Hammer Away!

[_Joey]

There are lots and lots of good new publications in Mormon studies and Mormon history. The trouble is that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. On the whole, people—and especially Americans, perhaps—just aren’t all that interested in history.

Particularly about one that never existed!!!  Perhaps only in Provo!

[_Daniel Peterson]

There are lots and lots of good new publications in Mormon studies and Mormon history. The trouble is that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. On the whole, people—and especially Americans, perhaps—just aren’t all that interested in history.

Particularly about one that never existed!!!  Perhaps only in Provo!

Joey, I suspect that there's a minimum age for posting in the "Celestial Forum."

Eight or nine, perhaps.

You might want to check into that.

If there's not, there ought to be.

[_Daniel Peterson]

At some point, someone researched the history made some very disingenuous choices about what is taught. DCP may be one of those people.

I'm not. But I would have made very similar "choices."

Not, though, because I'm "disingenuous." Rather, because of my conception of the purpose of the manuals.

I love history. I love ancient history. I'm passionate about them. But I don't think that Church classes are historical seminars. (I think I've said that before, but it bears repeating.)

He admitted that he helped write the manuals and he is fully aware of the history.

I "admitted" it?

You make it sound like a crime to help write Church manuals while knowing a lot about Mormon history.

He chooses the materials that will promote faith and omits anything that does not.

I chose materials that would accomplish the goal of the manuals, and, yes, promoting faith was one of those goals.

But your insinuation that my choice was dishonest is unfair and deeply unjust. I believe that Level A history is true. (Haven't I said that enough yet?) I believe that Level C history is merely a more nuanced version of Level A. Teaching Level A is not dishonest.

Some of my thoughts on related historiographical matters can be accessed in an old article -- excuse me, an old smear piece -- that Professor David Honey and I wrote for BYU Studies, entitled "Advocacy and Inquiry in the Writing of Latter-day Saint History":

http://byustudies.BYU.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6043

[_Simon Belmont]

Joey, I suspect that there's a minimum age for posting in the "Celestial Forum."

Eight or nine, perhaps.

You might want to check into that.

If there's not, there ought to be.

And a minimum number of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111one

[_Simon Belmont]

Okay, here's the question, as rongo summarized it over at MDDB:

Thanks for the great post, Dr. P. I have read about the A/B/C history theory before -- is it in any of your publications? Perhaps Offenders? I swear I've read it before.

[_Mike Reed]

For Dan Peterson

[_Daniel Peterson]

For Dan Peterson

Been there, done that.

Sorry. I can only carry on one rather intense message board conversation at a time -- strictly speaking, I shouldn't even be doing that much -- and, at the moment, this is it.

[_Buffalo]

It's possible to deceive by telling only part of the truth, yes, but telling only part of the truth isn't always (or even commonly) deceptive.

Every discussion of the Civil War or American Revolution that you've ever heard, every biography that you've ever read, has omitted far more than it has included. (To do otherwise is impossible.) Every account that a daughter gives to her father of how her date went leaves out more than it includes -- perhaps with intent to deceive, but very likely without any such intent at all.

And, of course, it is mere coincidence that the church manuals, without fail, leave out the most troubling details of LDS history. This is never intentional.

[_Aristotle Smith]

For Dan Peterson

Been there, done that.

Sorry. I can only carry on one rather intense message board conversation at a time -- strictly speaking, I shouldn't even be doing that much -- and, at the moment, this is it.

Far be it from me to keep Herr Doktor Peterson from other pressing concerns. I think my part of the conversation has reached a satisfying conclusion; it was quite an illuminating journey into the mind of an apologist for the LDS church.

[_Mike Reed]

For Dan Peterson

Been there, done that.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Sorry. I can only carry on one rather intense message board conversation at a time -- strictly speaking, I shouldn't even be doing that much -- and, at the moment, this is it.

If it would be easier, please post the quotes in this thread then, or email them to me privately at mike_g_reed at yahoo dot com. If you don't want to debate the topic now, that is fine by me. I am very busy too. :) Mainly I just want to read your quotes, since I am preparing a paper (on this topic) for SunstoneWest. Thanks.