Elder Ballard: "There has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody"

[oliblish]

What year did the 1832 account become known to the modern general authorities? Between that date and the 1970 article it would have been hidden right? Also didn't it take the Tanners finding out about it to force the issue to be acknowkledged?

There is a good Dialogue article about this here:

http://www.jamesjudithmcconkie.com/uplo ... on_(2).pdf

An excerpt:

Even though Levi Edgar Young told LaMar Petersen that he
had read the “strange account” of the First Vision, he had been
instructed “not to copy or tell what they contained,” and accordingly
did not divulge the contents to anyone. However, while not
providing any detailed information about this “strange account”
of the First Vision, Young did disclose that it described a vision
of only Jesus, without any mention of God. Petersen kept this
information confidential until Young’s death in December 1963.
In early 1964, Petersen told Jerald and Sandra Tanner about this
“strange account” of the First Vision. They wrote to Joseph Fielding
Smith, asking for an opportunity to see this early account.
Joseph Fielding Smith did not know exactly what Levi Edgar
Young had told LaMar Petersen, and he refused to let the Tanners
see the 1832 history. However, about this same time Joseph
Fielding Smith relinquished the three leaves of the excised 1832
history from his private custody within his office safe and transferred
it back to the regular Church Historian’s collection. Then
he authorized Earl E. Olson, his Assistant Church Historian, to
show the newly available leaves to Paul R. Cheesman, a BYU
graduate student working on his thesis. Cheesman explained that
Olson demonstrated how the pages “matched with [the] edge of
the journal to prove location” in the Joseph Smith letterbook.
As the result of this assistance, Cheesman prepared a typescript
in his 1965 BYU master’s thesis on Joseph Smith’s visions.
Later that same year Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner were the
frst to publish the text of the 1832 account, using Cheesman’s
imperfect transcript. Four years later Dean C. Jessee published
his important article in Brigham Young University Studies, with an
accurate transcript of the text.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

What year did the 1832 account become known to the modern general authorities? Between that date and the 1970 article it would have been hidden right? Also didn't it take the Tanners finding out about it to force the issue to be acknowkledged?

There is a good Dialogue article about this here:

http://www.jamesjudithmcconkie.com/uplo ... on_(2).pdf

An excerpt:

Even though Levi Edgar Young told LaMar Petersen that he
had read the “strange account” of the First Vision, he had been
instructed “not to copy or tell what they contained,” and accordingly
did not divulge the contents to anyone. However, while not
providing any detailed information about this “strange account”
of the First Vision, Young did disclose that it described a vision
of only Jesus, without any mention of God. Petersen kept this
information confidential until Young’s death in December 1963.
In early 1964, Petersen told Jerald and Sandra Tanner about this
“strange account” of the First Vision. They wrote to Joseph Fielding
Smith, asking for an opportunity to see this early account.
Joseph Fielding Smith did not know exactly what Levi Edgar
Young had told LaMar Petersen, and he refused to let the Tanners
see the 1832 history. However, about this same time Joseph
Fielding Smith relinquished the three leaves of the excised 1832
history from his private custody within his office safe and transferred
it back to the regular Church Historian’s collection. Then
he authorized Earl E. Olson, his Assistant Church Historian, to
show the newly available leaves to Paul R. Cheesman, a BYU
graduate student working on his thesis. Cheesman explained that
Olson demonstrated how the pages “matched with [the] edge of
the journal to prove location” in the Joseph Smith letterbook.
As the result of this assistance, Cheesman prepared a typescript
in his 1965 BYU master’s thesis on Joseph Smith’s visions.
Later that same year Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner were the
frst to publish the text of the 1832 account, using Cheesman’s
imperfect transcript. Four years later Dean C. Jessee published
his important article in Brigham Young University Studies, with an
accurate transcript of the text.

Thumbs up! Thank you.

[Hagoth]

So, really, if they are not hiding stuff, that means they are going to open their vaults to researchers and publish all financial information......yeah, I didn't think so

[LostGirl]

There was a very strong emphasis at education week this year on "the church has not hidden anything". I remember wondering if there were some hidden talking points that all of the historians were asked to hit.

[moksha]

Back when Elder Boyd Packer warned the CES employees, "Not all truths are helpful", church educators knew they needed to maintain the accepted legends and not introduce more accurate history or they would be fired. The Church had already cracked down on a group called the September Six, who had discussed things the Church desired to keep hidden.

