The War Against True Church History

[moksha]

Here is an interesting article from the Salt Lake Tribune discussing the battles the Mormon historian, Leonard Arrington, had with LDS leaders over telling the truth about the church’s past. Leonard was for writing about the true history of the LDS Church and a powerful squadron of Church Apostles were against it.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/05 ... rchs-past/

That reminded me of how the Church demanded that it be allowed to examine and remove sensitive information from the Leonard Arrington collection of papers which were donated to Utah State University. Being USU, of course, the Church was granted the right to examine and confiscate documents which it did not want to be made public.

[Not Buying It]

It ought to be a giant red flag when an organization that purports to be the “true” Church fights so hard to keep things that are true from being known by its members. Leonard Arrington fought the good fight for truth, but the Church won - until the internet came along and pulled the rug out from under them.

[jfro18]

The funniest thing to me is when people say the church is *now* being super transparent and wants it all out there.

1. They do *not* want it out there - they are only adjusting to the reality of the internet that you can no longer stop the information that you do not like

2. The church is still systematically lying about its history. Read the essays and then read the history - the whitewashing continues and the gaslighting is still operating at peak levels

What they are doing is a baby step in the right direction, but anyone who says they strive for openness is lying to themselves. If that were truly the case they wouldn't need a vault to store stuff away from the paying members.

[slavereeno]

DW has asked a few times during our discussions "If this information is available, how come more people aren't leaving the church?" I want to think its happening in droves, but it isn't, not by a long stretch, at least not in our area.

I agree with her question, I am surprised people aren't coming across this information more frequently, and that they remain faithful when they do, and my apologist friend makes no sense whatsoever to me.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

DW has asked a few times during our discussions "If this information is available, how come more people aren't leaving the church?" I want to think its happening in droves, but it isn't, not by a long stretch, at least not in our area.

I agree with her question, I am surprised people aren't coming across this information more frequently, and that they remain faithful when they do, and my apologist friend makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Never underestimate the power of the fear narrative that tells members apostasy is the result of looking at satan's information. Growing up in the 80's my father had Fawn Brodie's book on the shelf as well as many other controversial works right there for me to explore. I never touched any of it for fear of losing my soul. Indoctrination and group think is extremely powerful when it includes fear.

And most absurdly, members won't even look at the faith's own essays even when they know about it. I once asked a Bishop brother in law if he had read the polygamy essays, he said he knew about it, but didn't want to read further. Amazing!

[Palerider]

DW has asked a few times during our discussions "If this information is available, how come more people aren't leaving the church?" I want to think its happening in droves, but it isn't, not by a long stretch, at least not in our area.

I agree with her question, I am surprised people aren't coming across this information more frequently, and that they remain faithful when they do, and my apologist friend makes no sense whatsoever to me.

I was accused by an apologist of being lazy for not knowing all of the hidden history and then of over-reacting to it once I learned it.

My thought is that most members aren't truth seekers and really don't want the cog dis that accompanies learning about the true history. They're basically happy being told what to do and what to think.

[alas]

The funniest thing to me is when people say the church is *now* being super transparent and wants it all out there.

1. They do *not* want it out there - they are only adjusting to the reality of the internet that you can no longer stop the information that you do not like

2. The church is still systematically lying about its history. Read the essays and then read the history - the whitewashing continues and the gaslighting is still operating at peak levels

What they are doing is a baby step in the right direction, but anyone who says they strive for openness is lying to themselves. If that were truly the case they wouldn't need a vault to store stuff away from the paying members.

When those baby step are only to white wash the cover up, then I don't really consider them even baby steps. It is like when the husband gets caught with lipstick on his collar and "had to work late" and his wife confronts him, and he says, "Alright, I kissed her, so what?" And the wife knows good and well that is not the whole story, but what can she do? It is "coming clean" with half truths and demanding we accept the half truth as the whole story, and drop the subject. There is an implied threat in the "So what" daring the wife/church member to keep pushing, and get excommunicated/divorced.

If the church was really trying to be more transparent, they would not be lying about how they have never hidden any history, when we have statements by General authorities instructing historians to hide the history that was not faith promoting. But they stand up public ally and claim like the unfaithful husband that "one kiss" was all there was, they claim that the Joseph Smith Papers is proof that they are 100% transparent, all the history is out in the open, just trust us, we would never lie to you.

Not baby steps, just more white wash.

[jfro18]

When those baby step are only to white wash the cover up, then I don't really consider them even baby steps. It is like when the husband gets caught with lipstick on his collar and "had to work late" and his wife confronts him, and he says, "Alright, I kissed her, so what?" And the wife knows good and well that is not the whole story, but what can she do? It is "coming clean" with half truths and demanding we accept the half truth as the whole story, and drop the subject. There is an implied threat in the "So what" daring the wife/church member to keep pushing, and get excommunicated/divorced.

If the church was really trying to be more transparent, they would not be lying about how they have never hidden any history, when we have statements by General authorities instructing historians to hide the history that was not faith promoting. But they stand up public ally and claim like the unfaithful husband that "one kiss" was all there was, they claim that the Joseph Smith Papers is proof that they are 100% transparent, all the history is out in the open, just trust us, we would never lie to you.

