Archive Assault I

[_Gazelam]

There are Seerstones there. Theyve shown that .

[_Jersey Girl]

It’s the President’s vault they should hit. According to some, that’s where all the good secrets are.

If there are secrets, why keep them at all? Supposedly Joseph's Seer stone is in F vault. Isn't it enough to know that it hasn't been useful to his successors?

I don't get this.

Jersey Girl

[_grayskull]

Mercury,

My only hesitation in public approval, at least initially, would be the possibility of being caught up in any investigation.

there's no verification of authenticity, and many motives to alter the documents.

That's starting to stray from my focus, but, wouldn't the fact the church wants to hide them be just as much of a motive for them to alter the documents as for someone who wants to expose them? Just keep in mind government documents that are declassified. Lot of blacking out. There's no guarantee either way. But something is better than nothing.

Gaz,

I don't know what they would find. That's what makes adventures exciting.

Jersey,

I don't think we can just assume they'd light the torch. Afterall, did the documents secured from Mark Hoffman go straight into flames upon purchase?

[_Bond...James Bond]

I chose not to vote. Why would an organization keep supposedly damning evidence?

Jersey Girl

I agree with Jersey Girl.....why wouldn't they destroy any damning evidence....it seems the logical course for people as secretive as the LDS hierarchy.

[_Mister Scratch]

I chose not to vote. Why would an organization keep supposedly damning evidence?

Jersey Girl

I agree with Jersey Girl.....why wouldn't they destroy any damning evidence....it seems the logical course for people as secretive as the LDS hierarchy.

Mormonism is very much a record-keeping culture. This has been a mandate from the Brethren since the days of Joseph Smith. Of course, this impulse runs up against and interweaves with the simultaneous thread of institutionalized secrecy that is such a key aspect of the Church.

Moreover, the notion of "damning evidence" is abstract and nebulous---i.e., what would this be? A journal entry from, say, David O. McKay in which he says, "The Church really isn't true"? I doubt very much that we would find anything like that. As to what might be "hidden" in the archives, I have some guesses. For example, I strongly suspect that we would find real evidence demonstrating that Joseph Smith really did try to translate the Kinderhook Plates. I also think that we would like find evidence of the Brethren bungling Church finances, and perhaps accounts of "men behaving badly," so to speak---stuff akin to the revelation that Church Patriarch Joseph F. Smith was a homosexual. But, who knows? They are obviously hiding *something*, so how can really say how "damning" it would be?

[_asbestosman]

I'm not particularly worried about theives altering the documents as I am that any old schmo (not just the thieves) could use the opportunity to publish any "damning" evidence he thinks of and claim it was in the archives. Thus any information I might gain from said hypothetical situation would be useless except as it can be corroborated with outside sources.

Secondly, and if I understand grayskull's point, I do think it wrong to obtain information this way. Not just because it is illegal, but also because I appreciate my privacy and would certainly hate to lose that privilege. Golden Rule / Categorical Imperative and all. On the other hand, I can't think of anything that I'd hate to be revealed after I die. If I'm dead, I won't care anymore (and it will all be revealed anyhow unless I repented). But perhaps this is different for organizations since the organization continues to live long after the founders' deaths.

I do condone some of the actions of spies when we are talking about national security. However, I don't think anything in the church's vaults would significantly effect national / international security.