Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Daniel Peterson]

Mocnarf's current signature reads

Elder Packer. "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."

If the goal is to maximize membership numbers and tithes, he is absolutely correct. There is nothing so counterproductive as the whole truth.

Mocnarf seems to believe that all things that are true are very useful.

Is this the case?

Are all truths equally useful for all things? Are all truths equally important?

It seems that this idea is obviously false.

Knowing the date of the fall of Fort Sumter won't help me to build a bridge. Having mastered karate won't enable me to write better poetry. Speaking fluent Japanese will be at best minimally helpful in Mexico City. Knowing that George Washington had wooden teeth (if, in fact, he did) won't go far toward helping me evaluate his generalship at the Battle of Trenton. Knowing the precise number of protons in my desk probably won't help in any regard at all.

It is true that Erwin Rommel was a leading twentieth-century German general. It is also true that the name Rommel contains six letters, two thirds of which are consonants. Which truth is most important? Which truth is most relevant to the military history of the Second World War?

Surely truths are valuable according to their relevance, and their relevance can only be determined against the standard of a selected goal.

If Fred calls out "I'm having a heart attack! Where are my nitroglycerin tablets????" replying that "Detroit is in Michigan" will be true, but not very useful.

Mocnarf cites Elder Boyd K. Packer's well-known address to the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators' Symposium, which is entitled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect."

Consider the audience: They were CES instructors. (This was not, in other words, a meeting of the Mormon History Association.) What is the goal of CES instructors? It is, plainly, not merely to transmit knowledge. It is not to create little Church historians or hotshot scriptorians. It is not to conduct value-neutral symposia on LDS historiography. (Such things have their place, but that is clearly not CES's mandate. The overwhelming majority of the members of any given seminary or institute class are not and will never be historians.) Instead, the primary purpose is to foster faith and commitment. (Mocnarf's cynical suggestion that the purpose is to maximize membership numbers and Church income is unworthy of serious notice. If he seriously believes such a thing, it is revealing . . . but not about the Church.)

What would be appropriate for a seminary or institute class might very well not be appropriate for an academic treatise or a scholarly seminar on Mormon history or theology, and what is appropriate for an academic treatise or scholarly seminar on Mormon theology or history might not be appropriate for an institute or seminary class. A sermon is not an academic lecture, and an academic lecture is not a sermon. A CES lesson typically falls somewhere between a sermon and an academic lecture.

Moreover, not all topics are very useful even for a value-neutral seminar or an academic treatise: An article on the grand strategy of Mormon settlement in the West (e.g., involving the hope for access to a sea port) would be far more interesting, for instance, than would an article totaling up the number of Lombardy poplars planted on the streets running from east to west in various Mormon settlements of the Iron County Mission in the decade of the 1860s, and comparing that total to the number of Lombardy poplars planted on streets running from north to south.

Of course, Mocnarf's real intent is to highlight the stale charge that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has routinely, and as a matter of deliberate policy, suppressed the presumably lethal truth about its own sordid and embarrassing past.

I deny this.

Even if Mocnarf's implicit interpretation of an old talk by one member of the Twelve were correct, though, Elder Packer's speech would not go very far toward bearing out Mocnarf's insinuation. If anything, as a matter of fact, it could be read in precisely the opposite way: Elder Packer's remarks to Church Educational System employees can more plausibly be read as chiding them for telling too many "not very useful" truths than as congratulating them for suppressing those truths or as celebrating the success of the Church's fiendish plan of suppression and historical revisionism.

[caudicus]

If one is trying to build a complete conceptualization, then every piece of truth would be important.

[Daniel Peterson]

If one is trying to build a complete conceptualization, then every piece of truth would be important.

No, and certainly not equally important.

Say that I'm writing a biography of Napoleon, and I come to 18 June 1815. I decide that I'm "trying to build a complete conceptualization" of his life, and, accordingly, of that day.

I decide to start by discussing his breakfast. (I'll return to his pre-breakfast activities in a few months or so, when I get the time.) At what minute of the morning did it start? How long did it last? What, exactly, was he wearing? What did he eat? Eggs? One, two, or three? Did he eat them with a fork? What kind of fork? Was it wooden or metal? How many tines did the fork have? Did he eat the eggs in fifteen bites, or twelve bites, or twenty bites? Did he eat them with sausage? Did he eat the sausage separately, or in the same mouthful? Did he spill anything? If so, what and where? Was he alone? Who was with him? What did they talk about? Did he yawn during breakfast? If so, how many times? Was he facing north, south, east, west, or somewhere in between?

At this rate, will I ever get to the Battle of Waterloo, which occurred later that same day?

