Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Paul Ray]

I don't know. I don't have a problem with saying I don't know. I am highly agnostic based on my life's experiences of not receiving any type of confirmation (good or bad) from anything I would define as supernatural.

Are you saying you haven't received any answers from God, concerning anything?

At this point I'm tempted to say you really don't know anything, then, but I know better.

I think it's more likely that you just don't realize how God answers and/or can answer you, personally.

Every good thought comes from God. There. Start with that.

I do know that I don't trust people who habitually lie. That part I do know.

You don't have to settle for trusting people who lie.

You can instead trust only God, who never lies.

Have at it... or do you not trust anyone who tells you that God will answer you, personally?

If so, so be it, but I can think of nobody else I would rather trust for my eternal destiny.

... and yes, I do believe I will end up somewhere else besides dirt, though I also know I will likely spend some time in the dust, for a while, just as you will, before we are both resurrected.

Anyway, I digress. I hope you have a good day.

[mnn727]

It is not irrelevant to me, do you get that? I saw how Joseph was able to lie so convincingly to his wife, to his friends, to everyone.

You did? you were there, how old are you?

I spent 35 years in the church, praying at least five times daily and still did not receive a confirmation that Joseph was a prophet.

You stayed in a Church 35 years without a testamony? Why?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

I think what you're trying to say is, it's hard to ask a question that you aren't aware exists.

At some point you became aware. Be it through a friend, relative, website, or wherever else. Then you keep going from there. Did you, by chance, read the link I provided in this thread; the article by Peterson and Honey? You'd likely enjoy it.

[RDL]

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.

That wasn't difficult. Jeffrey Holland, Spring of 2003. Parents, don't flirt with skepticism or your children are doomed.

In this Church there is an enormous amount of roomâ??and scriptural commandmentâ??for studying and learning, for comparing and considering, for discussion and awaiting further revelation. We all learn â??line upon line, precept upon precept,â?3 with the goal being authentic religious faith informing genuine Christlike living. In this there is no place for coercion or manipulation, no place for intimidation or hypocrisy. But no child in this Church should be left with uncertainty about his or her parentsâ?? devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Restoration of His Church, and the reality of living prophets and apostles who, now as in earlier days, lead that Church according to â??the will of the Lord, . . . the mind of the Lord, . . . the word of the Lord, . . . and the power of God unto salvation.â?4 In such basic matters of faith, prophets do not apologize for requesting unity, indeed conformity, in the eloquent sense that the Prophet Joseph Smith used that latter word.5 In any case, as Elder Neal Maxwell once said to me in a hallway conversation, â??There didnâ??t seem to be any problem with conformity the day the Red Sea opened.â?

Parents simply cannot flirt with skepticism or cynicism, then be surprised when their children expand that flirtation into full-blown romance. If in matters of faith and belief children are at risk of being swept downstream by this intellectual current or that cultural rapid, we as their parents must be more certain than ever to hold to anchored, unmistakable moorings clearly recognizable to those of our own household. It wonâ??t help anyone if we go over the edge with them, explaining through the roar of the falls all the way down that we really did know the Church was true and that the keys of the priesthood really were lodged there but we just didnâ??t want to stifle anyoneâ??s freedom to think otherwise. No, we can hardly expect the children to get to shore safely if the parents donâ??t seem to know where to anchor their own boat. Isaiah once used a variation on such imagery when he said of unbelievers, â??[Their] tacklings are loosed; they could not . . . strengthen their mast, they could not spread the sail.â?6

I think some parents may not understand that even when they feel secure in their own minds regarding matters of personal testimony, they can nevertheless make that faith too difficult for their children to detect. We can be reasonably active, meeting-going Latter-day Saints, but if we do not live lives of gospel integrity and convey to our children powerful heartfelt convictions regarding the truthfulness of the Restoration and the divine guidance of the Church from the First Vision to this very hour, then those children may, to our regret but not surprise, turn out not to be visibly active, meeting-going Latter-day Saints or sometimes anything close to it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Well, we have to appreciate the sentiment at least. I believe I can take Free Agent at her word. She was surprised and shocked. That's typically the intent of those who present their own "version" of Church history. The Church itself likewise has a purpose in presenting its history. We wish people to find faith in God, and believe that he literally acts in history, because if he did then, he can now. The history related by the Church should call us to experience the same miracles, revelations, and other things promised to the faithful. Little wonder with all the things clamoring for our attention the Church spends little time today broadcasting Joseph Smith's plural wives.

