Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[LifeOnaPlate]

And I understand that some people do find that on their own, but their are plenty of people who are posting all over the place who have had the same experience that I did. I've already said this, my own husband, his siblings. They didn't know this stuff and grew up in an incredibly active family. So I do acknowledge that some people happen upon it, or its a result of their inquisitveness, or the books in their parent's home, etc, etc.

The problem for me is that you are holding the same standard for yourself to me. Just because I didn't find it on my own doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked to know about it and once aware of it I would have then started studying it.

Be the change you wish to see in the world.

[Tchild2]

Since the papyri was admitted to have nothing to do with the English Book of Abraham (save Facs #1), I'm not sure why the Church would have continued to push the issue. To argue this was hidden, though, is just silly.

Greg

So why doesn't the church say that the Paypri has "nothing to do with the English book of Abraham"? Wouldn't that be part of the disclosure to reveal to investigators and members? While the leadership is at it, why not notify all wards that the BoA is not a direct translation and that it is something else. If nothing else, it would save a lot of apologetic wrangling on these boards.

[Tchild2]

Free Agent:

The LDS posters on this board continue to note that much of this is available and very accessible, even from Church sources such as the Ensign, and yet we continue to have people come and complain that they couldn't find things in their research.

One gets the impression that either their research methods are shockingly sloppy, or that what they are saying in effect is that the Church should have been required to wave all of this stuff under their nose, individually, based on individual preferences.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous Jwhitlock and apparently you aren't listening very well. This is a common claim made by ex or disgruntled members. Just because you were so "enlightened" to discover all the pertinent facts to your satisfaction doesn't mean that others had the same venues for discovery. In my day, there was no internet to do research. I personally only read church authors and had no mechanism to discover the polemics. No one around me knew either, or at least never talked about it. It wasn't part of my conscious awareness.

I was told that the BoA was a direct translation just like the BoM, yet we have Greg Smith saying otherwise on this very thread. So why did every last person in all my wards believe that the BoA was a direct translation? Why is everyone getting it so wrong for so long if the information is just out there flowing like bountiful river?

What is absolutely ridiculous is for members to feign ignorance that a strong cultural influence does not exist within the church. It is so utterly prevelant that it is absolutely ridiculous for you to deny it. Yet, here you are doing it. That is and was the problem for many persons; there exists and existed a strong cultural influence that sways investigation of the truth claims into a very narrow faith promoting direction. That you could see beyond it is fabulous JWhitlock. That others were more trusting, naive and impressionable than you is obviously a recognition of your more advanced cynical and untrusting nature. Congratulations!

[William Schryver]

I don't intend to undertake a threadjack here, but I felt compelled to respond to Tchild2's comments:

Tchild2:

So why doesn't the church say that the Paypri has "nothing to do with the English book of Abraham"?

That is exactly what the IE article (posted above by Greg) does. The church acknowledges that the fragments of papyri it possesses have no apparent connection to the Book of Abraham.

While the leadership is at it, why not notify all wards that the BoA is not a direct translation and that it is something else.

How do you know the Book of Abraham is not a â??direct translationâ? of its source documents? No one knows that.

You see, this is the recurring problem that we see whenever the discussion turns to the Book of Abraham. Critics argue that the fragments of papyri discovered in 1967 are, indisputably, the â??source documentsâ? for Joseph Smithâ??s Book of Abraham. But that is, in fact, the unresolved debate that continues to this day. And most critics who attempt to speak to this topic are quite simply ignorant of the issues.

No one knows what the â??source documentsâ? are for the Book of Abraham.

[jwhitlock]

Here's what you said earlier in the thread:

I think the church and every church and religion has an obligation to present the entirety of its history and doctrine from the outset, and let people decide if they want to commit the rest of their lives to it. I know it's not realistic, and perhaps I think that obligation is owed because I wish I had been told from the start.

I think the church has an affirmative duty to inform its members and investigators of the dispute, especially impressionable 19 year olds who commit two years to preaching it.

