honorentheos wrote:As noted earlier, it's convenient to blame a couple of individuals when seeking to protect the institution on the one hand, and then blame the institution when seeking to protect the behavior of select individuals who are merely acting out their beliefs as provided by the institution.
Well, in this case, the facts are that it was not the "leadership" who excised that account and put it in Joseph Fielding Smith's safe.
honorentheos wrote:I don't believe Dehlin said anything about handling the history the way academic historians might, or that the issue is one of professional ethics.
What other kind of history represents the ideal of dealing forthrightly and expertly with the facts? Academic history sets the standard. It is clear that he has always promoted scholarly history in preference to devotional history.
honorentheos wrote:The comment is that there is a significant amount of influence the Church wields over it's membership that is based on it's claims that inherently tie history to the church's function as a religious institution.
honorentheos wrote:By manipulating it's history, it's asserting it knows better than the layperson in the Church what is best for them and infantilizes them by doing so.
You see, this is where you have it absolutely backward. The history did not start out as the facts that someone deviously twisted. The history started out as the story of the faith. It was constructed as that from the very beginning. Scholarly history tells a different kind of story of the past. But it was never the case that there was a pristine factual narrative. If anything there was a story of the faith that was later challenged and edited according to the influence of scholarly history.
honorentheos wrote:Arguing that this should be permissible because religious history is in a class deserving special protection is in effect agreeing that the church knows better than the lay membership what is in their best interest. That's pretty arrogant.
It is not permissible or impermissible. It is. There is a story of the faith, and it has traditionally been the narrative members were converted by and placed faith in. So there really is nothing "arrogant" about it. It is instead arrogant and ignorant not to recognize and acknowledge the actual relationship between these narratives. The influence of scholarly or academic history will change that story over time.
In the meantime we can talk about how immoral it is that the story is not changing quickly enough to suit us.
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith