New Arrington Biography Makes Shocking Admission

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Certainty can actually contribute to a more brittle testimony because any shock is then seen as proof that they were wrong

I understand what your are saying,  but testimonies actually confirmed by the Holy Ghost and tested in the fire of experience can be made of steel, which is not very brittle. 
I guess it depends on where one is in life regarding the strength of their own personal testimony. 

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour 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.

Two points: The true and formal definition of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" is not hidden from members or critics, being published in D&C 1 but it perpetually misquoted. Notice that the bolded points are not an accurate quotation of D&C 1:30 and that ellipsis are not used to indicate that something is missing.

"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually— " D&C 1:30

The difference, I found, makes a huge difference.  I keep pointing this out year after year.

Quote

My reading of verse 30, regarding the distinction of the church, suggests that the word “only” applies to the phrase “with which I, the Lord am well pleased.” (Consider a sentence about the “only blue and idling car upon the face of the whole parking [Page 134]lot, with which I, the attendant, am well pleased.” That is not just a florid and emphatic way to say “only blue car” but provides a very different thought.) The “well-pleased” designation in D&C 1 applies to the church and is relative to what “true and living” means as descriptive qualities for church. It happens that the Biblical occurrences of true and living cast light on the meaning: “true vine,” “true treasure,” “truth and life,” “tree of life,” “living bread,” “living waters,” “new and living way through the veil” (Hebrews 10:20); and “true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). The Bible imagery of “true and living” has to do with the voice of warning (Jeremiah 10:10, and D&C 1:2), priesthood (true vine, John 15:1-5), living bread and living waters (sacrament and baptism, Holy Spirit inspiration, scripture; that is, ordinances and covenants and revelation), and finally, tree of life and “living way through the veil,” which both point to the temple and Christ’s role as the Melchizedek High Priest who enters the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement.⁴⁹ The themes that go with Biblical “true and living” imagery parallel the themes of D&C 1 point for point, verse for verse. Collectively all of these Bible images based on “true and/or living” center on the ongoing revelation and the distinctive priesthood ordinances and covenants, scriptures and temple worship that do, in actual fact and practice, distinguish the LDS from other faiths. But the designation is expressly non-exclusive and incomplete relative to truth, revelation, and human virtue. Riskas refers to “‘the only true Church’ on the face of the earth today,” but he has not considered the fact of his misquotation⁵⁰ and consequent inaccuracy of thought, and therefore he has not considered the implications of his own misreading as a “multiplier of negative [Page 135]effects.”⁵¹ My point is that the expectations that I get from a close reading of D&C 1 are far more tolerant and robust than the expectations that Riskas uses to test LDS truth claims. I can matter-of-factly expect many of the same things that he sees as decisive anomalies. My assumptions make a different set of predictions for Mormonism. Different predictions direct me to different methods, problem fields, and standards of solution.

I also notice that the common misreading and misquotation fits with Position Two of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth:

Quote

Position 2 – Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are true authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.⁵⁴

The point here is that the attitude toward a group’s authorities that Riskas sees as a distinctive Mormon claim applies to a position of human development that everyone faces regardless of their cultural background. Because Mormons are human, these positions will always be found among Mormons. But it is not a binding Mormon doctrine, simply an expected expression of human attitude toward their chosen society at a particular level of personal growth. As I have shown, D&C 1 expressly contradicts the assumptions of these initial positions and thereby encourages further growth.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/#more-4012

And regarding the business of hiding truth (importantly defined as "knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come"), is not hard to figure out.  I looked it up in the scriptures over 20 years ago.

Quote

The scriptures do recognize four valid motives for managing access to information: (1) pedagogy—when the information cannot be understood without significant preparation or experience (3 Nephi 17:2-3; Hebrews 5:11-14), (2) confidentiality on personal matters (D&C 42:88, 92), (3) sacredness (3 Nephi 17:17; D&C 63:64), and (4) social danger¹⁸³ —this restriction never applies to ideas, but only to spelling out methods.