Apologists were right about accurate information being available, if you went to such internet sites as the one run by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, but what they won't tell you is that they routinely criticized that site and claimed it was telling falsehoods. So even that assertion is fraught with some lies. Uncle Dale Broadhurst also had sites with accurate information that was not available through Church publications. Didn't any of you find it strange that there was no mention of polygamy in the Church study manuals on Joseph Smith or Brigham Young?

Look at all the crap Fawn Brodie had to put up with for her book No Man Knows My History, which LDS historian Richard Bushman confirmed was true years later. To a lesser extent, Juanita Brooks also put up with scorn for her book The Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Even now the Church is chided for acknowledging the truth in baby steps.

[John G.]

Great post Reuben!

[deacon blues]

Let's say that I have a special coin.

I believe that flipping this coin results in heads far more often than tails. This belief is a big part of my identity. I believe that it's very important for you to believe it as well.

So I flip the coin. It's heads, and I show you.

Throughout the day, I flip the coin. When it's tails, I'm a little disappointed. When it's heads, I show it to you or tell you about it.

I never count. I tell myself that that's not how this is supposed to work.

I never grab the coin after it lands tails-up and turn it over. That would be cheating. I never cheat.

You'll sometimes catch me flipping the coin but not showing you the outcome. Early on, you ask me about these times. Maybe I tell you that those outcomes aren't useful. Maybe I say that they might give you the wrong idea. Maybe I say that you shouldn't pry into sacred things.

When you're old enough, I confide in you that the coin doesn't always land heads-up, but that it does often enough. I actually never said that it always does. Besides, I needed you to trust me and my special coin.

When your friend wants to observe and count, I say no way. That's not how this works. If you listen to him, he'll warp your beliefs. I know what's true, and I know you won't discover the same truth for yourself if you don't approach this like I do. Now that you're getting old enough to have your own coin, it's critical that you treat it with the same respect and reverence that I treat mine with.

One day, I give you your own special coin, just like mine. You believe that flipping this coin results in heads far more often than tails. This belief is a big part of your identity. You believe that it's very important for others to believe it as well...

Have I lied?

Have I hidden anything from you? Or have I only given you the evidence I thought was important?

Let's say that friend of yours who wanted to observe and count became so persistent that I had to discredit him so you wouldn't listen to him. Is that hiding anything?

Let's say I occasionally kept a journal of coin flips as a faith-promoting exercise, and once I recorded despairing over getting 10 tails in a row. I didn't show you this entry because I thought you weren't ready for it - your testimony was still too weak. Is that hiding anything?

Am I honest?

This is an excellent parable of what the church does. It's kind of like heads: speaking as a prophet, tails: speaking as a man

[MalcolmVillager]

Consiglieri nailed this again on Radio Free Mormon. Had me laughing my way through my post-thanksgiving run.

SMH on the hilarity of all of this!

[Reuben]

Let's say that I have a special coin.

I believe that flipping this coin results in heads far more often than tails. This belief is a big part of my identity. I believe that it's very important for you to believe it as well.

So I flip the coin. It's heads, and I show you.

Throughout the day, I flip the coin. When it's tails, I'm a little disappointed. When it's heads, I show it to you or tell you about it.

I never count. I tell myself that that's not how this is supposed to work.

I never grab the coin after it lands tails-up and turn it over. That would be cheating. I never cheat.

You'll sometimes catch me flipping the coin but not showing you the outcome. Early on, you ask me about these times. Maybe I tell you that those outcomes aren't useful. Maybe I say that they might give you the wrong idea. Maybe I say that you shouldn't pry into sacred things.

When you're old enough, I confide in you that the coin doesn't always land heads-up, but that it does often enough. I actually never said that it always does. Besides, I needed you to trust me and my special coin.

When your friend wants to observe and count, I say no way. That's not how this works. If you listen to him, he'll warp your beliefs. I know what's true, and I know you won't discover the same truth for yourself if you don't approach this like I do. Now that you're getting old enough to have your own coin, it's critical that you treat it with the same respect and reverence that I treat mine with.

One day, I give you your own special coin, just like mine. You believe that flipping this coin results in heads far more often than tails. This belief is a big part of your identity. You believe that it's very important for others to believe it as well...

Have I lied?

Have I hidden anything from you? Or have I only given you the evidence I thought was important?

Let's say that friend of yours who wanted to observe and count became so persistent that I had to discredit him so you wouldn't listen to him. Is that hiding anything?

