Change, Sensational-ship & Expression (Comments on Chapter 2 – "Change, Censorship and Suppression")
By Kerry A. Shirts
So there I was after watching a rather interesting and worth-while mystery movie "The Contender" (great cast too!) After it was done I picked up the Book of Mormon and began reading. Read a bit and then decided, well, look into Chapter 2 of the Tanners. What was in store for me now? Well, I read, and read, and read, and got more and more and more interested, and began thinking "hey, this is pretty impressive actually." And then I got to page 12 and it all came tumbling down. Phooey. What a bummer man. I put the Book of Mormon down to read this? Here I was thinking well they put something decent together (though there are problems which I will get to here), and then they let the cat out of the bag like that?! So, come with me on my journey, it’s revealing…. No really!
Well so in the early church dancing was frowned on. So? (see p. 5) Oh! But don’tcha just see? Now it’s O.K., so that proves Mormonism has changed! Forgive my sarcasm, but this is the impression I get which the Tanners want us to have. As if change is such a wicked, evil and dishonorable thing in religion. Once again, I believe we have to look at the assumptions of our arguments. Arguments are only as strong as the assumptions upon which the argument rests. In this case, the assumption appears to me to be that if it can be shown that Mormonism has changed, then it is a false religion, a phony $3 bill. If I am incorrect with seeing this as the assumption, I am sincerely willing to be corrected.
As I understand it, the Tanner’s setup here is that there have been changes, which presupposes incorrect things in early Mormonism so they have to be corrected, and now… now the church is actually suppressing the documents because this will only show that it has actually changed. After all, if God revealed the truth to the early brethren, why does there have to be changes? This is the assumptions the Tanners operate under.
Well and then their idea of the supposed "doctrine" of re-baptism. Come on… this is a stretch in my opinion. For heavens sake it does nothing to change any of the doctrine of baptism itself if re-baptism is done away with. O.K., so they re-baptized in the early church, and especially as they all got moved into the Great Basin of the Great Salt Lake. And now in our day, this is not practiced anymore. So? By now, I do believe, it is rather common knowledge, that in order to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it requires baptism by immersion in water for the remission of sins. Sincerely, last time I checked this was still the doctrine. It appears to me to be the assumption of the Tanners that re-baptism was actually a doctrine. I honestly don’t see it that way. Now, I could be wrong, but even if I am, what difference does it make? The person is baptized, and hence a member, whether ever re-baptized or not again. truly…. I don’t mean to appear to be smart-alec, but for crying out loud, that is the doctrine. I think the Tanners nit pick which is not worth bothering much over. So I won’t.
And then they attempt to show how different church leaders or scholars have contradicted themselves (supposedly) and this just shows to go you (goes to show you) that there is something fishy going on. The Mormons are lying! They say there have been no doctrinal changes, but there have, therefore now Mormons are dishonest. And so it goes.
For instance, polygamy. The only way to heaven. Well now today’s leaders say not so. Hence a doctrinal contradiction and change. But is it? Granted the practice has been suspended, but is this a doctrinal change? I don’t see it that way. What I see is that for now, because the United States would not let Mormons practice polygamy, then it won’t be… for now. And again, I may be wrong. But after all this is my commentary, and I call it as I see it. That’s what it is to me. It honestly is not a big deal either so far as I care. It matters not to me a whit for now, so why worry? Well, because see…. The Tanners are trying to build up an image of Mormonism which is nasty. This Mormonism thing…. Oh! It changes. Well……so? I hate to act as if it is no big deal, but after all, the scriptures say we learn line upon line and precept by precept. God hasn’t revealed everything yet. And just because he reveals a truth does not mean he can’t take it away. He kept it hidden for centuries didn’t he? After all, just whose show is this anyway? God says Thou shalt not kill on one occasion, and yet on another he commands killing, of men, women, children, dogs, cats, mules, even plants! Joshua is commanded to salt the very grounhd of the cities he destroys.
