New Arrington Biography Makes Shocking Admission

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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. 

His private property, I said nothing about you trying to convert anyone. Just do a reread of your opening remarks, then you will see (I hope) what I meant. If not, you can just dismiss my comments. They were you conclusions, not mine.

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

OK, I don't assume. It's on the official church website, I don't think they can wiggle out of anything. 

[Guest]

5 hours 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.

 

It just states that it was placed and maintained by the Church. Did I miss the words "how great they were"...you know I hate when that happens. They should maintain it, since Mormons murdered those men, women and children", and someone should maintain the site. The descendants were not doing to well of a job. 

[Johnnie Cake]

53 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. 

Ok got it:. First it was Arrington not me who feared that his personal papers (property) would be obtained by the church, which is why he kept 2 copies of his diary in case the copy he kept at his church office fell into the hands of the church.  I never said anything about the church stealing anything.  True to his fear the church fought to obtain his private papers, usu and the church however came to terms agreeable to both parties

 I believe I addressed your other points in my earlier reply

Edited June 10, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ok got it:. First it was Arrington not me who feared that his personal papers (property) would be obtained by the church, which is why he kept 2 copies of his diary in case the copy he kept at his church office fell into the hands of the church.  I never said anything about the church stealing anything.  True to his fear the church fought to obtain his private papers, usu and the church however came to terms agreeable to both parties

 I believe I addressed your other points in my earlier reply

Thanks, I am not trying to be rude...although I am sometimes, but it is not in my nature to do so by design. My only other remark was to let the reader draw their own conclusions. 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

OK, I don't assume. It's on the official church website, I don't think they can wiggle out of anything. 

I have never believed that church publications are given by revelation. That would have sounded awfully strange to me even in my believing days. 

[JAHS]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have never believed that church publications are given by revelation. That would have sounded awfully strange to me even in my believing days. 

Of course the scriptures certainly were, and talks given at General Conference published in the Ensign can count. As for other things it depends on your definition of revelation. Anything inspired of God can be considered revelation.

 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D&C 68: 4)

I think the church leaders receive revelation from God every day in some way for many of the things they do and say in leading the church.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake 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

The only lie of which I am aware was the false claim by anti-Mormons that somebody claimed that the LDS Church would never willfully hid information from its membership.  Only a yokel would make such a claim.  Facts are facts, which Leonard Arrington spent a lifetime providing, from long before he became LDS Church Historian.  It angers you that a good man like him did a good job.  You know only hate and vilification through your continuing invention of invidious straw men.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The only lie of which I am aware was the false claim by anti-Mormons that somebody claimed that the LDS Church would never willfully hid information from its membership.  Only a yokel would make such a claim.  Facts are facts, which Leonard Arrington spent a lifetime providing, from long before he became LDS Church Historian.  It angers you that a good man like him did a good job.  You know only hate and vilification through your continuing invention of invidious straw men.

I've met a number of such yokels, including here on this board. There's nothing hateful in saying so. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I've met a number of such yokels, including here on this board. There's nothing hateful in saying so. 

Well, then please cite for me some of those well-meaning but ignorant persons on this board who have claimed that " the LDS Church would never willfully hid information from its membership."  Of course items were hidden.  We should all know that, or maybe you are too young to recall.  I even cited the Hugh Nibley instance.  C'mon John, was Johnnie correct to claim such things were being said?  That it was not common knowledge?  And that has nothing to do with hate.  Read what I said more carefully.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, then please cite for me some of those well-meaning but ignorant persons on this board who have claimed that " the LDS Church would never willfully hid information from its membership."  Of course items were hidden.  We should all know that, or maybe you are too young to recall.  I even cited the Hugh Nibley instance.  C'mon John, was Johnnie correct to claim such things were being said?  That it was not common knowledge?  And that has nothing to do with hate.  Read what I said more carefully.

I thought Johnnie was expressing respect,  not hatred, for Brother Arrington, though I could be mistaken. 

And yes, I've been told numerous times that information has never been hidden but has been widely published, and only 'lazy and intransigent members' are ever surprised by information they should have already known. I agree that it's ludicrous, but I have heard such talk too many times to count. 

Someone earlier in this thread quoted rodheadlee saying that. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I thought Johnnie was expressing respect,  not hatred, for Brother Arrington, though I could be mistaken. 

And yes, I've been told numerous times that information has never been hidden but has been widely published, and only 'lazy and intransigent members' are ever surprised by information they should have already known. I agree that it's ludicrous, but I have heard such talk too many times to count. 

Someone earlier in this thread quoted rodheadlee saying that. 