And, if I do, given the thousands of men and animals involved, will I ever, even if I take decades, be able to "build a complete conceptualization" of even a single sixty-second portion of that battle? Not if I think that all truths are equally useful, I won't.

Every historian has to make a decision about which facts are relevant and important, and which are not, and to create for himself a kind of hierarchy of such facts. Otherwise, historical writing and historical understanding are, simply, impossible.

[oMtonic]

Today I did my home teaching, ate some asiago cheese bread from Wal-Mart, and am now listening to Thomas Dolby - I Live In A Suitcase.

I have more enlightening information relative to the ANE if you're up for it--just PM me.

[Avatar4321]

Knowing my shirt is blue wont really help anything other than identify me in a crowd of Utes.

I do have to disagree with one thing Dr. Peterson stated.

Having mastered karate won't enable me to write better poetry.

It actually does.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Are all truths equally useful for all things?

Are all truths equally important?

...

Shaking the sand out of my beach shoes, I could begin to examine each grain.

Yes, this is truly a grain of sand.

And so is this.

And so is this.

And, whilst preoccupied in such a fruitful activity, it occurs to me that I am now bored.

That is also a truth.

It is also true that I'm posting this message in a few seconds.

(I think I've probably made my point by now.)

Uncle "Oh, and it is also true that God's word is communicated by scripture -- if we just look." Dale

[Thinking]

Counting sand, listening to Thomas Dolby, the breakfast menu are all truly irrelevant to a gospel discussion. The question is, when trying to discover whether Joseph Smith was truly a prophet, what things are relevant?

I would say that if it was discovered that he was angry at a neighbor, that would be irrelevant.

The things that are relevant are the doctrines and practices he introduced as the prophet.

[Mudcat]

The Army would teach you to advance crawling on your belly, if you must advance under fire on a relatively flat plane of attack.

I would consider this true.

Should I crawl on my belly to get some popcorn out of the microwave?

All truth is relevant and important for what it was intended.

[Uncle Dale]

...when trying to discover whether Joseph Smith was truly a prophet, what things are relevant?

...

The things that are relevant are the doctrines and practices he introduced as the prophet.

My own answer would be: "A definition of what latter day 'prophetic ministry' would entail

(in light of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and more particularly Apostolic Christianity)."

To be perfectly clear about all of this, I myself am not an advocate of Apostolic Christianity --

but since that was the religion Smith reportedly "restored," I suppose that is the place to go

looking first of all.

In our search we might also touch upon the tradition which led up to Apostolic Christianity --

going all the way back to Miriam, Moses, Deborah, Joshua, Nathan, Elijah, Huldah, etc.

"Is Saul among the prophets?"

(1 Samuel 10:11, 19:24, etc.)

UD

[John Larsen]

It is hard to predict which truths will be useful and when that will happen.

Some great inventions and discoveries have been tossed aside when first discovered, merely because the observers couldn't see them as useful.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Some great inventions and discoveries have been tossed aside when first discovered, merely because the observers couldn't see them as useful.

Like the Book of Mormon, for example.

[John Larsen]

Like the Book of Mormon, for example.

Possibly.

[Buckeye]

Like the Book of Mormon, for example.

Funny you should mention the Book of Mormon. In reading the OP, the first thing that came to my mind was President Benson's statement in the introduction to A Witness and A Warning that "all truths are not of equal value." I couldn't find the quote itself online, but Elder Oaks elaborates on it as follows:

We are not directed to read the Book of Mormon primarily to learn history or geography or politics or ethics or culture or social or educational policy, though it contains valuable teachings on all of those subjects. President Benson has teachings on many of those subjects, but he has stressed one vital idea above all others: "All truths are not of the same value," he said. "The saving truths of salvation are of greatest worth" ("Worthy Fathers, Worthy Sons," Ensign, November 1985, p. 36).

[maklelan]

The Army would teach you to advance crawling on your belly, if you must advance under fire on a relatively flat plane of attack.

I would consider this true.

Should I crawl on my belly to get some popcorn out of the microwave?

What kind of popcorn is it, and is your microwave up on a counter? Let's get the whole truth here.

[kawikadave]

Funny you should mention the Book of Mormon. In reading the OP, the first thing that came to my mind was President Benson's statement in the introduction to A Witness and A Warning that "all truths are not of equal value." I couldn't find the quote itself online, but Elder Oaks elaborates on it as follows:

Here's the quote:

Chapter 2 "A New Witness for Christ" in Witness and a Warning: A Modern Day Prophet Testifies of the Book of Mormon

Now the spirit, as well as the body, is in need of constant nourishment. Yesterday's meal is not enough to sustain today's needs. So also an infrequent reading of "the most correct of any book on earth," as Joseph Smith called it, is not enough.

Not all truths are of equal value, nor are all scriptures of the same worth. What better way to nourish the spirit than to frequently feast from the book which the Prophet Joseph said would get a man "nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book"?

The Book of Mormon is to be "a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel," said the Lord. ("2 Ne. 29:22 Nephi 29:2.) It is a standard we should heed and follow.

[bethabara]

"Mocnarf cites Elder Boyd K. Packer's well-known address to the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators' Symposium, which is entitled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect."

Consider the audience: They were CES instructors. (This was not, in other words, a meeting of the Mormon History Association.) What is the goal of CES instructors? It is, plainly, not merely to transmit knowledge. It is not to create little Church historians or hotshot scriptorians. It is not to conduct value-neutral symposia on LDS historiography. (Such things have their place, but that is clearly not CES's mandate. The overwhelming majority of the members of any given seminary or institute class are not and will never be historians.) Instead, the primary purpose is to foster faith and commitment. (Mocnarf's cynical suggestion that the purpose is to maximize membership numbers and Church income is unworthy of serious notice. If he seriously believes such a thing, it is revealing . . . but not about the Church.)"

I think a simpler, and non-religious, example might be a Calculus teacher who spent much of his class time lecturing on early/mid twentieth century political systems in Europe. The purpose of the class is clear. The dedication of time for that purpose equally clear. Any diversion from calculus, regardless of the truth or value of the material, is at odds with the common purpose of learning calculus during this hour each day. It is at odds with the will of those involved in the decision to conduct a calculus class: students, parents, administrators, taxpayers, etc.

But that wouldn't keep an arrogant teacher form thinking that he/she knows better than all of those other stakeholders who have allocated capital to the teaching of calculus.

[kawikadave]

It's all about viewpoint - what Hyrum Smith, the Franklin Planner guy - called "belief windows."

If you believe Joseph Smith was a lecherous fraud, then your most important "truths" will revolve around how many women he "married" and/or whether the witnesses hallucinated or were fooled by tin plates. That will be all important and you'll believe the church should devote all its resources to pursuing and broadcasting the "truths" of these matters, as far as they can be discovered.

Didn't we just have a recent poster - Billy, I think it was - who said he left the church because of "blood atonement"? Does that make any sense at all? I guess it did to Billy, as "blood atonement" became the most important "truth" for him.

If you're a believing member, then the most important truths will revolve around how the scriptures and revelations brought forward by Joseph Smith will help you come closer to God. Everything else will be secondary or less. That's where CES instructors should certainly focus.

[Buckeye]

Here's the quote:

Thank you.

[jwhitlock]

It's all about viewpoint - what Hyrum Smith, the Franklin Planner guy - called "belief windows."

If you believe Joseph Smith was a lecherous fraud, then your most important "truths" will revolve around how many women he "married" and/or whether the witnesses hallucinated or were fooled by tin plates. That will be all important and you'll believe the church should devote all its resources to pursuing and broadcasting the "truths" of these matters, as far as they can be discovered.

Didn't we just have a recent poster - Billy, I think it was - who said he left the church because of "blood atonement"? Does that make any sense at all? I guess it did to Billy, as "blood atonement" became the most important "truth" for him.

If you're a believing member, then the most important truths will revolve around how the scriptures and revelations brought forward by Joseph Smith will help you come closer to God. Everything else will be secondary or less. That's where CES instructors should certainly focus.

Excellent point.

The primary truth that I, as a Mormon, hold to is that Jesus Christ is my Savior - and that this Church, as His Church, will provide certain things that are necessary in order for me to come back to Him.

That's what missionaries and CES teachers are supposed to teach as THE foundational truth. All other facts are built upon this foundational truth; the history of individuals in this Church and their experiences does not and cannot change this foundational truth, which is learned through the Spirit when taught properly.

If someone decides that this foundational truth is not important to them, or rejects it for whatever reason, then (as you posted) some other "truth" will become foundational for them - whether it is factual or not. Some may decide that Mormons are decent people, and that what is taught in the Church is good, and respect them as a people - while not joining the Church. Others may decide that Joseph Smith was a _____(fill in the blank with something negative) because of what they read about polygamy, etc. and that becomes their foundational "truth" in perceiving the Mormons. Still others may hate Brigham Young and decide that Brigham's perceived character is their foundational "truth" about Mormonism.

The rejection of the real foundation of Jesus Christ as the Head of this Church is, in effect, putting the cart before the horse. Any claim that the "truth" of Mormonism must be understood by studying its history is going to miss the mark by a wide margin.