Information management in these cases derives from genuine love on the part of the teacher and free consent on the part of the student. Full knowledge remains available to those who seek it.

Our scriptures caution all of us against limiting knowledge in order to cover sins, gratify pride and vain ambition, or to exercise control, dominion, or compulsion over people in any degree of unrighteousness (cf. D&C 121:37). Pure knowledge, we are told, greatly enlarges the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile (D&C 121:42). That is, if the knowledge is pure, we can expect to see an increase of love and empathy, as when Enos first prays for himself, then for his family, and then for his enemies. It follows then, that impure knowledge leads to hypocrisy, impatience, and intolerance, all of which signify a contracting of the soul (D&C 121:39).

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

I could have added reference to those occasions when God sees fit to try our faith.

And of course regarding the notion than anyone can easily provide, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Peter Novick was direct and to the point:

Quote

But above all — and if I repeat myself, it is because it bears repetition — the objective historian was to cleave to one goal and one goal only, mirroring to the best of her powers the past as it really was.⁴⁹

I will only report that to an ever-increasing number of historians in recent decades it has not just seemed unapproachable, but an incoherent ideal; not impossible, in the sense of unachievable (that would not make it a less worthy goal than many other goals that we reasonably pursue), but meaningless. This is not because of human frailty on the part of the historian (that, after all, we can struggle against), not because of irresistible outside pressures (these too we can resist with some success, if not complete success). No, the principal problem is different, and it is laughably simple. It is the problem of selecting from [Page 121]among the zillions and zillions of bits of historical data out there the handful that we can fit in even the largest book, and the associated problem of how we arrange those bits that we choose. The criterion of selection and the way we arrange the bits we choose are not given out there in the historical record. Neutrality, value-freedom, and absence of preconceptions on the part of the historian would not result in a neutral account, it would result in no account at all, because any historian, precisely to the extent that she was neutral, without values, free of preconceptions, would be paralyzed, would not have the foggiest notion of how to go about choosing from the vast, unbelievably messy chaos of stuff out there.⁵⁰

from Novick's Sunstone talk, quoted here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Not half cute enough.

A second attempt:

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Ever hear of the Joseph Smith Papers Project?  Shocking, isn't it? 

I've always felt that my relationship with the institutional arms of the church has been much improved when I've seen that the Greek Ekklesia means simply an assembly of people, and recognized that people come in all shapes and sizes and varieties of temperament and different outlooks as well as from different times and places.  It saves me from being scandalized and from overgeneralizing about the whole from the actions of individuals. 

And here is Arrington speaking for himself on his beliefs.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2620/leonard-j-arrington

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

"I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place"  - Sterling McMurrin

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I understand what your are saying,  but testimonies actually confirmed by the Holy Ghost and tested in the fire of experience can be made of steel, which is not very brittle. 
I guess it depends on where one is in life regarding the strength of their own personal testimony. 

There are different forms of certainty.  Certainty born of being tested over and over again and successfully weathering the storms is likely an accurate view of oneself.  Certainty that is coupled with inexperience and/or even worse arrogance not so accurate.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I've heard it said that it was done to "protect" the testimonies of the members.

Why do testimonies of the truth have to be protected from the truth?

 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

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.

Why is it that problematic history should be automatically deemed to be "incompletely understood"?

The problem isn't the withheld truths are "incompletely understood."

The problem is they are only to easy to understand. 

 

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are different forms of certainty.  Certainty born of being tested over and over again and successfully weathering the storms is likely an accurate view of oneself.  Certainty that is coupled with inexperience and/or even worse arrogance not so accurate.

Well it has worked for me so far and I don't think I am being arrogant. Most of these so-called shocking revelations I have known about for decades, but I don't equate them with how true the gospel itself is. I know this is a trite and overused statement but I don't have a testimony of the history of the church. 

[Damien the Leper]

The church has no business trying to obtain Arrington's journals for itself. If any damaging or critical information that can be validated should be kept as far away from the church's hands as possible. That information does not belong to the lds church and they have no right to it. IMHO, of course.

