Hmm. Because perhaps Bloggernacle-level “knowledge” of JS is not a saving ordinance or a requirement for exaltation? I consider myself fairly educated (including about Church history), but I’m not going to slog through (for example) every volume from the Journal of Discourses if I want to delve into Brigham Young.

If you want to delve into Smithology, feel free. I just don’t see why you want to spoil *my* priesthood meetings, already chopped to 25 minutes because of the priesthood business and the golf outing announcements, with stuff that might be less than spiritual. The book is fine. Talented priesthood instructors aren’t hamstrung by it.

I do think, however, that it is important to get the logic straight. Pointing to Tom Alexander to somehow off-set what happened to Mike Quinn is a fallacy. That’s not a matter of opinion but the nature of formal logic.

We also need to acknowledge that hundreds of incidents of ecclesiastical interference into research have been documented, most comprehensively in Lavina Anderson’s chronology in Dialogue in 1993.

Anyways, I would love to carry on this conversation but have to recuse myself because this might not be the right forum for this discussion (which is kind of funny, given the question at hand).

Even Bushman was denied access to some materials he wanted when writing RSR. The more important the historical figure or event is to the Church today, the more control is exerted. Joseph Smith is the Church’s most correlated prophet by a long shot.

Again, I’m not in a position to say that this is right or wrong, regardless of how I feel personally about it. But let’s call a spade a spade. Blake Ostler can speculate about Mormon theology all he wants. I happen to love his work. But a) Blake’s work would be far less interesting if he only had access to those teachings of JS officially promulgated and approved by the Church, and b) Blake’s project is very different from the one for which JNS longs.

The church doesn’t seem to have “put the breaks on” Blake Ostler’s work on Mormon theology (or Tom Alexander’s for that matter), nor on Faulring and Marquardt’s research on JS’s journals and revelations.

Sue has been hit by a bus.
Peter did not get hit by a bus.
Therefore busses do not hit people.

That’s a non-sequitur argument. Some people get shut down. The fact that others do not, does not prove that one is free to research Joseph Smith.

But control is a key, driving concern.

The harder you try to be in control, the less you are. No doubt, the Brethren are in a difficult situation but they are not making things easier for themselves and others.