What does it matter to us right now?

I know why she's frustrated; but on the other hand I know why the Church presents its history the way it does (and I largely agree with the method, and with the right of the Church to choose the method. Would I make some changes? Probably some minor ones.)

[Paul Ray]

Thank you for that quote from Elder Holland, RDL.

I love that man, and I know he is a true prophet of God.

[Tchild2]

I have researched both sides of the claims of the JW's and rejected them - I did not listen to just one side.

OK - now we are getting somewhere. Guess what, I did the same thing towards Mormonism. You and I now have common ground to understand one another.

I also took classes in the Catholic Church and private discussions with the Priest that preformed my marriage (to a nice [at the time]Catholic girl) I also attended Mass at least 50 or 60 times -- I think I have researched them enough to be able to homestly reject them. As far as Scientologists I have never met one in person , but I do like many of L Ron Hubbards science fiction books.

What material proofs would lead you to reject Catholicism? Isn't it possible for someone investigating the church or a current member who has begun to research their own previously unchallenged beliefs to come to the same conclusion about Mormonism, or is this a right reserved only to Mormons researching other religions? Can you see what I am saying?

The problem with your asking me this is that nothing is troubleing me about any of those religions, unlike yourself and the LDS Church - if anything was troulbling me OR even if I were a member of these Churches I would be doing ongoing research into any of them and their claims.

You didn't give your time, talents and money to the Catholic church as far as I know. That is the major difference. I don't find anything remotely compelling about the Jehova's Witnesses either, but then again I never invested my heart and soul into that religion to have any complaints.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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?

We have the Book of Mormon, the revelations, prophets, miracles, witnesses, Moroni's promise, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. You have an absence of plates, paypri, swords, special faith based compasses, all of which were seen at one point as was attested by certain witnesses.

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.

I was about to say the same thing.

[Luigi]

Interestingly, "New Mormon Historians" can be considered less "objective" than some "Old Mormon Historians." I suggest checking out Peter Novick's Sunstone talk on the subject.

I listened to the presentation. One of the most interesting things I've listened to, thanks for recommending it. Though I will say that his label of Old Mormon Historians as more objective was hardly an endorsement (as he himself clearly pointed out).

[mnn727]

Your search for polyandry has returned 0 results in All Church Content. (Search function on LDS.org)

Get real, the Church called it polygamy which came up with 109 articles.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Suffice it to say, I suspect if I led you by the hand through my posts, you still wouldn't get it. I think every religion, not just the LDS faith, should be obliged to expose its dirty little secrets to members and investigators from the outset. In that post, I acknowledged it's probably unrealistic, and suggested maybe I my opinion is tainted by my wish that I had had full knowledge before I went on a mission.

And, as I wrote later, I think that in regard to the Book of Abraham, I could prove the church guilty of fraud for failing to inform me that the papyrus was found.

I don't know why you can't digest those two thoughts without mixing them up.

And I don't know why you can't understand that I could care less about the expression of religious faith by Mormons or anybody else. I've said my issue is with the first amendment giving religions the absolute right to sell snake oil if they choose, the right to conceal facts that aren't "useful" in the interest of keeping their members dutifully toeing the line.

As to the rest of your post, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you and others have assumed that I left the church over disinformation, anti arguments, etc... Ultimately, that was a minor consideration. I left the church in the very early 90's, before I knew the majority of what I know now about early history and doctrine, and certainly before I knew the more salacious aspects of it.

And maybe that's part of the problem, why there is such a disonnect between me and most others here. I didn't have much at all to do with the church from about 1991 until a few years ago, when I began perusing message boards. I was so far distant from the church that I considered specific LDS claims in an entirely different light, without an implicit desire for those claims to be true. Where 12 years earlier I thought certain claims probably were true, as I look back now I cannot imagine why in the world I ever bought it. I have stated (in different words) that I believe the Book of Abraham is a hoax. I haven't backed it up not only because that's beside the point in this thread, but it's so painfully obvious to anybody who views the evidence objectively. I was criticized for asserting that the vast majority of--if not all--unbiased, objective, non-Holy Ghost sensing people who reviewed the evidence for and against would think the Book of Abraham a hoax. But I cannot see how apologists who are honest with the evidence wouldn't agree. Of course, that doesn't mean it is a hoax, only that it the evidence against it far outweighs the evidence for it. After all, if the actual evidence spoke in favor of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Abraham by divine means, faith wouldn't really be necessary, would it?

This is just downright irritating at this point.

You keep banging the drum on your foregone conclusion regarding the Book of Abraham, each time you're careful to note that "I really can't discuss it in this thread blah blah blah." Alright then. Discuss it in another thread then. You can't keep thumping the tub for it as though it is a foregone conclusion all the while refusing to discuss it. Why? That's not how this board works, friend.

And you also need to answer my CFR regarding your Hoffman remark. Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

That wasn't difficult. Jeffrey Holland, Spring of 2003. Parents, don't flirt with skepticism or your children are doomed.

This doesn't amount to the Church suppressing its history.

Bald assertion still unsubstantiated.

What else have you got?

[jerryp48]

Here's an article that doesn't even mention that Zina was sealed to Joseph. It also paints Henry Jacobs in a bad light saying he deserted her.

See here.

I'm not quite sure how to take that.

On closer inspection it was in the Friend magazine. I'm sure full disclosure there is probably inappropriate.

[mnn727]

OK - now we are getting somewhere. Guess what, I did the same thing towards Mormonism. You and I now have common ground to understand one another.

No we don't as you still have not done the HONEST research into Momonism

Y

ou didn't give your time, talents and money to the Catholic church as far as I know. That is the major difference.

Finally we get to the actual reason -- follow the money! (and yes time and talents are also currency)

[LifeOnaPlate]

If there is a God, and he gave me a brain, he certainly not would ask me to abandon that brain for willy-nilly emotional sake. I was raised in a church that taught me that the glory of God was intelligence. Not woowoo feelings.

Now you're just being a jerk.

We'll be right back after this word from our sponsor:

I don't know. I don't have a problem with saying I don't know. I am highly agnostic based on my life's experiences of not receiving any type of confirmation (good or bad) from anything I would define as supernatural.

What would you expect such an experience to be like?

[Scott Lloyd]

Get real, the Church called it polygamy which came up with 109 articles.

Funny thing. I didn't come up with anything on the Church Web site, either, when I did a search on the string "Joseph Smith was a liar and a charlatan."

I guess the Church really does suppress its history after all.

[staccato]

Get real, the Church called it polygamy which came up with 109 articles.

There is a distinct difference between polygamy and polyandry. If I wanted to discuss polygamy I would not have made the claim it has been suppressed.

[Scott Lloyd]

On closer inspection it was in the Friend magazine. I'm sure full disclosure there is probably inappropriate.

Pardon, jerryp48. I didn't realize it was you correcting yourself.

But it does serve to illustrate a point. Appropriate selectiveness in presentation of facts, depending on the setting and audience, does not amount to suppression.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Congratulations, you are more enlightened than the prophets who, apparently in vain, taught such concepts as truths. To what do you owe your more knowledge and ability to see the truth over the past prophets?

?

This is just bizarre.

I suppose the prophets and I should invariably understand all science and be agreed on the same.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I listened to the presentation. One of the most interesting things I've listened to, thanks for recommending it. Though I will say that his label of Old Mormon Historians as more objective was hardly an endorsement (as he himself clearly pointed out).

Who said anything about an "endorsement"? He recognized both strengths and weaknesses.

[Paul Ray]

Okay, so I was watching this movie on Easter called "King of Kings" when all of a sudden a man named John said to a man named Judas something about how his friend Barabas was among those who didn't get it.

... you know, as Judas was walking away feeling kind of sad after hearing Jesus give his "sermon on the mount" because Barabas was walking away saying Jesus wouldn't be able to help him in his cause.

Isn't it interesting that in a movie made by people who are not "Mormon" someone could point out the fact that there are people who just can't see the truth and/or the best way to solve all the world's problems?

I thought so, and for some reason I was reminded of that thought again today.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program.

... and if you act now, you can also get a free side of beef with every axe purchase, as well as 10 coupons for sharpening your axe by a local establishment.

... but that's not all....

... tell them what else they will get, Bob...

[Scott Lloyd]

I listened to the presentation. One of the most interesting things I've listened to, thanks for recommending it. Though I will say that his label of Old Mormon Historians as more objective was hardly an endorsement (as he himself clearly pointed out).

Who said anything about an "endorsement"? He recognized both strengths and weaknesses.

I didn't listen to the presentation. But it seems like it might similar to a point made by Ronald Walker at last year's Mormon History Association conference. Walker spoke in Hegelian terms of thesis, antitheses and synthesis (already referred to on this thread by Dr. Peterson).

Walker's suggested that traditional Mormon history might be thought of as thesis and "new" Mormon history as antithesis. He proposed that it is time to view "new" Mormon history more critically and thus arrive at synthesis.

[mnn727]

There is a distinct difference between polygamy and polyandry. If I wanted to discuss polygamy I would not have made the claim it has been suppressed.

If you want to see the articles about Joseph Smith's plural wives - or anyone elses for that matter in Church publications you will put in polygamy -- oh I forgot you want to claim the Church suppresses all that so you refuse to search by the term the Church uses

[smac97]

Within just a few feet of where I'm sitting right now, I have books by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Ed Decker, "Dr." "Dr." John Weldon and "Dr." John Ankerberg, D. Michael Quinn, Fawn Brodie, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, Sigmund Freud, Jean-Paul Sartre, Christopher Hitchens, Lucretius, Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Nietzsche, and etc. and etc. and etc.

Speaking of "Dr. Dr. John Weldon," I thought now would be a good time to publish the lyrics to a song I wrote about the good Dr. Dr.

It's entitled - you guessed it - "Dr. Dr.", and is set to the music of "Doctor Doctor" by The Thompson Twins.

The original song by the TTT can be heard

. The original lyrics are here.

And so, without further adobe, here are the lyrics:

"Dr. Dr."

I saw your book, just sitting there

And I thought it looked pretentious, yeah

"Behind the Mask," Reading it is quite a task

And what is up with your two PhDs?

Diploma mills, only good for shills

D'you think you'll get some much-needed legitimacy?

(chorus):

Oh, doctor, doctor, can't you see I'm yearnin', yearnin'

For a doctor, doctor, who has got

real

learnin'?

Real degrees, I think they'll please

Your painful need to let us know you're the bee's knees!

So please, just go, immediately,

To a real and bona fide university!

(chorus) X 2

Legit degrees won't hurt, I swear,

Work and time, that's all!

Then come back and rail on cults

Whaddya think, y'all?

(synthesizer solo)

(chorus) X 2

Come now, John, don't make believe

Any more about these hokey PhDs!

-Smac

[jerryp48]

Would this be type 'B' history?

This was out of March 1984 Ensign "Great-Grandmother Zina: A More Personal Portrait":

Zina was first married to Henry Bailey Jacobs, and gave birth to two sons. Later, she married Brigham Young and gave birth to his daughter, Zina Presendia. She also reared Brigham Youngâ??s four children by his wife Clarissa Chase when Clarissa died. â??They were never anything but my own,â? she lovingly declared.

I'd say a less personal portrait.

Is there disagreement that she was sealed to JS and later to BY while yet still married to Henry Jacobs?

Do you think the individual who wrote the article knew?

I realize the article is not trying to address polygamy but is the above quote a little deceptive?