New four-volume comprehensive history of the Church to emerge next year

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

True.

But the ones calling the shots on the withholding and eventual release of the minutes were the First Presidency themselves. In fixing blame, are you willing to go there?

 

Are you willing to admit that the First Presidency withheld historical information about the Church?  (They may have had a good reason, but they withheld it nonetheless).

And if there were a small but vocal group of members who as a result of this newly released information found out for the first time that Joseph was chosen as King by the council (separate from his ordinances), would you still blame the member that didn't know until those minutes were made available? 

Yes, it was the First Presidency that made that choice.  It may even have been the right choice.  But that choice (and all choices to withhold information) have consequences.  Absolving the First Presidency of the consequences of their choice seems disingenuous.
And yes, that information was available in other sources, but even I will call those other sources far too obscure for the average member to have come across in their studies.

I am much more willing to share blame equally between the member that doesn't care enough to study and the Church that you admit yourself have withheld some information.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I blame Dehlin along with others for misleading people with sophistry.

So the Swedes were duped? 

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm aware of many faithful Swedish members of the Church who are as intelligent and knowledgeable as those who have fallen away. The Church is not dying in Sweden, as my missionary son who has spent nearly two years there can attest.

I'd imagine it is not dying, in any sense of the word dying.  I meant to refer to only those naïve Swedes who were snookered by Dehlin and company (Mattson?).  I guess your view is fair considering that some Swedes might consider the Swedish rescue trip as a failed attempt at snookering some intelligent and knowledgeable swedes to stick around in the Church. 

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm calling BS on this. I don't believe the Church has ever published a redacted or censored version of History of the Church.

I suppose it could be that you are conflating two separate works. B. H. Roberts was the compiler of History of the Church, which was a journal-like work with chronological entries of events as they occurred. Later, Roberts wrote A Comprehensive History of the Church, which is a multi-volume, narrative history of the Church written in Roberts' words.

Why would I make this up?  But I'm not going to do your homework for you Scott...I can only lead you to the water I can't make you drink it.  But please put me to the test....walk down the block to the Church History building, check out both a 1st edition and a more recent copy and dig in...it's all there in print...well except for those sections that have been redacted from earlier editions...then its not. If you don't want to walk down the street here's a 1st edition copy for you to peruse. https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheChurchhcVolumes1-7original1902EditionPdf

Edit to add: I'm not conflating anything...I am well aware of the difference between Roberts 7 volume "History of the Church" and his "Comprehensive History of the Church"

Edited June 8, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Are you willing to admit that the First Presidency withheld historical information about the Church?  (They may have had a good reason, but they withheld it nonetheless).

 

Of course.

The Council of Fifty was a secret, deliberative body. Before his death Joseph Smith instructed William Clayton, clerk of the Council, to burn the minutes or bury them in his garden. Clayton opted to bury them. He dug them up later and made clean copies of them. These copies ended up in the hands of the First Presidency, which concealed them over the years. I'm guessing this all stems from the instruction Joseph originally gave William Clayton.

Quote

And if there were a small but vocal group of members who as a result of this newly released information found out for the first time that Joseph was chosen as King by the council (separate from his ordinances), would you still blame the member that didn't know until those minutes were made available? 

I would blame the member for jumping to conclusions without making an effort to obtain a contextual understanding of this fact, which is not nearly as nefarious as the Church's antagonists would make it out to be.

 

Quote

Yes, it was the First Presidency that made that choice.  It may even have been the right choice.  But that choice (and all choices to withhold information) have consequences.  Absolving the First Presidency of the consequences of their choice seems disingenuous.

I've never denied this.

Quote

And yes, that information was available in other sources, but even I will call those other sources far too obscure for the average member to have come across in their studies.

I am much more willing to share blame equally between the member that doesn't care enough to study and the Church that you admit yourself have withheld some information.

See above. The only thing I would blame the member for would be jumping to conclusions without making a diligent effort to obtain a contextual understanding.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Why would I make this up? 

Maybe you didn't make it up. Maybe you just have a faulty understanding. Were  you aware there are two different mutli-volume works by B.H. Roberts as I have described them to you?

Quote

But I'm not going to do your homework for you Scott...I can only lead you to the water I can't make you drink it.  But please put me to the test....walk down the block to the Church History building, check out both a 1st edition and a more recent copy and dig in...it's all there in print...well except for those sections that have been redacted from earlier editions...then its not.

I'm not going to waste my time when I already know that what you are asserting is pure bilge water. If you're really anxious for people to believe you, you'll find a way to prove it.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe you didn't make it up. Maybe you just have a faulty understanding. Were  you aware there are two different mutli-volume works by B.H. Roberts as I have described them to you?

I'm not going to waste my time when I already know that what you are asserting is pure bilge water. If you're really anxious for people to believe you, you'll find a way to prove it.

Like I said...I can lead you to the water...but I can't make you drink.  Fair enough...enjoy your ignorance

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would guess I know at least as much as you do pertaining to Church history, and I've never seen any reason not to follow the prophet.

Heya..i didn't say that I had a reason back in he day to not follow the prophet...I thought I was...but what the prophets/church taught turned out to a little different than what I was taught and what to believe.  What to do with prophets who differ or change things..If one has built his life around certain principles..and then find out things that don't hold true or in partial truth..it changes everything for some. 

[Johnnie Cake]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe you didn't make it up. Maybe you just have a faulty understanding. Were  you aware there are two different mutli-volume works by B.H. Roberts as I have described them to you?

I'm not going to waste my time when I already know that what you are asserting is pure bilge water. If you're really anxious for people to believe you, you'll find a way to prove it.

Did you miss my edit?  here it is again just in case you missed it :

Quote

 I'm not conflating anything...I am well aware of the difference between Roberts 7 volume "History of the Church" and his "Comprehensive History of the Church"

 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So the Swedes were duped? 

I'd imagine it is not dying, in any sense of the word dying.  I meant to refer to only those naïve Swedes who were snookered by Dehlin and company (Mattson?).  I guess your view is fair considering that some Swedes might consider the Swedish rescue trip as a failed attempt at snookering some intelligent and knowledgeable swedes to stick around in the Church. 

I'm personally acquainted with Mattsson's twin brother. They have both been prominent in the Church in Sweden: Hans was an Area Seventy, Leif (my friend) was a stake president. Leif knows at least as much as Hans does yet remains as faithful and stalwart in his Church membership as ever.

In short, Hans was taken in by Dehlin, while Leif was not. It's an interesting case study.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Did you miss my edit?  here it is again just in case you missed it :

 

I'm just trying to find a way to give you as charitable a reading as possible. I prefer to believe you are mistaken rather than lying.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm personally acquainted with Mattsson's twin brother. They have both been prominent in the Church in Sweden: Hans was an Area Seventy, Leif (my friend) was a stake president. Leif knows at least as much as Hans does yet remains as faithful and stalwart in his Church membership as ever.

In short, Hans was taken in by Dehlin, while Leif was not. It's an interesting case study.

 

Hans was duped?  Are you saying there is no reasonable way a person could consider the history and doctrine of the Church, in context, and leave the Church?  It seems you are blaming Hans departure not on Hans, but on Dehlin.  Hans story was he and his family (which I'd assume includes his twin brother) were blissfully unaware of so much of the history, but when he started learning he had no one to go to that could even address his questions or concerns (which also, I'd guess would include his twin brother). 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Like I said...I can lead you to the water...but I can't make you drink.  Fair enough...enjoy your ignorance

So you're not inclined to document your assertion? Doesn't surprise me.

[Johnnie Cake]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm just trying to find a way to give you as charitable a reading as possible. I prefer to believe you are mistaken rather than lying.

Thanks for reminding me why I no longer enjoy this board...

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you're not inclined to document your assertion? Doesn't surprise me.

Believe me...don't believe me...I could care less...

