Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Free Agent]

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.

I understand it is a similar type method of translation; again, the problem to me is that if we accept the Urim and Thummin, which I did, why not be just as forthcoming with the method of looking in a hat? Why is one so prevalent, and one is not?

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?

Again, because we don't portray Joseph Smith as someone who engaged in it. We paint this picture of a wonderful relationship with Emma. I've often wondered why after spending so much time in Nauvoo there is nary a mention of this, and yet tours in Salt Lake speak of Brigham Young's practice.

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.

I think, for me, its two pronged. Finding out about the Church history that I didn't know about really opened a Pandora's Box for me of a whole new world I didn't know existed. (apologists, FAIR). So finding out that there were things people grappled with was huge for me. Along with that I now have to wonder if I would have had the spiritual witness I did not having all the facts that I am now learning I could have had if I'd known where to look. I hope that makes sense.

[Tchild2]

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

Sorry MNN - you don't have any qualifications to make that claim. Let me just throw it back at you. You still haven't done any HONEST research into Catholicism, Scientology or the Jehova's Witnesses. There we go, evens.

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

Yes, strange indeed that God requires money to make it to heaven...oh wait, you were implying that I left to save myself paying tithing? No, saving 10% was merely a by-product of following my own conscience. I just consider it good karma paying me back.

[RDL]

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

Here you go, and from somebody on your side, somebody named Tvedtnes. Granted, I'm sure you'll agree with Tvedtnes that "preserving in a vault for future use" doesn't mean "hiding," in which case this place really is Wonderland.

In their discussion of the Hofmann affair, the Tanners repeat what they have long assertedâ??that the LDS Church is "suppressing" documents it does not want made public by placing them in the First Presidency's vault (p. 24). But placing an historical document in a safe place hardly implies suppression. Burning the document would be a safer way of getting rid of negative evidence. Placing it in a vault only preserves it for future use. We have the example of the Joseph Smith papyri, which lay for decades in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, only to be brought to the Church's attention by a professor doing research there. Yet no one has accused the Metropolitan of "suppressing" these documents! They were their guardian, just as the Church is the guardian of many documents. Recent history has shown us how people like the Tanners misuse such documentsâ??sometimes literally publishing what does not belong to themâ??to promote their own ends. Consequently, one is not surprised when the Tanners, unable to obtain documents they want, accuse the Church of suppression.

[mnn727]

Here you go, and from somebody on your side, somebody named Tvedtnes. Granted, I'm sure you'll agree with Tvedtnes that "preserving in a vault for future use" doesn't mean "hiding," in which case this place really is Wonderland.

LOL Perhaps you should actually read the quote before claiming it supports your claim - it does not

[Free Agent]

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.

If you read my previous posts, I am still an "active" member. I hold a calling, my Bishop and Stake President are aware of how I feel. I've met with them many times and we have really amazing, deep conversations. They have never spoken to me the way some of you have. I hope you don't think I'm being critical just by stating my experience and my perception. I still love and respect the Church greatly. I choose to be a part of the Church because it is what feels comfortable. I like to worship there and I love the people. I do hope to be somewhat of a catalyst for change, even if it is small.

[William Schryver]

Tchild2:

What irks me is that the church's lack of proofs is somehow our problem. It isn't, it is the church's problem.

â??Lack of proofsâ??

I disagree entirely with this statement. I would argure that the church has no problem at all. I have certainly found myself persuaded by the evidence, and this despite the fact that I was not subject to what you are inclined to call â??cultural conditioning.â?

Now you are making sweeping generalizations Will. Some critics may take such a position, but definitely not all.

What, then, is your explanation for someone who is completely aware of the so-called â??controversiesâ? and â??problemsâ? with church history, etc., and yet continues to believe in the foundational truth claims of the church? In other words, how do you explain that someone knows everything you know and has reached completely different conclusions about that knowledge?

What makes you so utterly convinced that Catholicism isn't true?

I think that much of the doctrine of Catholicism is â??true.â?

Your whole life is an affirmation that it is not.

??? What does this mean?

Critics are applying the same criteria to Mormonism that you have applied to Catholicism, the Seventh Day adventists or shintoism.

Speaking of sweeping generalizations! In any event, I can perceive no real meaning in this statement.

There are few, if any, parallels between my examination of and opinions regarding other world religions and the tactics and motivations of the vast majority of the critics of Mormonism. As President Hinckley was fond of saying, (and I paraphrase) we acknowledge the great truths present in all of the worldâ??s great faith systems, and we invite all to bring those truths with them and let us see if we can add to them.

[Free Agent]

You way of dealing with them is appaerntly believing whatever Ed Decker, Sandra Tanner, et al is telling you - thus you methods and lack of honest research have not changed one bit.