So ronheadlee claimed that "the LDS Church would never willfully hid information from its membership."  I'd like to see that actual quotation.  Your way of putting it here does not accord with Johnnie's way of putting it.  He claimed that so-called "apologists" (negative code for Mormon scholars) made that false claim, and I am saying that they did not do so.  His statement is motivated by hatred, and (though he may indeed respect Arrington) he is angry that Arrington was successful, and that what Arrington did was at the behest of the Brethren.  This is because his standard dogma is to define all activities of the Brethren as negative.  No balanced assessment is possible for him.  Johnnie does not now and has never understood the disputes about such matters among the Brethren, and that the  Brethren do not represent a solid wall of opposition to faithful scholars like Arrington, Nibley, or B. H. Roberts -- just to name a few.

[jkwilliams]

This article from Mike Ash certainly suggests things have been "hidden in plain sight" and those who feel the church has hidden anything are mistaken. 

http://lds.net/blog/faith/the-church-lied-to-me/

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, then please cite for me some of those well-meaning but ignorant persons on this board who have claimed that " the LDS Church would never willfully hid information from its membership."  Of course items were hidden.  We should all know that, or maybe you are too young to recall.  I even cited the Hugh Nibley instance.  C'mon John, was Johnnie correct to claim such things were being said?  That it was not common knowledge?  And that has nothing to do with hate.  Read what I said more carefully.

I sited a MD&D thread earlier in this thread from a few years ago where such claims were made

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I sited a MD&D thread earlier in this thread from a few years ago where such claims were made

That was it, why me, not rodheadlee. Sorry for the mistaken attribution. And for the record, I have never used "apologist" as a derisive term for "Mormon scholar." David Bokovoy is a Mormon scholar. Mike Ash is an apologist, and I doubt he would be offended by my use of the term. 

[Johnnie Cake]

58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So ronheadlee claimed that "the LDS Church would never willfully hid information from its membership."  I'd like to see that actual quotation.  Your way of putting it here does not accord with Johnnie's way of putting it.  He claimed that so-called "apologists" (negative code for Mormon scholars) made that false claim, and I am saying that they did not do so.  His statement is motivated by hatred, and (though he may indeed respect Arrington) he is angry that Arrington was successful, and that what Arrington did was at the behest of the Brethren.  This is because his standard dogma is to define all activities of the Brethren as negative.  No balanced assessment is possible for him.  Johnnie does not now and has never understood the disputes about such matters among the Brethren, and that the  Brethren do not represent a solid wall of opposition to faithful scholars like Arrington, Nibley, or B. H. Roberts -- just to name a few.

Robert, with all due respect, you're making a lot of ungrounded speculations and assumptions about me...

[carbon dioxide]

10 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Do you also "concede" that the LDS Church has finally had to admit that much of what the anti-Mormons were saying all along is true?

I would only give them some credit for raising issues.  I would not give them credit or concede to the conclusions they have draw from the subject matter.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Robert, with all due respect, you're making a lot of ungrounded speculations and assumptions about me...

You're not fooling anyone. You're pure evil. 

[Tacenda]

I've heard that some things in the Joseph Smith's Papers got deleted, this was from someone that worked on them.  So I guess they aren't as reliable either.

 

Edited June 11, 2016 by Tacenda

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours 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.

I have never seen the Church hide anything from the members.  Sure there is a lot of stuff the Church does not cover in history in church meetings or in publications but that does not mean the information is not out there that I can't find myself.  It is not the purpose of the Church to make its members scholars in the scriptures or history.  If we want to know details about all these other things, we have the responsibility to study them on our own time.  The thing is most members would rather spend time on Facebook or watching their favorite TV shows than dedicate time researching various aspects of LDS history.  That is all fine as we all chose what is important for us and how we spend our time but we can't blame the Church for our choice to be lazy in our home studies.  The Church might be guilty of avoiding or discounting issues but that is not hiding.  

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

This article from Mike Ash certainly suggests things have been "hidden in plain sight" and those who feel the church has hidden anything are mistaken. 

http://lds.net/blog/faith/the-church-lied-to-me/

He makes some good points. I think it is important to remember that what we learn in Sunday School is not just history but mostly the teachings of Jesus Christ. Historical events may be used to teach certain principles, but the details of such are not normally emphasized. Now that we have such an information explosion with the internet every single detail of everything done and said is now available to the member and the public. And so people are now wondering about why we didn't know these things sooner. Most people had been taught and had the notion that Joseph Smith only used the Urim and Thumim for translating, yet a 42 year article in the Friend mentions that he also used a brown stone for translating. (A Peaceful Heart - Friend Sept. 1974 - Friend). Something like this showing up in the children's magazine certainly had to have be known and recorded in the church history books long before this, and of course it was recorded by David Whitmer.  People who really took time to study the history could have found this out for themselves, but for the general membership such a detail wasn't really important in teaching the concept of translation by the gift and power of God in a Sunday School class. 
I think most every member knows that the church practiced polygamy, but Sunday school is not really the time and place to get into the details of Joseph Smiths practice of polygamy, which has no bearing on our present quest for exaltation.
Forty five years ago I attended institute classes which did get in to these more controversial issues regarding church history and there we did study them in detail. I guess that's why what the church is putting out now are nothing new to me. But for many church members who only go to church on Sunday for their religious education and are taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and did no other study on their own, such historical details might be a bit of a shock. Nowadays people can sit in front of their computer and find out about all these things now, so it's good that the church is making the information more available, so we are not only seeing it through the eyes of the critics. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I've heard that some things in the Joseph Smith's Papers got deleted, this was from someone that worked on them.  So I guess they aren't as reliable either.

