Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Free Agent]

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.

Speaking for myself, its not disinformation and propaganda I have fallen prey to. I know how to tell the difference. Its not anti stuff we are complaining about not knowing, and you know that. Its the true stuff that was not as accessible as the faith promoting stuff. Huge difference.

[Tchild2]

Scott:

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:

Now you are making sweeping generalizations Will. Some critics may take such a position, but definitely not all. What makes you so utterly convinced that Catholicism isn't true? Your whole life is an affirmation that it is not.

Critics are applying the same criteria to Mormonism that you have applied to Catholicism, the Seventh Day adventists or shintoism. Is that really so foreign a concept?

[mnn727]

The one thing we need to keep in mind is that to many lawyers (which RDL says he is) Truth is irrelevant.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

So something happened along the way -- you encountered some factoid or other that was new to you -- that threw you into a tailspin. I wonder how diligently you endeavored to seek perspective by seeing what faithful and intelligent Latter-day Saints who had put some study into it had to say on the matter. Or did you jump to the conclusion all at once that you had been misled just because you hadn't yet been exposed to something?

I would mention here that in this age of the Internet, it is easier than ever to counter anti-Mormon claims. The topical guide on the FAIR board, for example, contains substantial material in its own right as well as serving as a portal to other scholarship that has been done on various topics from the perspective of faithful Church members.

[William James]

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.

. . .

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.

Here's my response:

1. In fairness to Brother Packer (much as I strongly disagree with him on many points), I don't think it is fair to assume that his sole motivation is to increase membership numbers and tithes. Brother Packer may be misguided and plain wrong in his views, but I honestly believe he means well and truly wants individuals to be happy.

2. It is true that not all truth is of equal value. That is plain to see by countless examples.

3. The mere fact that not all truth is of equal value is no justification for the LDS church to suppress or even consciously ignore aspects of its history that ought in fairness to be considered by anyone who wishes to make an unbiased informed decision about the church or its doctrinal and historical claims.

[Paul Ray]

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?

I can understand that. I didn't find out about the Church until I was 28 years old, 19 years ago.

I had gotten wind of something or two about "Mormons"... a few allusions to how they were "wolves in sheep's clothing" and a little something about how someone named Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God... but that's about it and I didn't see any good reason to do an in depth investigation until later when things seemed to sort of fall into place for me.

I think a lot of people are at that point even now, perhaps even some people who are on this board now. They've heard a little bit but it doesn't reasonate with them the way it does for a "true believer".

Who knows, maybe someday they will get another chance, like I did, when they are in a better situation, or something. Until then, hopefully the "unbelievers" will keep their minds open to admitting the possibility until they know for certain... either way.

[selek]

Here's my response:

1. In fairness to Brother Packer (much as I strongly disagree with him on many points), I don't think it is fair to assume that his sole motivation is to increase membership numbers and tithes. Brother Packer may be misguided and plain wrong in his views, but I honestly believe he means well and truly wants individuals to be happy.

2. It is true that not all truth is of equal value. That is plain to see by countless examples.

3. The mere fact that not all truth is of equal value is no justification for the LDS church to suppress or even consciously ignore aspects of its history that ought in fairness to be considered by anyone who wishes to make an unbiased informed decision about the church or its doctrinal and historical claims.

Points 1&2 are fine.

Have you any evidence to support the intrinsic accusation in point 3?

[mnn727]

What irks me is that the church's lack of proofs is somehow our problem.

There is no lack of proofs - only lazy people unwilling to look for them when they encounter something that troubles them.

And yes I said LAZY there is no other word for it. If you don't know something, what is it you do? Hint: every elementary school teacher says the phrase at least daily and that phrase is: "Look it up"

[Scott Lloyd]

Points 1&2 are fine.

Have you any evidence to support the intrinsic accusation in point 3?

Especially the insinuation that the Church "suppress[es] ... aspects of its history." This is patently false and even defamatory.

[Free Agent]

So something happened along the way -- you encountered some factoid or other that was new to you -- that threw you into a tailspin. I wonder how diligently you endeavored to seek perspective by seeing what faithful and intelligent Latter-day Saints who had put some study into it had to say on the matter. Or did you jump to the conclusion all at once that you had been misled just because you hadn't yet been exposed to something?

I would mention here that in this age of the Internet, it is easier than ever to counter anti-Mormon claims. The topical guide on the FAIR board, for example, contains substantial material in its own right as well as serving as a portal to other scholarship that has been done on various topics from the perspective of faithful Church members.

Yes, I've said before what happened along the way, 24 years after being baptized, my dear sister in law, a convert herself of only 7 or so years, started making claims preposterous to me, claims that Joseph looked in a hat, claims that Joseph married over 30 women. I don't want to get into the fact I should have known this because that's been established even though so many of you find that preposterous. Upon her telling me these things, I thought she was reading anti stuff. I thought it wasn't true. Lo and behold, after I tried to combat what she was learning about, I found out a few new things myself. I certainly didn't want to believe it. I did spend much time in study and prayer, speaking with my Bishop, Stake President, reading Bushman. The fact that I've come to a different conclusion than some of you who still conclude that the Church is what it says it is doesn't make me the bad guy. You should respect my free agency and where it has led me thus far.

[Scott Lloyd]

Free Agent said:

Speaking for myself, its not disinformation and propaganda I have fallen prey to. I know how to tell the difference. Its not anti stuff we are complaining about not knowing, and you know that. Its the true stuff that was not as accessible as the faith promoting stuff. Huge difference.

"True stuff" presented without its contextual framework can be just as misleading as blatant falsehood.

[mnn727]

Ok, MNN tell me, given your great proclivity to "honest research".

Is the earth 6,000 years old?

No, and the Church does not claim it is, there were 6 creative periods that lasted an unknown number of years, perhaps millions or even billions of years

Was there death before the fall of Adam,

IMHO yes, but not in the Garden of Eden - but has nothing to do with my salvation nor affects any doctrines of the Church

and did a global flood exist?

hot button subject for some but not something I am very interested in - I could argue both sides but find the answer to be irrelavant to anything I am passonite about

I anxiously await your answer.

You got them, satisfied? Now what does the answers to any of these questions have to do with actual Church doctrine?

[Paul Ray]

The mere fact that not all truth is of equal value is no justification for the LDS church to suppress or even consciously ignore aspects of its history that ought in fairness to be considered by anyone who wishes to make an unbiased informed decision about the church or its doctrinal and historical claims.

I don't believe we, as a Church, ignore any aspects of our history or the history of anybody else.

And btw, it's impossible to have an "unbiased" decision about anything unless you simply don't know.

.... you either believe, or you don't believe, or you don't know what to believe.

... and everyone will be given an opportunity to judge the information for themselves, at some point.

[jwhitlock]

Absurd? Name one "absurd" claim.

Here's a note to you. It is annoying for a critic to feign innocence of what has been posted on the thread and then demand that it be re-referenced over and over and over again. I've posted what has been said by others that has been absurd. I'll spell it out for you this one time and then I expect you to do your own reading.

The claim has been made that the Church should teach the entirety of its history and doctrine to investigators before they are baptized and missionaries before they go on their missions. You are defending that side of those who have made this absurd argument.

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.

I find it unlikely, given your comments, that you really understand what it is about Mormonism that makes you "unhappy".

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?

The comment, of course, was in reference to the ridiculous claim of "clarity" that you have now that you have left. Again, I have seen no evidence in your comments - and by what you present as "fact" - that such clarity exists in your life. Your continued defense of "the Church should have taught this" mentality is proof that your thinking continues to be muddied to some extent.

In addition, your little reference to "competing religions" and their claims is another standard rationalization that dissenters use to justify their rejection of spiritual witness. It has been discussed elsewhere and doesn't stand up well as an argument against what faithful Latter-day Saints experience through the Spirit.

[Free Agent]

Here's my response:

1. In fairness to Brother Packer (much as I strongly disagree with him on many points), I don't think it is fair to assume that his sole motivation is to increase membership numbers and tithes. Brother Packer may be misguided and plain wrong in his views, but I honestly believe he means well and truly wants individuals to be happy.

2. It is true that not all truth is of equal value. That is plain to see by countless examples.

3. The mere fact that not all truth is of equal value is no justification for the LDS church to suppress or even consciously ignore aspects of its history that ought in fairness to be considered by anyone who wishes to make an unbiased informed decision about the church or its doctrinal and historical claims.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. My hope is that the Church one day will realize #3 and begin to change into the organization I know it can be.

[jwhitlock]

Points 1&2 are fine.

Have you any evidence to support the intrinsic accusation in point 3?

I, too, want to see specific evidence of systematic suppression. It's a point often bleated by critics, but never followed up by factual evidence.

In the absence of such evidence, I think we can safely say that the charge of suppression is simply false.

[Free Agent]

There is no lack of proofs - only lazy people unwilling to look for them when they encounter something that troubles them.

And yes I said LAZY there is no other word for it. If you don't know something, what is it you do? Hint: every elementary school teacher says the phrase at least daily and that phrase is: "Look it up"

Again, your argument makes no sense when the whole point is that we didn't know there was something to KNOW. We didn't know there was something to go LOOK UP. We weren't troubled by anything. You were. You looked. You found out. You came to terms with it. We are now finding these things out and dealing with them our way.

[jwhitlock]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. My hope is that the Church one day will realize #3 and begin to change into the organization I know it can be.

It's unfortunate you continue to cling to an anti-Mormon characterization of the Church that is so patently false.

Rather than change into the organization you want it to be, I, for one, am satisfied that the Church continues to strive to be the organization its founder - Jesus Christ - wants it to be.

[William James]

I don't believe we, as a Church, ignore any aspects of our history or the history of anybody else.

A few weeks ago, I watched the film "Legacy" in our ward's youth Sunday School class. It struck me that all of the opposition to the church (at least in the parts I watched) portrayed in the film consisted of reasons other than polygyny. What message does this send to someone who is becoming acquainted with the church for the first time by watching this very moving film (which played for years at Temple Square for non-LDS audiences)? Answer: It makes the audience believe that the opponents of the church were evil, misguided, and that they had no legitimate complaints.

[Tchild2]

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

Indeed. Go prove it otherwise.

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

Of course you don't have the source document, you don't have plates, paypri, swords, special faith based compasses or anything remotely falsifiable, and apologists think critics are absurd?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I've said before what happened along the way, 24 years after being baptized, my dear sister in law, a convert herself of only 7 or so years, started making claims preposterous to me, claims that Joseph looked in a hat, claims that Joseph married over 30 women. I don't want to get into the fact I should have known this because that's been established even though so many of you find that preposterous. Upon her telling me these things, I thought she was reading anti stuff. I thought it wasn't true. Lo and behold, after I tried to combat what she was learning about, I found out a few new things myself. I certainly didn't want to believe it. I did spend much time in study and prayer, speaking with my Bishop, Stake President, reading Bushman. The fact that I've come to a different conclusion than some of you who still conclude that the Church is what it says it is doesn't make me the bad guy. You should respect my free agency and where it has led me thus far.

The fact that Joseph used a seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon should not be all that shocking to anyone who knows of the Urim and Thummim, which is clearly described in Joseph Smith -- History in the Pearl of Great Price as two stones fastened to a breastplate, a divine instrument given to aid the translation process. Where is the great leap in concept between two stones fastened to a breastplate and one stone placed into a hat? I don't get it.

And if you accept that Joseph received the revelation commanding the practice of plural marriage and taught this commandment to others, why should it be so hard to grasp that he would set the example by obeying the commandment himself?

And if these thing gave you heartburn, I do wonder about the "few new things" you said you found out yourself.

The point is, I don't see the any of the known facts of Church history (as opposed to unflattering conjecture) being a deal breaker for someone who presumably has received a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration.

[Scott Lloyd]

A few weeks ago, I watched the film "Legacy" in our ward's youth Sunday School class. It struck me that all of the opposition to the church (at least in the parts I watched) portrayed in the film consisted of reasons other than polygyny. What message does this send to someone who is becoming acquainted with the church for the first time by watching this very moving film (which played for years at Temple Square for non-LDS audiences)? Answer: It makes the audience believe that the opponents of the church were evil, misguided, and that they had no legitimate complaints.

The fact is, plural marriage was not a factor in the persecution of Mormons until very late in the Nauvoo period. In many ways, the worst atrocities occurred in Missouri, before the Saints ever settled in Illinois.

Go read some Church history before accusing the Church of deception.

[jwhitlock]

A few weeks ago, I watched the film "Legacy" in our ward's youth Sunday School class. It struck me that all of the opposition to the church (at least in the parts I watched) portrayed in the film consisted of reasons other than polygyny. What message does this send to someone who is becoming acquainted with the church for the first time by watching this very moving film (which played for years at Temple Square for non-LDS audiences)? Answer: It makes the audience believe that the opponents of the church were evil, misguided, and that they had no legitimate complaints.

Yep, the Church has really mischaracterized those fine folks who attacked Haun's Mill. Or drove the Saints out of Missouri. Or the mob who murdered Joseph Smith.

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, your argument makes no sense when the whole point is that we didn't know there was something to KNOW. We didn't know there was something to go LOOK UP. We weren't troubled by anything. You were. You looked. You found out. You came to terms with it. We are now finding these things out and dealing with them our way.

Which, alas, seems to be rather uncritically accepting the arguments and claims of the critics.

[Paul Ray]

My hope is that the Church one day will realize #3 and begin to change into the organization I know it can be.

The Church consists of people. As one of us, you can help us become perfected.

If you continue to choose to be someone who isn't one of us and not in agreement with us, though, I hope you will do more than criticize us.