Isn't arguing with him a form of inoculation for the other Brethren on the court?

Regardless, I wouldn't have argued with him. Further, sometimes I think my worlds and others are enormously different. I genuinely don't understand how this guy was as old as he was and not aware of Joseph's polygamy. I can give him polyandry as I was older when I became aware of that, but I don't blame the Church for him not being properly inoculated. I think the Church has some culpability as it has clearly fostered a culture of defense and while I don't believe the Church has suppressed information, it certainly isn't exaclty forthright and there is little question that it has historically preferred that certain things not be well promulgated. My world ain't so binary that open sharing instantly equates to suppression. However, I think the blame for Lyndon's ignorance rests upon Lyndon and perhaps his parents as much as the Church. The guy has no interest in independent thought until his 30's or 40's until he is shaken a bit, and then suddenly he then begins to question Nephi's steel bow or Mahonrimoreancumr's glass stones. Part of my "judgemental nature" of him, admittedly spawning from my innate desire to defend the Church, is that he is a little embarassed that he never questioned such historical inconsistencies for so long so he is lashing out and blaming the Church for keeping him ignorant. All those example that he quoted are conclusions he could have come to on his own throughout his life. The Church didn't keep him ignorant about steel or glass during his 1st-4th campaigns as an EQP.

I do think that some inoculation would help, but I am not convinced it would have the impact some of you do. I am a bit of mullah at heart, but I am totally convinced that the only thing that works is spiritual experiences. I don't know what Lyndon felt with his burning in the bosom and tingling experiences, but I do know what I have personally felt. No amount of inoculation will compensate for consistent spiritual experiences, and I think the Church is correct to put more emphasis on having spiritual experiences.

All in all, it is a sad event for many I am sure. I wish Lyndon all the luck in the world.

That is what I was thinking. He thinks krakauer is good literature and then nickelback, we don't want this guy affiliated with the church in any way, shape or form.

That was exactly my thoughts on it.

When you know you are the one recording it and no one else knows, you are going to try to portray yourself as being the mild, meek, gee whiz kind of person.

Krakauers portrayal in the book was stupid at best, his smear campaign was so full of holes it was like reading a book made from swiss cheese.

I know the person who took the court depositions of the parties involved with the Lafferty killings, he still maintains copies of those, and he read the book and laughed at Krak's attempts to fill in the blanks with heresay and innuendo. When you go to such great lengths to fill in your book with half turths and innuendo on court proceedings, well, what does this do to the other parts of your book?

Good one.

But once the church "came out of the closet" regarding polygamy, there was a battle between the LDS and RLDS folks over whether JS sanctioned polygamy. The LDS folks had all of JS's former wives swear out affidavits to prove that JS was in fact the one who instigated polygamy, not BY.

So my question is, has the modern church ever tried to deny this?

I have absolutly no problem with it. The potential was there for him to be unfairly dealt with and he took along the means to verify the facts of the meeting. Very smart in my opinion.

Well, the spirit has born witness to me more than once that the Carpenters are true, particularly when they sing Superstar. But Nickleback? Damn.

If you're referring to his cocaine dealers analogy, then I agree that was bizarre, but his point is legit in my opinion. He first explained how he felt that spiritual witnesses/feelings are found in all things, i.e., not reserved only for things Mormon. Then I think he used the drug dealer example (poor example maybe) to bring up a conflict of interest, so to speak, going on with Moroni's promise -- of course Moroni or Joseph Smith is going to tell you that if you have a good feeling about the BOM that that's God telling you it's true.

C'mon, look at his motivations. Was he dealt with unfairly? Obviously not. Hence no more need for the recording, and certainly no need to publish it, other than to stroke his own ego and get more gigs on the Asshaf "How to Witness to Mormons" speaker circuit. Whatever sells books.

That was the strongest evidence that he was, as UtahDan said, looking for the door.

I read about 80% of "Under the Banner of Heaven." I think the best explanation for it is from Non-Sequitar who explained it as a book about religious extremism through a mormon. I don't think I was offended by it, but I found it disjointed. I never felt like he tied the events and beliefs together very well to support whatever his point was. It seemed more like a freshman history final where a young student just starts throwing information down on paper without any scholarly thought. I guess it highlights to me the difference between research and scholarship. Krakauer had some facts and done some research but I never followed his common thread if you will.

But I did think Deloy Bateman was cool and I would like to invite him to join creekster, BYU71 and myself for a cold one at a Hurricane watering hole if the opportunity presents itself.

What if he has said Radiohead? Would that have been O.K.?

Anything short of Afterglow or MoTab would have been insufficient.

I do think it is an interesting paradox that we learn spiritual truth through good feelings but discourage any number of behaviors not withstanding that they feel good. His crack example was a wee bit over the top though.

I think I have said before that I do have spiritual witnesses but that what I experience physically is not distinguishable from how I feel when the national anthem is played. I hope those feelings are from God. I choose to believe they are. See my signature line.

I agree. I too wish people would inoculate themselves with stronger testimonies.

I agree here. I dispute the claim that the LDS Church "suppresses information." Perhaps some have such a binary world that if the LDS Church isn't having open free days with its archives and publishing pamphlets called "1001 Things You Don't Know about Joseph Smith" they equate that to suppressing information. There is little doubt that the Church would prefer that information not be well promulagated, but I don't buy into the entire lies and deceits. I think most of the folks who write the sunday manuals genuinely believe what they write. I don't believe there are excerpts about polyandry and then the oversight commitee cuts them out and invites the authors into a room with bright spotlights and one chair.

So you saying not opening the archives is not suppressing information? Please explain.