 

In what capacity did they work on them?  There is a reason why rumors are such terrible things.  Were they someone that had access to the full documents and actually was the one deleting information?  Or was this someone that assisted in some other way?  You need to qualify these kinds of statements.  

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

  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..

 

What I recall is that Arrington had taken materials that were rightly the property of the Church History Department (then the Church Historical Department) and, after his death, these were among items that were to be donated to Utah State.

I also recall that the matter was settled amicably.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 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... 

Here is a more balanced account of the matter that appeared in the USU student newspaper at the time.

Of course, this is just a snapshot. To see how the matter finally played out would take more time and energy than I have right now.
 

Quote

 

According to a joint press release by the university and the church, the collection “includes some private and confidential materials that the church believes are owned by the church or its affiliated entities and not by Arrington or subject to his disposition.”

According to the release, the university is more concerned with its obligation to Arrington and the public in its commitment as a public university to “provide access to important research information.”

“Public libraries feel a very strong commitment to provide access irrespectable of contents of materials,” said Linda L. Wolcott, interim vice provost of USU’s Libraries and Instructional Support.

The university feels there is a responsibility to the public and the Arrington family in its stand to keep the documents, Wolcott said.

“As with all gifts to the university, we’re very concerned about preserving the donor’s intent,” Craig Simper, USU’s university counsel, said. “You’re talking about a collection that is massive. We are also talking about a collection that covers a lifetime work of a man.”

Simper said there may be isolated documents belonging to the church that may be in the collection which Arrington did not intend to include. The university, Simper said, is trying to find those documents and return them to the church.

Documents found in the collection on which the ownership is clearly marked are returned immediately to the church, he said.

So far, out of the 600 boxes of documents, the church claims ownership of 12 full boxes and 32 partial boxes, said Ann Buttars, head curator of the Merrill Library. She said the boxes in question are currently being sequestered.

“By sequestering them it’s not like we gave up any legal rights,” Simper said. “It was just a matter of addressing some concerns of the church at the time.”

“I feel that those papers that were given here belong here,” Buttars said. “They were given for a purpose. When the collection was given, it was a rich historical resource. I see nothing more than that.”

Simper said the church argues Arrington had signed an agreement with it saying that he would not copy or distribute certain items. The church also claims the ownership of any produced work during Arrington’s employment as a church historian, he said.

According to the agreement signed by Arrington in 1989 with the church, Arrington agrees to return any typescripts belonging to the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History to its rightful ownership. Prior to that agreement, Arrington also signed another agreement with the church in 1980.

The 1980 agreement states, referring to Church Archives documents, “No copies of these materials are to be made or distributed to anyone.” It also states the copies “are to be returned to the Historical Department” by Arrington’s retirement in 1987, upon his death or upon his discontinuance as director of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute of Church History.

“Leonard had been the church historian for eight years up to that time,” Simper said. “I don’t think that document refers to things perhaps that occurred before the agreement was signed. I can tell you that it’s my firm and sincere belief that Leonard did not intend to violate an agreement.”

Simper said, copyrights to old documents more than 100 years old have expired.

“So, it’s not a foregone conclusion that because the church owns the document, copies of the document are also owned by the church,” he said.

Richard Turley, the church’s managing director of the Family and Church History department, said, “This is an issue of ownership.”

Turley said the materials that belong to the church need to be returned to the church. Whether or not the materials will be made available to the public if the church gets them back is a decision the church will decide on later, he said.

“Personal files will not be available to the public,” Turley said.

Buttars said, “There are a lot of issues involved in this. I really honestly don’t know what to think. Dr. Arrington was an extremely honest, open person.”

Simper said, “We are not going to hold every item in this collection at all cost, but it is our intent to preserve the heart of this collection. If we can’t reach an agreement, I guess we could end up in court to resolve these issues. But we’re negotiating. I have high hopes we can resolve this without litigation.”

Turley said he believes an agreement can be reached without going to court by having an agreement that meets the needs of all parties.

Arrington had been a professor at USU of economics from the 1950s to the 1970s. In 1972 he was called to be the historian for the church. Arrington passed away in 1999.

“He had a love of people, and he loved Mormon history and Utah history,” Buttars said. “He was called the grandfather of Mormon history.”

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I've heard that some things in the Joseph Smith's Papers got deleted, this was from someone that worked on them.  So I guess they aren't as reliable either.

 

CFR.

I'm quite well acquainted with several of the scholars who are working on the Joseph Smith Papers. I've written many stories about them. I've never heard anything like this.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd