Editing the Official History

[_SatanWasSetUp]

1. That our modern leaders either don't care enough to set the record straight or consider it okay to leave it as it is shows an arrogance that is highly suspect and a lack of integrity about our leaders today.

2. That our past leaders felt it appropriate to change the official record shows that the faults of our leaders today are no different from the faults of our past leaders.

3. Overall, what it shows to me is that the church is led by men, not God. Not that that's a surprise.

Of course, this argument is completely undercut by your repeated statements that you hold a current temple recommend and that, you indeed, attend the temple. To secure a temple recommend you must state your affirmance that the Church is led by God. So, either you are lying today; you are lying about your recommend status; or you are lying to your bishop and stake president.

Not necessarily. I told my bishop that I didn't believe the truth claims of the church and he still wanted to give me a temple recommend. He thought I needed to go to the temple to help me with my testimony. For about a year he practically begged me to get a temple recommend and go to the temple. So it depends on the bishop.

[_Runtu]

It wasn't the whole library. The open stacks are available to the public. It was the special collections stuff that required the added information.

So what's in the special collections? Private correspondence? Journals? Official papers? Because I'm having a hard time understanding what would require a temple recommend. Are they trying to verify that the person entering is a member? Or an active member? Or that they are worthy? Because I don't see why a person would be required to be a member to see the special collection, and I sure don't see what a person's worthiness to enter the temple has to do with the Historical Library. Sounds like our leaders are making up the rules again, instead of letting God do it.

What I was looking at: journals and correspondence, meeting minutes, stuff like that.

[_Mercury]

My job back in the early 90s required me to go down to the Historical Library on several occasions and look at materials that were not available to the general public. If I recall correctly (and I do), I had to sign in at the desk downstairs and then wait to be escorted through a locked door and upstairs to a microfilm viewing room. I had to show my employee ID and my temple recommend.

What on earth is so sacred in the Historical Library that you'd have to show your temple recommend?

I think recording the information of whom is looking at what limits the dissemination of said information. If journal entry X is released into the wild they know who to put pressure on in order to punish the "transgression" of disillusionment of faithful history.

[_harmony]

I think recording the information of whom is looking at what limits the dissemination of said information. If journal entry X is released into the wild they know who to put pressure on in order to
punish the "transgression" of disillusionment of faithful history.

If someone is using a stolen or bootlegged temple recommend to gain access, and then using the information in an anti-Mormon campaign, then obviously using a temple recommend to gain access isn't working. And punishment for the transgressor would have no effect, since they'd be beyond the reach of the church anyway.

It sounds like our leaders are simply expanding their iron control to things that don't need to be controlled. If something in the special collection is detrimental to the church, you can bet someone has already found a way to get it out. My issue is with the use of the TR as an admission ticket. It seems like that's an unintended use of something that has a very specialized use. As policies go, that one sucks.

[_Jason Bourne]

It wasn't the whole library. The open stacks are available to the public. It was the special collections stuff that required the added information.

So what's in the special collections? Private correspondence? Journals? Official papers? Because I'm having a hard time understanding what would require a temple recommend. Are they trying to verify that the person entering is a member? Or an active member? Or that they are worthy? Because I don't see why a person would be required to be a member to see the special collection, and I sure don't see what a person's worthiness to enter the temple has to do with the Historical Library. Sounds like our leaders are making up the rules again, instead of letting God do it.

Seems to me they want some assurance that whoever they let in is a member in good standing. I think they have had problems letting anyone in and then havings stuff show up in critical writing.

[_Trinity]

Sounds like our leaders are making up the rules again, instead of letting God do it.

God, in his infinite wisdom, is a mute. I probably would be too if I created such a disaster as this world and didn't want to deal with it.

;)

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason...

Am I overreacting to this? This really bugs me. It seems that some of what I read as a missionary in the seven volume church history may have been outright fabrication? Does the end justify the means?

No, you are not overacting.

If this happened in any other organization or company, the perpertrators would be thrown in jail, and there would be no question of inappropriate behavior and dishonesty.

The reason you are bothered is because it SHOULD bother people who have a conscience and who believe in honesty.

Why is it that, the "God said" excuse seems to Trump all sense of goodness, integrity, morality, decency, and honor?

Seems in the church, people can do whatever they want, claim "God said", and they are good to go.. no one questions or doubts and wonders.

I do not think it is a healthy way to exist.

~dancer~

[_Ray A]

Does this trouble you?

What does this imply?

Does it give ammo to the RLDS that Joseph Smith really did not teach plural marriage and BY added it?

Does it create distrust in the written record? What else has be tampered with?

Does it show that Joseph Smith was really lying when we wrote it and BY wanted it to look like he did not lie?

What other issues does it present?

It troubled me when I first read the 7 volume History in the early 80s. At the time I was quite naïve. After reading the History I read Madsen's bio of B.H.Roberts, who edited the History in the early 1900s. Madsen's bio was, itself, hagiography, not strictly a good biography. Perhaps something like the early disciples of Jesus only wrote "edifying things" about him, things which "promote faith". Roberts excised significant portions of Joseph Smith's imbibing in alcohol, among other things, but I doubt he would have done this in the 1920s, when he tackled the Book of Mormon and seemed to be taking a much more open approach. His early Book of Mormon studies were very apologetic, and done at around the same time he edited the History, but by the 1920s he wrote concerning Book of Mormon problems, "how shall we escape these difficulties?", and what would be the effects on the younger generation (we are seeing those effects right now all over the Internet). I don't believe any General Authority has equalled Roberts in being able to look at the problems. Whether not being able to look honestly at Book of Mormon problems, or editing portions of the History in order to "promote faith", this approach will lead to the sorts of expressions you write. Bewilderment, and lots of head-scratching.

[_Ray A]

Van Wagoner also commented:

The official History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was published in book form under the direction of the First Presidency in 1902. The introductory assurance that 'no historical or doctrinal statement has been changed' is demonstrably wrong. Overshadowed by editorial censorship, hundreds of deletions, additions, and alterations, these seven volumes are not always reliable. The official history is a partisan chronology, a flawed legacy for rank-and-file believers. Not only does this history place polygamy and Brigham Young's ecclesiastical significance in the rosy glow of political acceptability, it smooths out Joseph Smith's rough-hewn edges, tidies up his more disreputable adventures, and deletes unfulfilled prophecies. In the process of remaking Mormon history, a monumental disservice was done to Rigdon and others who challenged the Quorum of the Twelve's 1844 ascent to power.

The nineteenth-century propaganda mill was so adroit that few outside Brigham Young's inner circle were aware of the behind-the-scenes alterations so seamlessly stitched into church history. Charles Wesley Wandell, an assistant church historian, was aghast at these emendations. Commenting on the many changes made in the historical work as it was being serialized in the Deseret News, Wandell noted in his diary:

I notice the interpolations because having been employed in the Historian's office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, and employed, too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, I know that after Joseph's death his memoir was 'doctored' to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and systematically by Richards.

The Quorum of the Twelve, under Young's leadership, began altering the historical record shortly after Smith's death. Contrary to the introduction's claim, Smith did not author the History of the Church.

http://lds-mormon.com/history.shtml

[_Seven]

I'm no apologist. But you must remember that this church leadership (particularly ones who have invested their entire life to the church) feel that not all truth is useful and that the end justifies the means. As long as God's putting his stamp of approval on it, anything goes regardless of whether or not it goes against every moral and ethical impulse by the little humans.

God's stamp of approval is a bit hard to discern. It would be nice if He/She would etch their signature in lightning jags.

It should bother you. That is the little voice inside your head reminding you that you should always question authority against your own moral compass to ensure your own integrity.

What's tragic is when people ignore that voice and moral compass, which I believe comes from Christ, to reconcile their testimony of the church or idolizing of Joseph Smith. Until members can honestly believe LDS leaders are fallible, (not just say it) we will continue seeing defense of unethical behavior.

I for one am relieved to see a believer who is bothered by this. It should bother any person who values integrity.