I don't think the Church has any responsibility to share it's archives with anyone who wants in. I personally would prefer they open the archives, but I have never believed how the Chruch treats its archives instantly equates to suppressing information. As the SP said, just about all the information critics of the Church use can be found in books published by Deseret Books.

I agree, but it gives the impression of suppression, which might be worse.

So the church has the right to suppress information (which I agree) therefore it is not suppression of information? that's a bizarre argument.

Come on, don't give me the tripe about Deseret Books. If you really believe that, you have your head in the sand. Of the top 20 "controversial" books about Mormon history that have salience and a strong measure of respect (among non-mullahs), how many were published by Deseret Book?

Published by or sold at DB? I don't know the answer to either and the answer may be the same for both.

I'm with Mike on this. All the information you would ever need to critique the BOM is found on its pages but that isn't the same as Deseret books publishing the critiques themselves.

I would prefer to see us take a "we have nothing to hide" approach. Otherwise, we look like we are hiding something.

How will this new Joseph Smith project affect that perception?

So what is the completely laundry list of requirements the church has to meet in order to prove they aren't hiding anything?

Is all this talk of polyandry referring to Joseph marrying the wives of the brethren he sent on missions?

I meant sold. The point I inneffectively made is that within the hallowed walls of the LDS owned bookstores is all the information that shook up Brother Lyndon. I think there is a difference between control and suppression.

Well I have spoken about that project before and it can do nothing but help. I should clarify that I think source material should be made freely available. I don't think the church is under any obligation to publish or illuminate its critics.

The JS papers will be interesting in and of them selves, but the scholarship that will follow on people having unfettered access to them will be the real watershed.

I'm speaking strictly of documents which probably wasn't clear. My only requirement would be that access be given to them all. Of course the church is not required to this anymore than I need to open the books of my business to the public. On the other hand, my business isn't the one true church.

Deseret Books doesn't sell any works by John Krakauer. Come on, you are arguing with all the intelligence of a Snipe.

The book the guy cited, which the SP said was sold in DB, then the guy says "they no longer sell it." Which if true, supports the argument of suppression.

If I had an important LDS historical document that I wanted scholars to be able to use, I would not give it to BYU or the church.

And that is a very sad thing that many would feel this way. Because it is true. Academic freedom and open access--the church has a POOR tradition of this.

I guess you could call it that but its sort of a soft suppression. To the extent that many members use DB as a barometer of what they should and shouldn't read then I guess thats true. But tease the argument out to its extreme and DB should be caring the works of Gerald and Sandra Tanner?

Customer complaints <> institutional suppression

I agree, but as noah pointed out, the JS papers are a huge counter example of what you are talking about. There is reason to hope that incremental change is occurring.

Another sad thing: one of the things that crossed my mind when I read about this was "what did they suppress and not include?"

Fact is, they have not earned my trust, nor the trust of many others I think when it comes to history and documents.

Time will tell, however.

I can think of several books that DB used to sell that they no longer sell, big deal, unless you are looking for a reason to find some form of "suppression"

Well, one of the Twelve requesting that Leonard Arrington remove a reference from a letter from Brigham Young to his son in 1872 that he had finally beaten his tobacco habit is probably on that list.

I have no issue with the Church on any religious or moral grounds. I just have a difference of opinion that the Church should open its archives. IMO, the Church seeks to control the dissemination of information which many conclude is suppressing the information. With the advent of the internet and all these sources of information it will help many members if some believing LDS Scholars can present the facts with an analysis coming from a faithful believer instead of discovering it through the lens of a critic. Hence Mike's cry for inoculation. If nothing else, it will get Mike to beat a different drum. Perhaps he has some strong ideas on how to save Mormons from destroying themselves over blacks and the priesthood.

This is my battle cry. A fundamental shift from viewing history as neccesarily being faith inspiring. When historical events come to light that don't inspire faith, such as MMM, the Church will claim to build your testimony on the Rock, which I agree with. Yet our children are growing up in an organization willing to spend millions to buy Wyoming wasteland because that is where some emigrants died due to exposure and then send all our young people there to "feel of their spirit" and be inspired by the historical event. Where does the LDS Church stand with respect to historical events? Building faith upon historical events is a pretty slippery slope. But it includes hero worship or Church leaders and a long laundry list of cultural realities that must shift for this change to occur so I really don't beat my war drum much. It would be akin to pissing into the wind. But that doesn't change the inconsistency that abounds.

Might this end up being the fastest thread to 100 posts?

Most of my points have already been said. One thing is for sure, this guy didn't do the rent-a-intellectual movement any favors. From claiming not to know about Joseph's other wives (give me a break) to his "founding fathers' free speech" to his "church suppresses financial information", he comes off whiney and unreasonable.

Dare I say this? It sounds vaguely familiar ...

You should listen to the interview on Mormon stories of the guy who is working on that project. He was asked exactly this. His answer was, essentially, I can't guarantee you that correlation or some other arm of the church might not get involved in the future, but so far what we have access to and what is being included is unfettered. You are right though, the proof of the pudding will be in the tasting.

I bet if I went with you to Deseret Books I could find the information concerning polygamy and the MMM. From my memory of Krakauer's book those were the two events upon which he tried to draw some conclusions about the Lafferty brothers. I didn't say that DB sold all the critical analysis of those events available, the comments was on the suppression of information and I claimed that all the events or teachings of LDS leaders that shook the guy up are available within books sold at Deseret Books.

I'll believe you if you point me to a book that details JS' polyandry that is sold at DB.

My mom bought Tippetts' "Mormon Enigma" from Deseret Books. Does that count?