Not baby steps, just more white wash.

I'm going to use that analogy at some point - that's a great way to view it.

And yeah, I was being nice calling them baby steps. It really is a lot of misdirection and gaslighting to make people reading just the essays go "Man I can't believe I had a problem with the DNA issues" when in reality nothing was answered.

The church can not be open about church history because it absolutely destroys the entire foundation. The LDS church is *nothing* without Joseph Smith's story being defended, but if they are open about their history it becomes indefensible... and that's why they are resorting to deflection, distraction, and explicit instructions to the faithful members to stay away from the material.

[Red Ryder]

DW has asked a few times during our discussions "If this information is available, how come more people aren't leaving the church?" I want to think its happening in droves, but it isn't, not by a long stretch, at least not in our area.

I agree with her question, I am surprised people aren't coming across this information more frequently, and that they remain faithful when they do, and my apologist friend makes no sense whatsoever to me.

I think the simple answer is ignorance.

I thing the complicated answer is cognitive dissonance. You can demonstrate this to her with this one simple challenge. Ask her to remove her garments for 30 days and see how she responds. Then gently point out that the resistance she's feeling is the same resistance that keeps people in the church.

[moksha]

I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.
-- Packer, BYU Address, “The Mantle,” 272, 263, 1976.

During this speech Elder Packer also made the famous statement that "The mantle is greater than the intellect". Apologists at FAIRMormon have argued that this is essentially correct because the mass of the average fireplace mantle is greater than the mass of the human brain.

[Not Buying It]

The reason more members don’t leave the Church now that the information is out there is because the forces that keep people in the Church are social, familial, and emotional, not logical or rational. It has always been that way. It is not logical to believe in an organization founded by a polygamist who claimed to use magic rocks to translate records on golden plates after seeing God and Christ as a teenager. But people have had enough emotional reactions to these crazy stories to think God is telling them something about them, and their friends and family members exert enormous social pressure to keep believing them.

As I became disaffected, I felt that pull back to the Church, but I recognized it was never logical or rational - it was the fear of disappointing and alienating my wife, parents, and friends, it was the emotional connection to the Church I had loved and served, it was the entire life I had built around it and its teachings. But no matter how I sliced it, I knew that gravitational pull back to the Church was not founded on evidence, logic, or reason - and therefore I could not trust it, it was the same pull I would feel leaving any other religion. I still feel that pull sometimes - members would say it is the Spirit leading me back to the Church, but I know it for what it is - me wishing this would all go away and I could be at peace in my relationships with family and friends. But there is no truth in that, no logic, no reason. It would be a betrayal of truth and what I know to be right. No judgment on anyone who takes that path, but I can’t do it.

As for transparency - don’t talk to me about transparency until the Brethren get up and address these issues openly in General Conference, until I can bring them up in Church meetings without fear of social reprisal, until they are in all our manuals, until they are discussed as freely and openly as we discuss other events in Church history. Until then, it is a deceptive, weasily mealy-mouthed mockery of what true transparency is.

[jfro18]

As I've been listening to Mormon Stories podcasts or reading on these forums, it is clear that a growing number of people stop believing but keep attending because it is easier than disappointing family/friends/neighbors.

I personally am not 100% sure why my wife doesn't want to hear all of the issues with the church, but I would bet a lot that the stress it would cause with family is just as scary to her as learning about the church. Just going through my issues the last few months has gotten the missionaries to randomly drop by and she's had some visitors stop by to comfort her. The pressure that comes just from your ward if you start to waffle is intense - and then add pressure from those you truly love on top of that... it's really hard to open up and be willing to walk away.

[Dravin]

It ought to be a giant red flag when an organization that purports to be the “true” Church fights so hard to keep things that are true from being known by its members. Leonard Arrington fought the good fight for truth, but the Church won - until the internet came along and pulled the rug out from under them.

This. And on the individual level, the fact that you have TBM who are resistant to reading something like the essays should be a giant red flag. The organization itself is responsible for putting information online that is heavily spun to be as pro-Mormonism as possible and you shy away from it because it might hurt your testimony? Either the church is lying which should worry you or your beliefs can be damaged and destroyed by truth which should worry you even more.

[IT_Veteran]

During this speech Elder Packer also made the famous statement that "The mantle is greater than the intellect". Apologists at FAIRMormon have argued that this is essentially correct because the mass of the average fireplace mantle is greater than the mass of the human brain.

Wow - I had to go look up this article to read it for myself. There are some doozies in it, but it’s really clear he doesn’t understand the process or the reason for scholarship. He sees scholarship as an attack on faith because they try to be impartial. This is a failing, in his opinion, because presenting both sides is not a faith promoting effort.

He claims at one point that scholarly work is meant for those that have already established their faith and know how to explain those things that lead to doubt. He then laments that not all who will read it have that faith, so they’re not ready to see it. Yeesh.

Suppose that when the records of the company he has been employed to protect are opened for him to prepare his brief he collects evidence and passes some of it to the attorneys of the enemy company. His own firm may then be in great jeopardy because of his disloyal conduct.

It’s also clear he doesn’t understand how the legal process works. I’m pretty sure that’s called discovery. I manage an email system for my organization and receive requests from our lawyers on a fairly infrequent basis to provide them records that are being requested by the other party’s attorneys.

Those who have carefully purged their work of any religious faith in the name of academic freedom or so-called honesty ought not expect to be accommodated in their researches or to be paid by the Church to do it.

Ever wonder why not much actual scholarship comes out of BYU in the sciences?

Remember: when you see the bitter apostate, you do not see only an absence of light, you see also the presence of darkness.
Do not spread disease germs!

Okay, this one wasn’t as relevant to the discussion, but it was my favorite part of the whole talk.

A missionary had confessed to transgression, and the mission president was reluctant to take action. I was instructed to see that a court was convened and that the missionary was excommunicated.

So much for this idea that church discipline is a local ecclesiastical matter. Funny thing is,after interviewing the missionary BKP called back to Salt Lake and said he didn’t think the missionary should be disciplined either.

Moksha, you really had my hopes up though. Oh how dearly I hoped to find a quote about the fat and ugly secretaries. I knew it was too good to be true.

Here’s the link if anyone wants to read it for themselves. https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/mant ... -intellect

[moksha]

Moksha, you really had my hopes up though. Oh how dearly I hoped to find a quote about the fat and ugly secretaries. I knew it was too good to be true.

Try this then: Quinn (ed), Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22. That link came up when I googled the quote. The exact passage can be found here: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/on-bei ... historian/ Just pull up the find text bar on your browser and type in "truth is". Hope that helps.

Don't think of the quote as being good to find. It is sort of tragic when you think of its implications.

[jfro18]

FAIR is quick to point out the ugly and fat quote is from the excommunicated Quinn and thus can't be trusted.

Nevermind that Quinn's work has been used (although never credited) in the essays and that most of it has now been proven right and even accepted within the church's shifting historical stances... but since he was excommunicated back when it was cool to excommunicate everyone who spoke ill of church history, the quote can't possibly be right.

So you see, no problem.

[IT_Veteran]

Moksha, you really had my hopes up though. Oh how dearly I hoped to find a quote about the fat and ugly secretaries. I knew it was too good to be true.

Try this then: Quinn (ed), Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22. That link came up when I googled the quote. The exact passage can be found here: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/on-bei ... historian/ Just pull up the find text bar on your browser and type in "truth is". Hope that helps.

Don't think of the quote as being good to find. It is sort of tragic when you think of its implications.

Man, he really was a hateful guy.

[Hagoth]

once asked a Bishop brother in law if he had read the polygamy essays, he said he knew about it, but didn't want to read further. Amazing!

I have encountered the same response from bishops and other local leaders. The way I see it there are three types of responses to the unfortunate truth (these may be terminal situations, based on personality type, or they may be stages that an individual goes through);

1) Avoidance/obedience: When people protect their testimony by avoiding evidence that is not faith-promoting (Bishop mentioned above).

2) Apology: People who consider themselves apologists seem to be the "smart kid" who has assumed (at least in their own mind) the role of the local go-to guy for church-related questions. They are often of the personality type who must always be right, always get the last word in, regardless of the facts. They are extremely adept at building overly-complex counterarguments to always ensure that the can feel that they came out on top. Looking like you're right is more important than actually being right.

3) Acceptance: Accepting the unwanted facts, admitting that you were wrong and that you have been duped. Very hard to do because you have to get past the hurdles of one or both of the previously mentioned conditions, and you have to be prepared to either keep your situation secret or be villainized by the people who reside in states 1 and 2 who will reinvent your hard-earned humility as a particularly nasty form of pride.

[mooseman]

I think there is another group.
I think there are a lot of people who are well read on issues, those who "choose faith" that it just hasnt clicked for yet because they are too busy in the church and run too many distractions to put it together and are missing a couple pieces. Kind of like the 6th sense: you watch it/live it and its amazing. All the clues are there but you just dont see it...until you do. Then its so obvious you feel stupid you didnt see it before...and if you suffer through 100 viewings you find yourself wondering what you ever thought of it.

I think there are a lot of members it just hasnt clicked for yet. Not because they dont know, but they just havemt had time to connect the dots.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I think there is another group.
I think there are a lot of people who are well read on issues, those who "choose faith" that it just hasnt clicked for yet because they are too busy in the church and run too many distractions to put it together and are missing a couple pieces. Kind of like the 6th sense: you watch it/live it and its amazing. All the clues are there but you just dont see it...until you do. Then its so obvious you feel stupid you didnt see it before...and if you suffer through 100 viewings you find yourself wondering what you ever thought of it.

I think there are a lot of members it just hasnt clicked for yet. Not because they dont know, but they just havemt had time to connect the dots.

These also can be some of the most obnoxious judgmental types. The "Look at me, I've known these things but you don't see me giving up!" attitude. Richard Bushman in some of his comments gives a bit of this attitude towards those who let clean living standards slip after learning the truth.