[Paul Ray]

Mocnarf's current signature reads

Mocnarf seems to believe that all things that are true are very useful.

Is this the case?

Are all truths equally useful for all things? Are all truths equally important?

It seems that this idea is obviously false.

If it seems that this idea is obviously false, why did you even think about bringing this idea up?

Possibly because what is obvious to some isn't obvious to some others, and you think you can help some others see what you think is obvious?

Maybe?

It seems that this idea is an obvious attempt to help some others see what you think is obvious, and I wonder how you think you can help someone who doesn't see what you think is obvious to see what you think is obvious.

That sounds like an obvious attempt at futitily to me.

... but, alas, I feel I often try to do the same thing.

[staccato]

If someone decides that this foundational truth is not important to them, or rejects it for whatever reason, then (as you posted) some other "truth" will become foundational for them - whether it is factual or not.

As long as you understand this goes both ways. There may be some who have determined that your foundational "truth" is not factual and has no basis for being a foundational truth at all.

As to the OP, sure. I think there are some truths that are more useful than others. The truth that I am twenty pounds overweight surely does not mean much compared to the overall truth that millions of our human race are suffering from starvation and disease. Some truths are simply more impacting than others.

[urroner]

Many years ago, I was listening to a Dr. Phil type person on the radio and she was asked by a young man if he should have his son's DNA tested because he thought the boy might not be his biological son. She asked him if he truly loved the boy and the young man said yes with all his heart. She then asked him what difference it would make to him if he found out that the boy wasn't his biological son. He said none at all, because he would be his father in any case.

She then made an interesting point. She said, "Suppose you found out through the test that he wasn't your biological son and you raised him as you son nonetheless. You'd be a great father, but now suppose in the midst of an argument you are having with him when he is a teenager and it just slips out of your mouth that he isn't your biological son, what do you think that bit of information will do to the young man?"

Not all truths are important and some truth can be very damaging.

I have to decide what truths are important to my salvation and will lead me to greater and more important truths. I also have to decides what truths are not as important or even not important at all.

Does one have to know all the actions of Joseph Smith to know if the Church is true or not? If so, does one have to know all the actions of writers of the Bible to know if the books they wrote are true or not?

How about all the truths about Christ, are they all important? Do we have to know whether or not he ever suffered from the flu or diarrhea? Do we have to know how often he took a bath or if he ever had an evil thought cross his mind and if he did, what was that thought?

So, when it comes to my salvation, I have to decide what is and what isn't important. If God told me that the the CofJCofLDS has His authority and that it is the restored church, should I try to dig up as many skeletons out of closets of its leaders to prove Him wrong.

In a marriage, does one have to know all the truths about ones spouse in order for it to be a great marriage? I don't think so.

[jwhitlock]

As long as you understand this goes both ways. There may be some who have determined that your foundational "truth" is not factual and has no basis for being a foundational truth at all.

Actually, I have never found anyone who has been able to successfully articulate a compelling reason to me why the foundational truth I understand is wrong.

To do so, they would have to convince me that it is more important to put aside what I have learned from the Spirit and instead rely on the intellectual persuasions of man. And I understand far too well that the persuasions of men are fickle, at best.

Those who do not understand the foundational importance of understanding by the Spirit as the driving force of Mormonism are never, ever going to understand where faithful members of the Church are coming from.

[jwhitlock]

So, when it comes to my salvation, I have to decide what is and what isn't important. If God told me that the the CofJCofLDS has His authority and that it is the restored church, should I try to dig up as many skeletons out of closets of its leaders to prove Him wrong.

I actually think that there are quite a few people who do that. It is a way of trying to rationalize a way out of doing what God is trying to lead them to do - or believe. If you can dig up enough dirt, then deep down inside, you might believe that you can stand before God one day and claim that there was too much "baggage" for you to believe that this was His Church - so you'll be off the hook and can do what you really want to do.

Unfortunately, such subconscious rationalization isn't going to work in the end.

[kawikadave]

Not all truths are important and some truth can be very damaging.

In a marriage, does one have to know all the truths about ones spouse in order for it to be a great marriage? I don't think so.

The destructive and voyeuristic show "The Moment of Truth" is a perfect example of this. Things that we think and do might be the truth, but they can be anything but healthy when shared.

For example, some recent questions from the show:

"Do you think you're a better mother to your children than your mother was to you?"

"Do you think that your in-laws have been better parents to you than your own?"

"Have you ever fantasized about having sex with one of your co-workers?"

"Did you invite anyone to your wedding that you had previously had sexual relations with?"

The answers to these questions will likely do nothing but destroy family relationships, yet they are all "the truth."