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hans was duped?  Are you saying there is no reasonable way a person could consider the history and doctrine of the Church, in context, and leave the Church?  It seems you are blaming Hans departure not on Hans, but on Dehlin.  Hans story was he and his family (which I'd assume includes his twin brother) were blissfully unaware of so much of the history, but when he started learning he had no one to go to that could even address his questions or concerns (which also, I'd guess would include his twin brother). 

At this point, I have to believe Leif knows at least as much as his brother* yet has not found in any of it occasion to fall away from the Church. On the contrary, he is as faithful a man as I know.

*For example, Leif was one of the facilitators of the FairMormon Conference held in Sweden a year or two ago.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Believe me...don't believe me...I could care less...

I think you mean "I couldn't care less."

As explained by that sage grammarian Weird Al Yankovic, "I could care less" means you do care, even if only a little bit.

"I couldn't care less" means your degree of caring is at zero on the caring spectrum -- which is what I think you meant to say.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thanks for reminding me why I no longer enjoy this board...

And yet you keep returning.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's good to see that the church is making more information available. Hopefully it is a more complete and accurate reckoning of church history so all of those silly people who want to leave the church can no longer claim to be blind-sided be a changing narrative.

I simply want to point out that just because a more complete history will be out in 2018, and the essays were released over the past few years, people have been legitimately surprised (blind-sided) by the changing narrative of the church. I suspect there will be many more years of angst and confusion and faith crisis over these next years as people learn a more correct history and how the church teachings throughout their entire lives are proven to be inaccurate.

 

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Beautifully stated...oh wait.  No....the opposite.  It's ridiculous to blame those who have been blindsided by information they were not aware of because they trusted what was taught them through the Church, for being blindsided. 

We are all hoping, I'm guessing, that the Church goes with a more honest narrative so these blindsides stop. 

This book is a good sounding step in the right direction. 

There may be some to criticize this book for.  But we'll have to wait and see.  Hopefully it gets really well done. 

I came across a Patheos post that included a comment by a nonMormon from a number of years ago that reminded me of this thread and these posts:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/07/skeptical-about-the-nyts-mormon-skeptic-piece/

 

Quote

 

And this passage buried deep within the story — seriously, a) doesn’t it contradict the thesis of the piece, and b) couldn’t it as easily have been the lede?

“In the last 10 or 15 years, he said, ‘the church has come to realize that transparency and candor and historical accuracy are really the only way to go.’ The church has released seven volumes of the papers of Joseph Smith and published an essay on one of the most shameful events in church history, the Mountain Meadows massacre, in which church leaders plotted the slaughter of people in a wagon train in 1857.”

The reporter’s followup assertion is just baffling: “But the church has not actively disseminated most of these documents …” What … what does that mean? What’s the standard for active dissemination? They’re being open and honest in secret?

What I find interesting about this particular reader’s comments is that he opposes Mormon teaching, was hoping for a good piece on Mormon doubt and yet still thinks it “looks like a random-ish hit piece.”

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

PS: Why are so many members afraid of church history?  Why have so many leaders admonished members to stay away from it as it is a faith destroyer?

Which leaders have "admonished members to stay away from [Church history] as a faith destroyer"?

Give us names, sources, direct quotes in context, please.

Yes, this is a CFR.

 

[sandwedge]

Why wasn't the use of the hat brought up last GC? The speaker who mentioned some important facts about the translation of the Book of Mormon using a seerstone didn't mention the hat. To me it is one of the most important tools because in order for him to translate he needed to exclude all light, otherwise he should of just done it in a closet and spoke from behind the door.

Ninety-five percent of the people I talk to have no clue Joseph translated using a hat. So it's my fault for not being well read, not knowing the hat was used? When on my mission I showed a totally different method, using the urim and thummin or spectacles looking at the gold plates which was in the flip charts I was given in the MTC.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Why would I make this up?  But I'm not going to do your homework for you Scott...I can only lead you to the water I can't make you drink it.  But please put me to the test....walk down the block to the Church History building, check out both a 1st edition and a more recent copy and dig in...it's all there in print...well except for those sections that have been redacted from earlier editions...then its not. If you don't want to walk down the street here's a 1st edition copy for you to peruse. https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheChurchhcVolumes1-7original1902EditionPdf

Edit to add: I'm not conflating anything...I am well aware of the difference between Roberts 7 volume "History of the Church" and his "Comprehensive History of the Church"

Robert's redaction of unflattering facts from his HC and CHC are well-documented in the Tanners' Mormonism:  Shadow or Reality.  I found the examples laughable.  "I had a beer" or "we stopped to go dancing" were edited out.  

Remember, the Church does not have a divine mandate to publish history; its mandate is only to keep faithful records.  It takes a peculiar kind of professional to want to spend a decade or more writing a history of an institution like the church.  They just haven't existed, with the exception of the short-lived Leonard Arrington.  And even with him, he just didn't get it that the Church did not hire him to be a publisher, but an archivist.  Rick Turley is a mere lawyer, and his historical output has been extremely low due to his Church duties. 

Roberts' errors were the same kind of things done by professional historians at the time.   Bernard De Voto, who won a Pulitzer for one his histories about the Mormons, has histories which are side-splittingly bogus -- completely made-up facts and dialogue.  When Bancroft -- the premier historian at the time -- wrote his history of Utah, it was basically a whitewash of Brigham Young because he respected President Young so much.  Or else he was lazy.  I've read a rumor that graduate assistants wrote the work.   He was a major historian who said Brigham Young didn't have anything to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre (and he didn't, but untrained historian Juanita Brooks who never had to defend a dissertation says otherwise).   When Brooks wrote her history of Dudley Leavitt (her grandfather and a major participant in the MMM), she completely left out that part of his history, leaving some oblique reference like:  "Some things are better off left unsaid."   Was she ever criticized for this?  No.  Maybe by me, but by nobody else, including her biographer Levi Peterson.  Peterson later wrote that Brooks admitted to exaggerating some things in her MMM book.  Yet she won prize after prize for her work.

What does this mean?  Roberts was untrained.  He was not "the Church."  I don't think the Church got the royalties for his work.  There was nobody qualified in Church central to read HC and CHC and pass on their accuracy.  Roberts did what was customary.

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

18 minutes ago, sandwedge said:

Why wasn't the use of the hat brought up last GC? The speaker who mentioned some important facts about the translation of the Book of Mormon using a seerstone didn't mention the hat. To me it is one of the most important tools because in order for him to translate he needed to exclude all light, otherwise he should of just done it in a closet and spoke from behind the door.

Ninety-five percent of the people I talk to have no clue Joseph translated using a hat. So it's my fault for not being well read, not knowing the hat was used? When on my mission I showed a totally different method, using the urim and thummin or spectacles looking at the gold plates which was in the flip charts I was given in the MTC.

I know I am in the minority, but I don't think Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by reading a seerstone in a hat to keep the light out.  How could all that dictation possibly occur that way?  

Joseph Smith, himself, never described the translation process and didn't want to do so.  We have snippets of information, lots inconsistent, from eyewitnesses.  If the Lord didn't want Joseph Smith to explain the translation process, then why are we to assume that contradicting eyewitnesses might know that whole story?  I personally believe that Joseph Smith first used the U&T, and when they were taken away, he just sat and dictated the Book to his scribes.   The plates may or may not have been there, visible or hidden, covered or, unlikely, not.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, sandwedge said:

Why wasn't the use of the hat brought up last GC? The speaker who mentioned some important facts about the translation of the Book of Mormon using a seerstone didn't mention the hat. To me it is one of the most important tools because in order for him to translate he needed to exclude all light, otherwise he should of just done it in a closet and spoke from behind the door.

Ninety-five percent of the people I talk to have no clue Joseph translated using a hat. So it's my fault for not being well read, not knowing the hat was used? When on my mission I showed a totally different method, using the urim and thummin or spectacles looking at the gold plates which was in the flip charts I was given in the MTC.

You mean when Elder Cook said:

• We know something of the process and instruments he used in that translation. In that first 1830 printing, Joseph included a short preface and simply and clearly declared it was translated “by the gift and power of God.” What about the aids to translation—the Urim and Thummim, the seer stones? Were they essential, or were they like the training wheels on a bicycle until Joseph could exercise the faith necessary to receive more direct revelation?

The fact that the stone was placed in a hat matters?
I didn't realize that hat was the tool, not the stone.
Pretty sure the hat was just a hat.

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with everything else you said.  But I think that this is VERY generous of you.
The internet gave them no choice.  Controlling the conversation is very important.  There was an interesting presentation at last year's MHA in Snowbird on how the Church has dealt with the press and public image.

Here is the question - Would the Church have published the polygamy essay if people weren't already discussing Joseph Smith's polygamy online?
What else would have cause that decision to be made?  Even if you consider it inspired, and a God directed response to publish the essay, the catalyst for the revelation is that they had no choice.

Kind of like the manifesto.
Would polygamy have ended in the Church if the Edmund Tucker act had never been passed?  Probably not.

Thanks for the compliment!

I agree with you except on one point...the church did have a choice, and I think history will show that they made the right one this time.  People will diminish that choice because it appears "forced", but I think the church is genuinely trying to do the right thing here.  Not out of resentment or in a begrudging way because their hands are tied, but because they want to do what is right.  They are learning the consequences of previous choices, and are now trying to make it right. 

I agree with you on the topic of polygamy.  Outside influence is often the catalyst for prayer and revelation.

I think that is the point that bugs me most about blame, it makes people blind to personal accountability and agency. People feel duped by the church, and it is all the church's fault...but is it?  Their experience is no different from mine in learning this information late in my life, so if they can't help but feel duped, then how can they explain my reaction?  I am not ignorant of the facts, so I am proof that people actually have choices in how to react, and that the church is not entirely to blame for their individual choices and hurt feelings.  Just as we can choose to turn the other cheek, choose mercy, forgiveness, and to do good to those who spitefully use us (and I am not accusing the church of that), we can choose the more Christian approach to the human mistakes of the LDS Church.  I guess I could just as easily blame the church for my staying then...because they taught me those principles to live by after all. 
 

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Robert's redaction of unflattering facts from his HC and CHC are well-documented in the Tanners' Mormonism:  Shadow or Reality.  I found the examples laughable.  "I had a beer" or "we stopped to go dancing" were edited out.  

Remember, the Church does not have a divine mandate to publish history; its mandate is only to keep faithful records.  It takes a peculiar kind of professional to want to spend a decade or more writing a history of an institution like the church.  They just haven't existed, with the exception of the short-lived Leonard Arrington.  And even with him, he just didn't get it that the Church did not hire him to be a publisher, but an archivist.  Rick Turley is a mere lawyer, and his historical output has been extremely low due to his Church duties. 

Roberts' errors were the same kind of things done by professional historians at the time.   Bernard De Voto, who won a Pulitzer for one his histories about the Mormons, has histories which are side-splittingly bogus -- completely made-up facts and dialogue.  When Bancroft -- the premier historian at the time -- wrote his history of Utah, it was basically a whitewash of Brigham Young because he respected President Young so much.  Or else he was lazy.  I've read a rumor that graduate assistants wrote the work.   He was a major historian who said Brigham Young didn't have anything to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre (and he didn't, but untrained historian Juanita Brooks who never had to defend a dissertation says otherwise).   When Brooks wrote her history of Dudley Leavitt (her grandfather and a major participant in the MMM), she completely left out that part of his history, leaving some oblique reference like:  "Some things are better off left unsaid."   Was she ever criticized for this?  No.  Maybe by me, but by nobody else, including her biographer Levi Peterson.  Peterson later wrote that Brooks admitted to exaggerating some things in her MMM book.  Yet she won prize after prize for her work.

What does this mean?  Roberts was untrained.  He was not "the Church."  I don't think the Church got the royalties for his work.  There was nobody qualified in Church central to read HC and CHC and pass on their accuracy.  Roberts did what was customary.

 

I am not referring to Roberts editing here...I am referring to the redacted portions remove by the church between the first editions and those editions published in later years...