Let's say I occasionally kept a journal of coin flips as a faith-promoting exercise, and once I recorded despairing over getting 10 tails in a row. I didn't show you this entry because I thought you weren't ready for it - your testimony was still too weak. Is that hiding anything?

Am I honest?

This is an excellent parable of what the church does. It's kind of like heads: speaking as a prophet, tails: speaking as a man

There are a zillion things like it, inside and outside the LDS church: business, sales, fandoms, politics, family relationships, religions. Even science is like this, though it tends to happen less. It's a very human thing to do.

I've been mentally chewing on this parable for a while now. It illustrates confirmation bias (giving evidence higher weight when it confirms your beliefs), selection bias (not accounting for the likelihood of observing the evidence in the first place), how these biases work together to transmit falsehoods, compartmentalization, and why you will almost never get the whole truth from a single source.

Here are my answers to the questions, FWIW.

I haven't lied.

I've hidden things. I did it to control your beliefs, which I felt justified doing because of fear and entitlement.

When I discredited your friend, that was also effectively hiding things. It was more like I got you to not look at them, which is just as effective.

I am not honest, starting with myself, which is why I can't see that I'm dishonest.

[Emower]

The argument over on the mormondialouge board is pretty funny. I think it is hilarious that moral relativism is decried as one of the hallmarks of today's degenerate societies, but Mormons are quite skilled at employing it when the need arises. The need is arising quite a bit these days.

[Emower]

So I have fallen down a rabbit hole of discussions on that board. Most of it really pisses me off. I need to get out of there before it ruins my day.

Cinepro had a post on how exmormons should have known more about history and most of them are just moving from being lemmings from one paradigm to lemmings in another. Most of the resulting discussion has to do about the church being honest so I will post this here instead of starting a new thread.

Here is a post from Cinepro that really makes me angry:

Instead of saying "you should have known", the correct response would probably be "the reason you didn't know is because you didn't care."

That is completely not true for most of us. I suspect that he will give allowances for people to be different individually, but as a group he thinks exmormons or postmormons or whatever are uneducated and just want to lash out. There is a lot of victim blaming going on here.

Heres the discussion if you are interested.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/698 ... g-history/

I was going to post about how Mormon issues are holding less and less of an interest for me. But the kids are sick and throwing up and i have some time on my hands this weekend.

[Red Ryder]

Here is a post from Cinepro that really makes me angry:

Instead of saying "you should have known", the correct response would probably be "the reason you didn't know is because you didn't care."

That is completely not true for most of us. I suspect that he will give allowances for people to be different individually, but as a group he thinks exmormons or postmormons or whatever are uneducated and just want to lash out. There is a lot of victim blaming going on here.

Heres the discussion if you are interested.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/698 ... g-history/

I was going to post about how Mormon issues are holding less and less of an interest for me. But the kids are sick and throwing up and i have some time on my hands this weekend.

He's right generally speaking. Active members don't care about the history or the wives of Joseph Smith, or the means of translation, or any of the issues. It wasn't until we had an existential crisis and a questioning mind that turned up our interest in all things Mormon. This plus an ability to discuss freely results in disaffection.

I hit the exmo scene in 2004 and agree with him here too.

But since 2003, as a new generation of LDS have grown up and become disaffected, there seems to be a new millennial strain of critics and ex-Mormons that, for lack of a better term, are basing their disaffection on being ignorant and lazy and blaming their ignorance and laziness on the Church itself.

Too many people read the CES letter and then drop the mic. First, they attribute everything to Jeremy Runnels as if he came up with everything on his own rather than realizing he merely aggregated it all together. Then they place blame squarely on the church for hiding and lying. Now it is an institutionally dishonest organization no doubt. However like Rueben wrote up in his coin flip analogy it's a long drawn out process. I guess there's a maturity to disaffection that comes with time that allows you to see why the church has done what it's done. A path of survival of sorts. Once you can see from this perspective than it's possible to understand the complexity of this argument.

They've hidden it all in plain sight.

[Emower]

Here is a post from Cinepro that really makes me angry:

Instead of saying "you should have known", the correct response would probably be "the reason you didn't know is because you didn't care."

That is completely not true for most of us. I suspect that he will give allowances for people to be different individually, but as a group he thinks exmormons or postmormons or whatever are uneducated and just want to lash out. There is a lot of victim blaming going on here.

Heres the discussion if you are interested.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/698 ... g-history/

I was going to post about how Mormon issues are holding less and less of an interest for me. But the kids are sick and throwing up and i have some time on my hands this weekend.

