Should the church open up its archives?

[RobinFinderson]

Indy asks a good question in the Polyandry thread. If the church were to address some of the more challenging aspects of its history, how would it do so when so much of the evidence is circumstantial?

It is no secret that the church has made great efforts to obtain as many records from the early church as possible. It is also no secret that the church has kept much of these records under lock and key. Perhaps there is evidence in some of those records that could help lead to a more clear understanding of the early history of the LDS church.

Poll question: Should the LDS church digitally duplicate all of its historical records and make those records available to the public for historical research?

Assume that any documents containing descriptions of sacred/secret ordinances would only be accessible by historians who are also active members. In other words, the whole archive would be available, but the availability of some texts would be limited, out of respect for the content.

[Indy Coug]

Forgive my ignorance because I haven't really been paying attention, but isn't that what happened with the recent multi-volume Joseph Smith project?

[jay santos]

I'm not up on this. Is there a feeling that the church has a a lot of historical documents that no one has access to, that would provide a lot of value to scholars to make available? Maybe I'm naive but I didn't think this was the case.

[Indy Coug]

I'm not up on this. Is there a feeling that the church has a a lot of historical documents that no one has access to, that would provide a lot of value to scholars to make available? Maybe I'm naive but I didn't think this was the case.

I think that feeling comes from the same dark place that makes people think there is hidden information on the Roswell Incident.

[jay santos]

I think that feeling comes from the same dark place that makes people think there is hidden information on the Roswell Incident.

Then there must be something specific someone's after. Because if there truly was hidden information, then the church could easily make everything availabe except for the hidden information and no one would know.

[RobinFinderson]

Well, it is no secret that the church buys historic documents. Has the church made a public list of its acquisitions? If there isn't a public list, those documents are essentially "secret."

[KillerDog]

Forgive my ignorance because I haven't really been paying attention, but isn't that what happened with the recent multi-volume Joseph Smith project?

Considering that Larry Miller's project is unparalleled in the Church and the first of its kind and limited to Joseph Smith, it is clear that the Church has documents that are not given general access. The Joseph Smith papers release some information into the mainstream. Where are the Brigham Young papers? Where the John Taylor papers? I think there is ample reason to believe that historical information regarding the Church's early time in Utah is kept under lock and key.

[pellegrino]

Robin,

The church does allow certain people access to their archives. For a period of time they did open up their archives (about ten years if I'm not mistaken) and academic works discussing Joseph Smith and folk magic were published. They have since restricted access. I think the notion that within the vaults of the archives there is damning evidence of former church leaders is about as hokey sounding as the rumors going around in Mormon circles claiming that there is definitive proof of the apostasy (missing books from the bible) floating around in the Vatican Archives.

If you (or anyone else) is interested in learning more about church archives and their openness or lack thereof, I suggest you read Leonard Arrington's memoir. I found it quite entertaining, but then I'm biased because Arrington is a tarheel too.

http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Chu.../dp/0252023811

[RobinFinderson]

Robin,

The church does allow certain people access to their archives. For a period of time they did open up their archives (about ten years if I'm not mistaken) and academic works discussing Joseph Smith and folk magic were published. They have since restricted access. I think the notion that within the vaults of the archives there is damning evidence of former church leaders is about as hokey sounding as the rumors going around in Mormon circles claiming that there is definitive proof of the apostasy (missing books from the bible) floating around in the Vatican Archives.

If you (or anyone else) is interested in learning more about church archives and their openness or lack thereof, I suggest you read Leonard Arrington's memoir. I found it quite entertaining, but then I'm biased because Arrington is a tarheel too.

http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Chu.../dp/0252023811

While Arrington's bio would be undoubtedly interesting, I'm afraid it would never make it to the top of my current reading list. Does the bio say why the archives were shut down again? Is their a comprehensive catalog of the church's holdings? Did enough people have access to the archives to seriously grasp the scope of all that was contained?

[RobinFinderson]

For any "no" voters, it would be interesting to hear why you think the archives should remain closed.

[All-American]

To the public? No. To historians, trained in handling rare and valuable old documents and the skills to interpret their significance? Different matter.

[creekster]

I don't think they are closed, per se. I think that as with many archives anyone cacn make a written request for access to materials and those requests are sometimes granted and sometimes denied. I am not sure if this menas they are closed as you are defining it.

[All-American]

So Robin, did you not get pictures of the cameras at temple square?

[RobinFinderson]

To the public? No. To historians, trained in handling rare and valuable old documents and the skills to interpret their significance? Different matter.

This is specifically why I said that the documents would be digitized first, to deal with the problem of having untrained people handle valuable old documents.

As for 'skills to interpret their significance,' what skills are you talking about? There are plenty of amateur historians that are very good at understanding and interpreting the significance of old documents. Why deny them access?

I don't think they are closed, per se. I think that as with many archives anyone cacn make a written request for access to materials and those requests are sometimes granted and sometimes denied. I am not sure if this menas they are closed as you are defining it.

If there isn't a catalog of holdings, how could someone make a written request for something they didn't know about? This is why, without a catalog of holdings, the archive is essentially 'secret.'

[creekster]

If there isn't a catalog of holdings, how could someone make a written request for something they didn't know about? This is why, without a catalog of holdings, the archive is essentially 'secret.'

It is an archives, not a library. How do you know there isnt a catalog? Have you looked?