I'm a lawyer. I litigate commercial torts. There's no question in my mind that I could prove the church (and my parents, for that matter) guilty of fraud, at least in my own experience, how I was raised. I was given certain information that the vast majority of objective observers would find false, the church wanted me to rely on the information and I did, to my detriment, etc... etc...

And here's the revisionist claim you make.

I never said the church has a duty to give equal time or any forum to those who disagree with it. And I never said it's fraud for the church not to teach every bit of history and doctrine. I only said that when the church has or discovers information that it knows or should know might be material for some deciding whether to be a Mormon, it should have a duty to disclose that information. In the example I gave, I think the church had an obligation to make me aware of the discovery of the papyrus, because obviously that could affect whether I believe the Pearl of Great Price is scripture.

You did indeed claim that the Church was guilty of fraud because it didn't tell you absolutely everything.

What's next - are you going to claim you never said it's too bad that the first amendment protects the practice of religion?

And I do think the Abraham/papyrus issue by itself is more conclusive proof of the falsity of Smith as a prophet than the L. Ron Hubbard letter I offered would contravene Scientology.

Absolutely twisted and absurd.

I am aware that the church did not attempt to hide the discovery of the papyrus. I suspect the church didn't have the ability to hide it, or it would have tried, a la Hoffman. But in 19 years of full activity in the church and 3 weeks at the MTC and at least some time in the mission field, I never heard a thing about it.

And as to the response some might give that the church doesn't have an obligation to put the Ensign article right in front of my face, let's just say I disagree. The duty to disclose (under the law, if the church was bound by it) obligates one to impart information, not to publish information in a magazine and hope I happen to get my hands on it.

And so now the Church is fraudulent not only because it didn't teach the entirety and history of its doctrine to you, but the things it did teach, it didn't wave under your nose and make you, individually, aware of what was being published in its official monthly magazine.

This gets more and more absurd by the post.

And Life On A Plate, this thread isn't really about whether the Book of Abraham is scripture. The various arguments for and against, I'm sure, have been argued to death on these boards, and rehashing it would serve no purpose.

Then why did you bring it up - especially since you're only presenting one limited side of the argument, and ignoring the very compelling evidence to the contrary?

I don't want to get into Commercial Torts 101, but there's more to it than intentionally omitting a material fact, as I already wrote twice. One has to rely on the omission, the actor must have acted on that reliance, that action must be to his detriment, etc... I wouldn't point it out, but I think you're the third person that for whatever reason either stopped reading my post halfway through, or didn't understand what seemed to me to be pretty plain English.

I've quoted the absolutely absurd allegations and statements you're making, and you continue to ignore responses, claim no one answers your questions, and then modify your stances, claiming you never made the initial absurd allegations.

What is apparent is that you left the Church and based your departure on false information from anti-Mormons that you have believed. You've bought into their methodology and characterization of the Church hook, line, and sinker, and when those of us with clearer perspective point out the flaws in your house of cards, you have no cogent response.

As for "I wouldn't point it out", you did it anyway. What was your purpose? Especially since what you said has been clear and responded to in detail - though you continue to ignore those responses.

If you really think what I've written has anything to do with the first amendment rights of individual Mormons, you ought to read it over again. My point is that the first amendment (through the establishment clause) gives churches and pastors the absolute right to sell whatever doctrine or promise they wish, so long as they do so in the context of religious faith.

And here you go again. Do you think that we don't go back and review what you have said on this thread? You whined about the fact that your family and others hadn't "taught" you properly. You did so in the context of claiming fraud. And you bemoaned the fact that the first amendment protects the expression of religion. What kinds of twisting are you trying to do now?

And on the bolded portion, churches in fact have no duty under the law to inform their adherents as to information that some members may consider material to the church's claims. It's breaching that duty that gets corporations in trouble, and it's a duty I wish was applied to religions.

And so here again, after claiming that you never called it fraud, that you didn't talk about individual first amendment rights, you continue to make the same absurd, unrealistic claims that the Church should have to disclose absolutely everything that anyone considers material or it is committing fraud. And you continue to whine about the fact that the law protects the expression of belief.

I assume nobody's willing to answer the $100 Miracle Spring Water hypothetical, because either you defend the pastor's right to swindle the gullible, or you admit that there are certain matters of religious faith that courts should be able to adjudicate.

And you, of course, are going to continue to ignore answers that have been given.

In fact, clear responses have been given to the "points" you continue to make - over and over again - on this thread. You simply continue to ignore evidence that is contrary to your perspective.

What's clear, RDL, is that you're not going to find justification for leaving the Church here. What's equally clear is that the justifications and rationalizations you set up for your departure are so unrealistic and flimsy as to leave any reasonable person gaping in disbelief.

I suggest you go find solace in some of Ed Decker's writings. It would appear that Ed has the "reality" that you crave in order to justify your bad decision to discard the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Scott Lloyd]

Free Agent:

The LDS posters on this board continue to note that much of this is available and very accessible, even from Church sources such as the Ensign, and yet we continue to have people come and complain that they couldn't find things in their research.

One gets the impression that either their research methods are shockingly sloppy, or that what they are saying in effect is that the Church should have been required to wave all of this stuff under their nose, individually, based on individual preferences.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

I see in all this a perpetuation of the spoon-fed mentality. One is thrown into a state of apostasy because he/she earlier did not have the gumption to "seek learning" beyond the true but very basic elements that are presented in Church classes/missionary lessons, etc. Once one abandons his/her faith, one continues to require spoon feeding, this time from the abominable and pervasive anti-Mormon catalog of distortions, slanted presentation of facts and caricature. Alas, the spoon-fed mentality precludes the person from seriously looking at the other side, this time to consider rebuttals to the anti-Mormon material.

Spoon feeding: It can be hazardous to your intellectual health!

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't intend to undertake a threadjack here, but I felt compelled to respond to Tchild2's comments:

Tchild2:

That is exactly what the IE article (posted above by Greg) does. The church acknowledges that the fragments of papyri it possesses have no apparent connection to the Book of Abraham.

How do you know the Book of Abraham is not a â??direct translationâ? of its source documents? No one knows that.

You see, this is the recurring problem that we see whenever the discussion turns to the Book of Abraham. Critics argue that the fragments of papyri discovered in 1967 are, indisputably, the â??source documentsâ? for Joseph Smithâ??s Book of Abraham. But that is, in fact, the unresolved debate that continues to this day. And most critics who attempt to speak to this topic are quite simply ignorant of the issues.

No one knows what the â??source documentsâ? are for the Book of Abraham.

A very good illustration of what I just mentioned in my post. Those who have rejected the Church over the Book of Abraham issue are not even schooled enough in the subject to recognize what Will has said here, that "no one knows what the 'source documents' are for the Book of Abraham."

They still content themselves with being spoon-fed, this time from anti-Mormon sources.

[Tchild2]

I see in all this a perpetuation of the spoon-fed mentality. One is thrown into a state of apostasy because he/she earlier did not have the gumption to "seek learning" beyond the true but very basic elements that are presented in Church classes/missionary lessons, etc. Once one abandons his/her faith, one continues to require spoon feeding, this time from the abominable and pervasive anti-Mormon catalog of distortions, slanted presentation of facts and caricature. Alas, the spoon-fed mentality precludes the person from seriously looking at the other side, this time to consider rebuttals to the anti-Mormon material.

Spoon feeding: It can be hazardous to your intellectual health!

Nonsense Scott, utter nonsense. "spoon fed" is exactly what a child forced to be when you are born and raised in the church. For the record, I left the church for reasons other than the polemics and only after, without the distortions of hundreds of mostly ignorant and conflicting ward member's opinions, was able to see the positions from a more neutral standpoint. It is really amazing the clarity when you have some distance from the cultural hive mindset.

That isn't to say that LDS church lacks reasonable rationales or that it is made false, only that the ability to make an informed decision is lacking the person.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm still waiting for RDL to substantiate his cast off remark about the Church and the Hoffman incident.

[jwhitlock]

It is not ridiculous Jwhitlock and apparently you aren't listening very well. This is a common claim made by ex or disgruntled members. Just because you were so "enlightened" to discover all the pertinent facts to your satisfaction doesn't mean that others had the same venues for discovery. In my day, there was no internet to do research. I personally only read church authors and had no mechanism to discover the polemics. No one around me knew either, or at least never talked about it. It wasn't part of my conscious awareness.

I'm reading very well, thank you, and I understand very well the "points" that dissidents here on this thread are trying to make.

What you miss is the fact that "disgruntled" members who leave the Church have done so because they have been deceived by anti-Mormon literature that comes to false conclusions.

What you miss also is the fact that before the Internet, there were bulletin boards. And before bulletin boards, there were bookstores and newsletters and other ways to pass information around. The fact that you "claim" to have not had any other mechanism is simple proof that your personal research methods were rather shallow.

I was told that the BoA was a direct translation just like the BoM, yet we have Greg Smith saying otherwise on this very thread. So why did every last person in all my wards believe that the BoA was a direct translation? Why is everyone getting it so wrong for so long if the information is just out there flowing like bountiful river?

Don't mischaracterize what Greg Smith was saying. The point is that the Book of Abraham was not translated from the fragments that we have - not that the BofA was not translated from what Joseph Smith had. William Schryver reiterated that very specific point yet again - and its a point that the critics here have taken pains to ignore, instead preferring to claim that the fragments we have are the whole of it.

It just ain't so. You (and others on this thread) need to get a better handle on the discussion of the BofA before you come to conclusions like this based on shallow reasoning.

What is absolutely ridiculous is for members to feign ignorance that a strong cultural influence does not exist within the church. It is so utterly prevelant that it is absolutely ridiculous for you to deny it.

Who on earth ever said that cultural influence didn't exist? What kind of a straw man is this??

Yet, here you are doing it.

Doing what? Denying cultural influence? Where?

That is and was the problem for many persons; there exists and existed a strong cultural influence that sways investigation of the truth claims into a very narrow faith promoting direction. That you could see beyond it is fabulous JWhitlock. That others were more trusting, naive and impressionable than you is obviously a recognition of your more advanced cynical and untrusting nature. Congratulations!

No, the problem for such people is that they want to find a rationalization for leaving the Church - and it doesn't matter whether its factual, or reasonable, or right. Anything that they can whine about will do.

I find it interesting that these people claim that they were trusting and naive and "bought" into the Church's "deceptive, filtered" view of things. Then, they buy into Ed Decker style anti-Mormonism and claim to be enlightened and intelligent and to understand how things really are.

Then they make claims that first amendment rights of religious belief shouldn't be available to Mormons, the Church should teach absolutely everything in its history and doctrine to pre-missionaries and investigators, the Church has agendas to "hide" history from its members, it wasn't enough for the Church to publish about the Book of Abraham in the Ensign, but instead should have waved it under everyone's nose, and so on and so on and so on.

Sounds like there really hasn't been much change in character from their Mormon days. They've simply chosen to be swayed by something else. Too bad that the "something else" is a house of cards.

I find very few ex-Mormons making anything close to reasonable claims about their experiences in the Church. In this thread, the claims being made about what the Church should have been required to do in teaching members have been ludicrous. The credibility of those making such claims has been sorely tested.

[jwhitlock]

I'm still waiting for RDL to substantiate his cast off remark about the Church and the Hoffman incident.

If the unfolding trail of rationalization is any guide, my guess is that you will either have originally misunderstood the remark, or the remark was never really made in the first place.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That isn't to say that LDS church lacks reasonable rationales or that it is made false, only that the ability to make an informed decision is lacking the person.

I don't follow.

[jwhitlock]

It is really amazing the clarity when you have some distance from the cultural hive mindset.

And yet the "clarity" you claim to have has been demonstrated by your defense of the absurd assertions being made on this thread.

The justification being made on this thread for leaving the Church because of not being "taught" everything they should have been taught - including anti-Mormon viewpoints - is simply untenable. You, however, in your "clarity" seem to have bought fully into that viewpoint.

It would appear that you have simply substituted one cultural mindset for another. That new culture doesn't appear to be exhibiting much in the way of the clarity you claim to have.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm still waiting for RDL to substantiate his cast off remark about the Church and the Hoffman incident.

It simply falls into the pattern of a priori assertion that has been so pervasive among the complainers in this thread. We are supposed to accept without substantiation, for example, that the Church has defrauded its members on the Book of Abraham issue. Or that people raised in the Church lack "the ability to make an informed decision."

[mnn727]

In my day, there was no internet to do research.

There was no internet when I did my research, we had the precurser to the internet, known as public libraries - though God forbid that someone should have to enter one of those dens of iniquity and peruse the card catalog under the M's (for Mormon).

If something you found was bothering you and you didn't do the research to try to find the answer, then stop blaming other people for your own shortfallings.

[e=mc2]

RDL:

But in 19 years of full activity in the church and 3 weeks at the MTC and at least some time in the mission field, I never heard a thing about it.

Kerry:

Funny....... when I first got wind of all this, I LITERALLY drove myself several HUNDREDS of miles to find the info for myself. Why didn't you do that? I ***WANTED*** to know, enough so that I did what it took to know. Waiting for someone else to inform us and give us the sources is silly. If it is to be, it is up to me. The church is not liable for your own lack of efforts RDL. You pretend you are a victim of misinformation. You are a victim of your own lack of desire to find out.

[selek]

RDL:

You pretend you are a victim of misinformation. You are a victim of your own lack of desire to find out.

On the contrary- RDL is not a victim- either of ignorance or of a lack of motivation- he chose to believe the disinformation and propoganda. The rest is handwaving in a desperate attempt to justify himself.

It's not that he didn't know, wasn't told, or failed to find out. He chose to embrace the apostate stance- and refuses to consider the apologetics because they challenge his new worldview.

His arrogant refusal to address any of the counter points being made are ample evidence that he isn't interested in expanding his horizons. He merely wishes to seel tickets to his particular vista.

Such is the dirty little secret behind his diabtribes.

[mnn727]

I was told that the BoA was a direct translation just like the BoM, yet we have Greg Smith saying otherwise on this very thread. So why did every last person in all my wards believe that the BoA was a direct translation?

Every last person in every one of your wards? wow you asked everyone one of them in multiple wards! amzing!

Frankly I don't know of anyone who thinks that, but I suppose there are some who do, I just haven't taken an all emcompassing survey like you apparently have. Everyone whom I have talked to about it - admitedly only a handful or two, ALL know it was not a direct translation from the 1960's pappri. And in fact we don't have the original source material

[Free Agent]

I see in all this a perpetuation of the spoon-fed mentality. One is thrown into a state of apostasy because he/she earlier did not have the gumption to "seek learning" beyond the true but very basic elements that are presented in Church classes/missionary lessons, etc. Once one abandons his/her faith, one continues to require spoon feeding, this time from the abominable and pervasive anti-Mormon catalog of distortions, slanted presentation of facts and caricature. Alas, the spoon-fed mentality precludes the person from seriously looking at the other side, this time to consider rebuttals to the anti-Mormon material.

Spoon feeding: It can be hazardous to your intellectual health!

So I was being spoon fed when I spent my time seeking out of good books? Miracle of Forgiveness, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, back issues of New Eras that my husband's grandmother was so kind to give me and on and on. I don't argue that people have presented an article here, a book there that could have let me know I needed to perhaps seek further learning on the history topic, but like TChild stated earlier, we didn't happen upon it. It wasn't part of our world.

I believe there are a lot of members who may be spoon fed (though I don't like that term) but I certainly wasn't one of them.

[Tchild2]

And yet the "clarity" you claim to have has been demonstrated by your defense of the absurd assertions being made on this thread.

Absurd? Name one "absurd" claim.

The justification being made on this thread for leaving the Church because of not being "taught" everything they should have been taught - including anti-Mormon viewpoints - is simply untenable. You, however, in your "clarity" seem to have bought fully into that viewpoint.

I left because church membership made me profoundly unhappy. It was only in retrospect, and without the assumption that the church was "true" that I could weigh the evidences of Mormonism to my own satisfaction.

It would appear that you have simply substituted one cultural mindset for another. That new culture doesn't appear to be exhibiting much in the way of the clarity you claim to have.

Now who is being absurd? I have just come to realize that for me, the church is not what it claims to be, has no special unique communication with God and has no unique, but necessary path to heaven. In fact, you have made the exact same determination for all the competing religions that you do not believe are "true". Is that really so absurd?

[William Schryver]

Scott:

It simply falls into the pattern of a priori assertion that has been so pervasive among the complainers in this thread. We are supposed to accept without substantiation, for example, that the Church has defrauded its members on the Book of Abraham issue. Or that people raised in the Church lack "the ability to make an informed decision."

It even goes beyond a priori assumptions. Critics are so convinced that their interpretation of â??the factsâ? is correct that there can only be a small set of explanations for why anyone else could be aware of the same â??factsâ? and yet conclude something different. Among these explanations are:

1. Informed believers are dishonest, and have learned to accommodate a high degree of cognitive dissonance.

2. Informed believers are insane, and are incapable of even perceiving their cognitive dissonance.

The assumption that any informed person should see things the way they see them is at the root of statements like this one from a different thread on the board:

Testimony, knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt, with every fiber of ones being, a commodity prized by LDS true believers, is to me, one of the scariest, most insidious aspects of Mormon epistemology. It is akin to true belief in other systems that leads to suicide bombings and such.

[mnn727]

Nonsense Scott, utter nonsense. "spoon fed" is exactly what a child forced to be when you are born and raised in the church.

When you are a child, I agree, but when you learn the basics of honest research -- long about 5th or 6th grade = thats a different story. I left the church of my childhood at age 17 due to the difference I saw between the Bible and the creeds they taught. Apparently, according you I must be a mental giant far beyond the capabilities of normal mortal men. <shaking head>

[Tchild2]

There was no internet when I did my research, we had the precurser to the internet, known as public libraries - though God forbid that someone should have to enter one of those dens of iniquity and peruse the card catalog under the M's (for Mormon).

If something you found was bothering you and you didn't do the research to try to find the answer, then stop blaming other people for your own shortfallings.

I blame the cultural forces of the church that make assumptions of "I know the church is true" and has them repeated every sunday of the month by sister Jones and each and every one of here seven children age 3-16. MNN - can a three year old "know" that the church is true? What about a six year old? Is this not a cultural conditioning?

What bothers me is the arrogance of posters here who demand that we have the exact same cultural and religious experience as they did. What irks me is that the church's lack of proofs is somehow our problem. It isn't, it is the church's problem. If there are any "shortfalls", it is the church's foundational claims that drive people away more than attract them in. God indeed works in mysterious ways eh?

[Free Agent]

RDL:

Kerry:

Funny....... when I first got wind of all this, I LITERALLY drove myself several HUNDREDS of miles to find the info for myself. Why didn't you do that? I ***WANTED*** to know, enough so that I did what it took to know. Waiting for someone else to inform us and give us the sources is silly. If it is to be, it is up to me. The church is not liable for your own lack of efforts RDL. You pretend you are a victim of misinformation. You are a victim of your own lack of desire to find out.

I know you are responding to RDL here, but you make a great point by saying that "you got wind of something". The fact that we didn't does not mean we weren't studying, or not intuitive. It just means circumstances didn't present the kind of facts that set off an alarm bell for you. What we are saying is that we never had the inkling that there was something that needed to be found. If I'd gotten wind of something I too would have gone to a library or asked for a book on a certain subject, but I never got wind of anything. Everything was good, great and I spent my time studying many books, literature and just did not happen to come across the things you did. I know this is really turning into a hot button issue for some of you here, but honestly what is so foreign to you to understand that our paths were different while pursuing the same goal?

[Tchild2]

When you are a child, I agree, but when you learn the basics of honest research -- long about 5th or 6th grade = thats a different story. I left the church of my childhood at age 17 due to the difference I saw between the Bible and the creeds they taught. Apparently, according you you I must be a mental giant far beyond the capabilities of normal mortal men. <shaking head>

Ok, MNN tell me, given your great proclivity to "honest research". Is the earth 6,000 years old? Was there death before the fall of Adam, and did a global flood exist? I anxiously await your answer.