would have phrased it different ("Not all truths are equal in value and have a disproportionate effect on eternity"), I think there is some truth (pun intended) to it. For example, while it is true that Joseph Smith was sealed to the wife of Orson Hyde after Hyde had been sent on a mission, knowing that does not change the fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and the Lord's mouthpiece. He still stands at the head of OUR dispensation, second only to the Savior himself. While it is interesting factoid, it hasn't brought closer to God or distanced me from Him. With that in mind, I can understand why it wasn't as highly valued in Church teaching and instruction and why it may have been intentionally hidden.
Calm Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 2 hours ago, JAHS said: A lot of how one reacts to Church history depends on attitude. Those who go into it with the attitude that nothing they read will ever shake their testimony, can study and glean those things that are helpful and put those things aside for now that might be questionable; knowing that in the end we will eventually understand the reasons. I think a more nuanced approach is needed. Certainty can actually contribute to a more brittle testimony because any shock is then seen as proof that they were wrong...and that becomes all that matters rather than the actual issue. Better to approach it as nothing need destroy one's testimony with an awareness that one's testimony will be altered as new information is processed but if time, attention, care and wisdom are used, there is no reason to fear new information will weaken one's testimony even if it leads one to look at the Gospel in new ways. 4
jkwilliams Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Just now, Calm said: I think a more nuanced approach is needed. Certainty can actually contribute to a more brittle testimony because any shock is then seen as proof that they were wrong...and that becomes all that matters rather than the actual issue. Better to approach it as nothing need destroy one's testimony with an awareness that one's testimony will be altered as new information is processed but if time, attention, care and wisdom are used, there is no reason to fear new information will weaken one's testimony even if it leads one to look at the Gospel in new ways. Well said.
Recommended Posts