He's right generally speaking. Active members don't care about the history or the wives of Joseph Smith, or the means of translation, or any of the issues. It wasn't until we had an existential crisis and a questioning mind that turned up our interest in all things Mormon. This plus an ability to discuss freely results in disaffection.

How can you care about something you dont know about? How does his argument even make sense? Maybe this issue is less about knowledge and truth and more about trust. I trusted and I got burned. End of story. The reason I trusted is because I was told to trust. Ugh.

[Red Ryder]

How can you care about something you dont know about? How does his argument even make sense? Maybe this issue is less about knowledge and truth and more about trust. I trusted and I got burned. End of story. The reason I trusted is because I was told to trust. Ugh.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Don't get me wrong, I'm in agreement that the argument doesn't make sense. That's why it's a matter of perspective and you can see both sides if you're around long enough.

So to answer your question, It's about trust. And that's exactly why the church is failing!

The church is NOT what it claims to be.

[Stig]

So I have fallen down a rabbit hole of discussions on that board. Most of it really pisses me off. I need to get out of there before it ruins my day.

Cinepro had a post on how exmormons should have known more about history and most of them are just moving from being lemmings from one paradigm to lemmings in another. Most of the resulting discussion has to do about the church being honest so I will post this here instead of starting a new thread.

Here is a post from Cinepro that really makes me angry:

Instead of saying "you should have known", the correct response would probably be "the reason you didn't know is because you didn't care."

That is completely not true for most of us. I suspect that he will give allowances for people to be different individually, but as a group he thinks exmormons or postmormons or whatever are uneducated and just want to lash out. There is a lot of victim blaming going on here.

Heres the discussion if you are interested.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/698 ... g-history/

I was going to post about how Mormon issues are holding less and less of an interest for me. But the kids are sick and throwing up and i have some time on my hands this weekend.

For the record, cinepro has historically been a critic of the Church. Sometimes he says things that are thought provoking to both sides; I wouldn't let this quote skew your view of what he typically contributes.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I think his example of having all the critical books in the living room and his kids not ever touching them is a poor example. From personal experience growing up my Dad had a similar extensive library and as a teen I had become so indoctrinated about "anti" literature being bad that I was simply scared to look. It was difficult to reconcile why my Dad had those books. I never looked even once. Another explanation is that kids often don't have a foundation to interpret if a book is more than just another snooze fest of boring correlated narrative. What kid would ever pick up RSR and read through it? Very few because it's boring.

[Emower]

For the record, cinepro has historically been a critic of the Church. Sometimes he says things that are thought provoking to both sides; I wouldn't let this quote skew your view of what he typically contributes.

Good to know. I dont lurk on that board at all so I dont know the history of anyone there.

I think his example of having all the critical books in the living room and his kids not ever touching them is a poor example. From personal experience growing up my Dad had a similar extensive library and as a teen I had become so indoctrinated about "anti" literature being bad that I was simply scared to look. It was difficult to reconcile why my Dad had those books. I never looked even once. Another explanation is that kids often don't have a foundation to interpret if a book is more than just another snooze fest of boring correlated narrative. What kid would ever pick up RSR and read through it? Very few because it's boring.

I did notice that the issue not addressed in this particular discussion are the myriad admonititons to NOT read anything outside of church approved stuff.

Edit:
It also seems that these days lds.org is the only safe port in the storm. Even deseret book stuff is on the edge of acceptable. Even the apostles books are them only speaking as men.

[Stig]

Edit:
It also seems that these days lds.org is the only safe port in the storm. Even deseret book stuff is on the edge of acceptable. Even the apostles books are them only speaking as men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

[Stig]

Dayuummm!

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentar ... must-stop/

From the article:

This quote shows the narcissistic gaslighting tactics routinely employed by the leaders of the Mormon church. After citing their credentials, asserting their dominance, and shaming the audience for questioning, a bold claim that rejects the skeptical mindset is made. The audience is subsequently directed to simply “trust” those in authority. Such rhetoric is invalidating, discourages exploration and free thought, completely lacks even a shred of empathy, and is thus abusive to active, struggling, and former Mormons alike.

[moksha]

Active members don't care about the history or the wives of Joseph Smith, or the means of translation, or any of the issues.

For those active members, all that needs to be done is tell them to turn their heads and cough. The expression "we've got the truth in all things" will substitute nicely for actively seeking the truth by themselves.