tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post7137116266036259114..comments2024-03-24T03:21:55.744-06:00Comments on Life On Gold Plates: Ronald Barney: The Reliability of Mormon History Produced by the LDS ChurchBHodgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01751807169882645742noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-13566575455468885362009-09-05T18:54:03.779-06:002009-09-05T18:54:03.779-06:00Members of the church still deny he lived polygamy...<i>Members of the church still deny he lived polygamy,</i><br /><br />I don't know of any who deny it. I've met people who didn't know about it but not people who would straight up deny it. Moreover, there are about a thousand things more important than plural marriage for living the gospel <b>today,</b> for that matter.<br /><br /><i> few know about his earliest affair,</i><br /><br />This begs the historical question. For a fellow who calls for more historical accuracy I would hope you would take more care to provide such in your own remarks. But already it seems we are getting to the real reason behind this comment: is it to accuse the church of wrong-doing and to moralize about it? The emotion here is too strong for a simple "historian," so it becomes apparent this may be less about history and more about polemics. Polemics are fine, but it should be acknowledged when one is being polemic. <br /><br /><i>and few understand his "Money Digging" activities and previous pursuit for gold.</i><br /><br />And more people are learning about these interesting things all the time. That's great. I like it. I can see why people wouldn't be eager to discuss it, though, given your evident disdain for it. <br /><br /><i> When the church commits these historical event to accurate print, then we will have real history.</i><br /><br />You are familiar with the Joseph Smith papers project, no? A fellow so interested in history would be, I assume. What you are asking for is being delivered. (Also, there have been many church sources already discussing money digging. BYU Studies has been publishing a few articles on it literally for decades.)<br /><br /><i> Document his 32 living wives he married and how they listened to him denounce polygamy while they sat in the pews listening to their husband (read Todd Compton).</i><br /><br />Yes, I've read Todd Compton, and he has his own agenda to pursue. In terms of history, Todd picks a pony and rides it (though recently it has become more difficult to know what he meant since he hasn't clarified some key points others have made.) Nevertheless, it has been shown how Compton's work is certainly not the type of unbiased history you are apparently calling for (though one can't really fault Compton for that; such history simply doesn't exist at all!) <br /><br />Check it: "Advocacy and Inquiry"<br /><br />http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfSRC/31.2HoneyPeterson.pdf<br /><br />Take care, Brett.BHodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01751807169882645742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-8656669791824286462009-09-05T18:53:58.384-06:002009-09-05T18:53:58.384-06:00"History should not be written to be defensib...<i>"History should not be written to be defensible or but rather to be complete and accurate."</i> <br /><br />Academic history has a long history itself regarding what "truth" can be discovered there. There is simply no such thing as a "complete and accurate" history in the ultimate sense, speaking from the standpoint of philosophy. History making is an art as much as it is a science, perhaps more an art. It is a process of analysis and selection, it is done by different practitioners for different purposes. Brett, it seems to me your conception of what counts as "history" is something of a "common sense" just-so story like view. I love history and have taken a particular interest in the philosophy of history, how it is applied in different circumstances for different purposes. You would be right in saying the Church materials present and select the parts of our history we wish to emphasize, remember, and perhaps reenact. The "history" we get on Sunday is not supposed to be an academic seminar but an opportunity to reflect on the past to give our present and future direction and meaning. One can read all about polygamy, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and various other more difficult aspects of Church history in official Church sources, and in non-official LDS journals. This includes the History of the Church and B.H. Roberts's Comprehensive HC. There is nothing stopping members from accessing these materials; there is no prohibition against learning about the past. In Church the emphasis is on preaching Christ, and preaching the aspects of our past that give direction and meaning. This is not unique to Latter-day Saints, there is a strong historical tradition in this vein. <br /><br />All that being said, I would love to see more elements of academic history become a part of church curriculum. On the positive side of things the Church is again coming into an open period with a new archive and library, the Joseph Smith Papers project, and many other great projects. Those who complain about the things the church is "hiding" can pay some more attention to what is available, they might be surprised at what they missed the first time around. And they might be eager to see what is coming down the pipeline. <br /><br /><i>This means the skeletons come out of the closet. Joseph Smith's history is so incomplete and sanitized by church accounts that the accurate history sounds like a lie.</i><br /><br />Like you I would like to see more of the difficulties fleshed out in a Church setting. Again, this would need to be done in a way so as to encourage members to live the gospel. That is the purpose of church, not to gain a phd in Church history. That's something anyone can do on their own time and dime. But it is also too broad and a mischaracterization to say the Church has not dealt with any difficult aspects of its history; it has.BHodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01751807169882645742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-60296343818285417622009-09-05T18:24:24.898-06:002009-09-05T18:24:24.898-06:00History should not be written to be defensible or ...History should not be written to be defensible or but rather to be complete and accurate. This means the skeletons come out of the closet. Joseph Smith's history is so incomplete and sanitized by church accounts that the accurate history sounds like a lie. Members of the church still deny he lived polygamy, few know about his earliest affair, and few understand his "Money Digging" activities and previous pursuit for gold. When the church commits these historical event to accurate print, then we will have real history. Document his 32 living wives he married and how they listened to him denounce polygamy while they sat in the pews listening to their husband (read Todd Compton).bnaurichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04086930016952995760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-72114195090214238792009-08-07T05:34:48.739-06:002009-08-07T05:34:48.739-06:00Hunter, Mike Parker explained it well.Hunter, Mike Parker explained it well.BHodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01751807169882645742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-26167443305773923792009-08-06T23:10:17.388-06:002009-08-06T23:10:17.388-06:00Hunter,
I submitted that Q&A question. Br. Ba...Hunter,<br /><br />I submitted that Q&A question. Br. Barney's response was a humorous indication that he agreed with the premise of the question: We need to be teaching our history in classroom settings and dealing with difficult and complex issues. Having a Sunday School class on D&C 132 and not talking about plural marriage just avoids the issue.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-7445075248079721182009-08-06T22:23:00.412-06:002009-08-06T22:23:00.412-06:00I really enjoyed reading this! Thanks for making ...I really enjoyed reading this! Thanks for making the effort to transcribe Barney's comments.<br /><br />I recognize this was a rough draft, but can you provide more elaboration on this:<br /><br />"Q: Common criticism is that church manuals avoid difficult issues including plural marriage. Will this change? Are church leaders aware of innoculation in classes.<br /><br />A: Did I write this?"<br /><br />What does that mean?Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-24454230510927747602009-08-06T21:05:51.280-06:002009-08-06T21:05:51.280-06:00Basically I saw the MMM thing as evidence the Chur...Basically I saw the MMM thing as evidence the Church is willing to open those sources, etc. and is noe making them available to other researchers as well. The Turley, et. al. book is probably as close to official as anything will ever be.BHodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01751807169882645742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-13829195186819479072009-08-06T19:04:12.595-06:002009-08-06T19:04:12.595-06:00Did you get the impression that he felt "Mass...Did you get the impression that he felt "Massacre" had implicit approval from "The Church" and was therefore a Church publication?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15223478395708473073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-57654554870481900942009-08-06T18:32:18.602-06:002009-08-06T18:32:18.602-06:00Great write up! Sounds like a very interesting pr...Great write up! Sounds like a very interesting presentation, with a lot to look forward to in the future.cineprohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14256320868634563295noreply@blogger.com