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Why is it that problematic history should be automatically deemed to be "incompletely understood"?

Not all of it but there are plenty of issues that are based on obscure journal records or writings of biased people with anti-mormon agendas or things written down by memory years after the fact. Even the "Race and the Priesthood" topic still doesn't give a definite reason for withholding the priesthood:
"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." All we know is Brigham Young decided to enforce the policy, but he never really said why. Was it simply because he was racist like many others were at that time? How can we know for sure?
Brigham Young also never fully or clearly explained his Adam/God doctrine and even made statements that contradicted it, so we have incomplete information about that.

 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Not all of it but there are plenty of issues that are based on obscure journal records or writings of biased people with anti-mormon agendas or things written down by memory years after the fact. Even the "Race and the Priesthood" topic still doesn't give a definite reason for withholding the priesthood:
"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." All we know is Brigham Young decided to enforce the policy, but he never really said why. Was it simply because he was racist like many others were at that time? How can we know for sure?
Brigham Young also never fully or clearly explained his Adam/God doctrine and even made statements that contradicted it, so we have incomplete information about that.

 

 

Brigham Young did explain why he thought blacks couldn't have the priesthood. But I digress. 

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

Exactly my point...apologists have used this thought exercise to beat up doubters. Charging us with laziness, etc. Now we have a church corporate insider who has admitted that what critics have been saying all along was correct. The church made a concerted effort to hide disconcerting, uncomfortable facts from its membership.  I feel vindicated and were the situation reversed, I'd be apologizing, but that's just me...

Edited June 10, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Thanks for the admission....I hope we can now bury the apologetic lie that the church never willfully hid information from its own membership

[consiglieri]

22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Not all of it but there are plenty of issues that are based on obscure journal records or writings of biased people with anti-mormon agendas or things written down by memory years after the fact. Even the "Race and the Priesthood" topic still doesn't give a definite reason for withholding the priesthood:
"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." All we know is Brigham Young decided to enforce the policy, but he never really said why. Was it simply because he was racist like many others were at that time? How can we know for sure?
Brigham Young also never fully or clearly explained his Adam/God doctrine and even made statements that contradicted it, so we have incomplete information about that.

 

I have often found it strange that a church led by no less than fifteen prophets can't seem to find their posteriors with both hands.

 

And I have to disagree with you, JAHS.  Brigham Young did say why he enforced the priesthood ban.  It's just that the Church doesn't want to accept those reasons anymore.

I am all for the Church distancing itself from Brigham Young in this regard, but just because the Church doesn't accept his reasons anymore doesn't mean that Brigham Young never gave those reasons.

And it doesn't change the fact that Brigham Young spoke for the Church.

And it doesn't change the fact that a Church that claims to be guided by modern day revelation seems completely at sea to answer the questions more and more members are asking.

 

 

[consiglieri]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

  And in the intervening 11 years the Church has made even more significant efforts to be more open regarding its history.  

 

Why does it take so much effort to be open?

[UtahTexan]

You know......my dad used to beat me.  My step dad was a scary alcoholic.  I had a broken family.  I say this to say that I became very secretive with things and feelings.

I have no issues with the LDS and their "secrets".  It is so easy to sit in judgment not having gone thru what members did back then.  Cowardly....but easy.

[cinepro]

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Why does it take so much effort to be open?

Uh, have you read the history?

[Guest]

7 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..

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 and has.

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... 

Johnnie, I think what people object to is what took place in your three paragraphs. First the idea that any Church does not always want to put their best foot forward, but you turning it into the Church would have stolen his private property. Second (as so many others do) asking and answering your own questions, while trying to get into the minds of everyone here. Third, suggesting what the conclusion that everyone should come to instead of allowing them to read the book for themselves. It shows a complete lack of faith in everyone here...that we are too stupid or so faithful that we cannot make up our own minds. Maybe the fresh air would be opening the windows and having faith that all inside can still breath. 