Why does that not bother the Tanners? God contradicts himself, therefore He must be the 3$ bill. That would be the honest extension of the logic which the Tanners display here against Mormonism.
And of course, changes…. Watch those changes! Oh they are in the Articles of Faith, they are made in Parley P. Pratt’s books and writings, they are made in the History of Joseph Smith, etc. And….and mind you, the church puts up with no non-sense as to giving the records out either! By cracky, you want documents? Nothing doing bubba. Hold the phone right there, you ain’t a sullying our documents with your hands. So now the watchword is suppression! Oh those dirty conniving Mormnos are suppressing information! Why this is terrible, just terrible! We have to do something about this! This appears to me to be the Tanners attitude.
Oh and now, of course, the book burning, and the exchanging of old anti-Mormon books for new and good ones, done no less than by the missionaries. Oh and don’t forget those Journal of Discourses, and the Lucy Mack Smith history. And now for the grand prize. Hugh Nibley, Mormon scholar extraordinaire is denied access. Oh the horror! The villany! The outrageous bodaciousness of it all! Oh those wicked and evil Mormon leaders denying even one of their own!
So why my smart-alec-ness about this all? For one very good reason. They admit on page 12 that … now get this will you? Here is their actual statement. This is too incredible to believe they even said this.
Talking about Nibley being denied access to his grandfather’s journal (incidentally, in his taped lectures on the Book of Mormon he explains not only why he was denied…. Initially, but also that he indeed was given access to it) they then say, and I quote, punctuation and all (rolling eyes)
"It is strange indeed that Dr. Nibley would be denied permission to see his own great-grandfather’s journal. ESPECIALLY SINCE HE WAS THE ONE THAT DONATED IT TO THE HISTORIAN’S OFFICE. If Dr. Nibley were an enemy to the church, this would be easier to understand." (p. 12)
Now take a good look at that will you? You tell me what’s wrong with this picture. For the last 5 pages or so, I have had to read complaining about all sorts of suppression and no access allowed to the Tanners for their research into the archives of rare books and manuscripts, and now they admit that enemies are not allowed, and it is understandable to them? Then what gives with all the whining about it in the blasted first place?! Are they serious?! Uh, wait a sec…. Lemme see here……..I don’t see their names on the records of the church. I doubt seriously they pay tithing. I’ve never once seen em in over 25 years defend Joseph Smith. I don’t see em praying about the Book of Mormon or publishing faith-promoting materials now do I? In short, they are perfect candidates for being labeled as enemies of Mormonism, and they complain they can’t get access to the archives! Again, I humbly beg pardon, but DUH! No woops. That was not a nice thing to say. However, just in case the point is not understood…. DUH!
Oh and I like what they say later on even more. They confess they did not have permission to publish someone else’s ancestor’s journal entries, so they brag about going against the family wishes and publish them anyway, and they actually gloat about it. Oh now there is just a fine example to set and follow. Now this here is a really letting your Christian light shine ain’t it. Call me unimpressed.
And then they comment and comment…… and comment…….and comment(!) about poor D. Michael Quinn being so picked on by the leaders because he disagreed with them. Well there is disagreement on what to do with Mormon history, to be sure. Do we want to manage it or tell it? For now the leaders want it managed, and that is their business. In the meantime there is plenty to work with what we have. But the Tanners, true to form, simply must have something to present us with demonstrating how sinister Mormonism really is. There really is no other way to read this chapter, at least for me. So, that is what impressed me. Their complaining in the face of the fact that they already know the outcome, so what’s the point? Their being what I personally would feel was unethical behavior in publishing something they were asked not to due to personal reasons. And their being so rude and caring nothing less than just do whatever serves their own purposes and to hell with what the rest of the world thinks. O.K. granted it wasn't technically illegal, but whatever happened to personal integrity, respect and honor? Whatever happened to loving your neighbor as yourself? Whatever happened to righteousness and doing what is right instead of what gets you ahead? And then they want us to accept their version of Christianity? I just saw it, and I say no thanks…….DUH!