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I have often found it strange that a church led by no less than fifteen prophets can't seem to find their posteriors with both hands.

 

And I have to disagree with you, JAHS.  Brigham Young did say why he enforced the priesthood ban.  It's just that the Church doesn't want to accept those reasons anymore.

I am all for the Church distancing itself from Brigham Young in this regard, but just because the Church doesn't accept his reasons anymore doesn't mean that Brigham Young never gave those reasons.

And it doesn't change the fact that Brigham Young spoke for the Church.

And it doesn't change the fact that a Church that claims to be guided by modern day revelation seems completely at sea to answer the questions more and more members are asking.

 

 

Modern day revelation is having a difficult time co-existing with it's new openness.  If anything brings about change or questions are still being asked, members are told to "Doubt your Doubts" so in the end it doesn't matter any more what they say.  The past shouldn't have contradicted the present..it is hard to find a bridge to get through mormonism anymore.

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And I have to disagree with you, JAHS.  Brigham Young did say why he enforced the priesthood ban.  It's just that the Church doesn't want to accept those reasons anymore.

Yes I do now recall some of the things he said about the blacks, but apparently, according to latter-day revelation he was wrong about that. So we are still under confusion about it. There are however other issues that were not adequately explained or recorded except perhaps by sometimes unreliable sources, like the Adam/God doctrine. the exact nature of Joseph Smith's polygamy, mountain meadows, the actual translation process of the Book of Mormon and Abraham, etc. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, JAHS said:

Yes I do now recall some of the things he said about the blacks, but apparently, according to latter-day revelation he was wrong about that. 

What revelation is that according to? 

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What revelation is that according to? 

As stated in the Gospel topics section:
"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."  

I assume if none of those explanations (including what Brigham Young said about it) are official doctrine, then our current Church leaders have received revelation from God about that; otherwise I don't think they would say such a thing or allow it to be printed on the official church website.

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

Johnnie, I think what people object to is what took place in your three paragraphs. First the idea that any Church does not always want to put their best foot forward, but you turning it into the Church would have stolen his private property. Second (as so many others do) asking and answering your own questions, while trying to get into the minds of everyone here. Third, suggesting what the conclusion that everyone should come to instead of allowing them to read the book for themselves. It shows a complete lack of faith in everyone here...that we are too stupid or so faithful that we cannot make up our own minds. Maybe the fresh air would be opening the windows and having faith that all inside can still breath. 

I have no idea of what you're trying to say...what private property?  2nd I have no secret agenda and no delusions of converting anyone here. 3rd. Everyone is free to form their own conclusions I doubt anything I say influences anyone here. 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

As stated in the Gospel topics section:
"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."  

I assume if none of those explanations (including what Brigham Young said about it) are official doctrine, then our current Church leaders have received revelation from God about that; otherwise I don't think they would say such a thing or allow it to be printed on the official church website.

A couple of mighty large assumptions.

And why are we left to assume things? Because they don't tell us, OR because they are coy because they know that if we "assume" they have extra wiggle room.

[UtahTexan]

51 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I have often found it strange that a church led by no less than fifteen prophets can't seem to find their posteriors with both hands.

Almost as bad a person who misleads about what they are   But....I find that they do well enough, despite your disrespect.

51 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

And I have to disagree with you, JAHS.  Brigham Young did say why he enforced the priesthood ban.  It's just that the Church doesn't want to accept those reasons anymore.

So now you are an expert on "wants"?

51 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I am all for the Church distancing itself from Brigham Young in this regard, but just because the Church doesn't accept his reasons anymore doesn't mean that Brigham Young never gave those reasons.

distancing?  So, when things change, it means distancing?  Odd.  but, not surprising.  I have already had educate you more than once.

51 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And it doesn't change the fact that Brigham Young spoke for the Church.

And it doesn't change the fact that a Church that claims to be guided by modern day revelation seems completely at sea to answer the questions more and more members are asking.

So, when someone chooses not to answer, they are at sea?  Geez...hope you learn to swim