I've never read anything by Ed Decker or Sandra Tanner. You know why? Because when I first became aware of all that was out there to sift through, and I found this board, I trusted the opinions of those here who said that was anti material. I've done a lot of research, I'm just coming to a different conclusion. That's all.

[Paul Ray]

If you read my previous posts, I am still an "active" member.

Oh, okay. That's good to know. I didn't read your prevoius posts and didn't know for sure if you were one of us. Sometimes I just jump into the middle of a converation... on purpose... because I enjoy doing that.

I hold a calling, my Bishop and Stake President are aware of how I feel. I've met with them many times and we have really amazing, deep conversations.

Ahh, yes, I can relate to that. I have had some really amazing, deep conversations before.

I think it's kinda rare with people who are not God, though. But yes, sometimes it does happen.

They have never spoken to me the way some of you have.

Not all of us on this board are members, you know... and you can't always tell who the members are just by what they are saying and/or the way they say things.

I hope you don't think I'm being critical just by stating my experience and my perception.

Don't worry. I only think that when I think you are being critical.

A person's experiences and perceptions aren't always positive and faith promoting, you know.

I still love and respect the Church greatly.

Me too, even though I sometimes encounter people who are critical of the Church and/or God and/or God's messages.

I choose to be a part of the Church because it is what feels comfortable.

Me too, even though I sometimes encounter people who are critical of the Church and/or God and/or God's messages.

I like to worship there and I love the people.

Me too, even though I sometimes encounter people who are critical of the Church and/or God and/or God's messages.

I do hope to be somewhat of a catalyst for change, even if it is small.

Me too, even though I'm sure I'll still sometimes encounter people who are critical of the Church and/or God and/or God's messages.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here you go, and from somebody on your side, somebody named Tvedtnes. Granted, I'm sure you'll agree with Tvedtnes that "preserving in a vault for future use" doesn't mean "hiding," in which case this place really is Wonderland.

And the quote finishes up saying:

Strangely, the minutes the Tanners quote from a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve (p. 31), rather than suggesting a cover-up, indicate that the Church was going to publicly announce the acquisition; clearly, this does not support Hofmann's story [of a Church cover up].

See here.

"Somebody named Tvedtnes" demonstrated how the Church wasn't hiding the documents. So did Turley's Victims. Thank you for demonstrating how weak your newfound critical thinking and learning skills are as far as your research of LDS history is concerned.

[Paul Ray]

Thank you for demonstrating how weak your newfound critical thinking and learning skills are in your research of LDS history.

Don't take that too hard, RDL. I'm sure you'll get better with more practice.

[jwhitlock]

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.

I (and others) have gone down and responded specifically to your posts. You haven't bothered to respond to specifics and explanations given.

Even though you acknowledged it's unrealistic, you still considered it fraud, you still bemoaned the fact that the first amendment protects religious liberty, and you still think it's the Church's fault.

It's unrealistic and you think it's still fraud. I get it perfectly. You're a lawyer.

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.

And because the Church didn't send you a registered letter - they only published it in their official magazine - they're guilty of fraud.

I think you have a far too high opinion of where you stand in the overall pecking order.

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

There's nothing to mix up. You refuse to respond to realistic reasons why the Church does what it does, and instead you continue to claim fraud where none exists.

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.

And "toeing the line" is a misrepresentation of what the Church does.

It's evident you could care less - you're out here hollering "fraud" for everyone to hear - and not backing it up one realistic, reasonable, explanation. You and your friends have yet to prove that the Church has concealed or suppressed anything.

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.

That has been the tone and direction of your comments. Of course, as a lawyer, you know the value of inferring one thing and then changing it later on when it suits your case. You've done it before in this thread.

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?

And again, we've responded with evidence to the contrary, which you have ignored.

Merely trumpeting the same, tired, anti-Mormon refrains over and over does not make them true. I've seen anything but an unbiased, objective look at the evidence from the critics on this thread. Having the Spirit would make a world of difference in being able to see things as they really are.

Of course, I'll readily admit that you exist in a whole different perspective and world than I do. From your comments here, there seems to be precious little in the way of rational evidence to support that perspective. You're certainly welcome to it.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

But the fact that a specific topic might not be addressed on the Church Web site is not evidence for suppression. As has been noted here, Church-associated and Church-friendly sources deal with some of the more esoteric aspects of Church history and doctrine.

On the subject mentioned here, I suggest, for example, "A Tale of Two Marriage Systems: Perspectives on Polyandry and Joseph Smith" by Samuel Katich, published by FAIR. I have a PDF copy which I downloaded from the FAIR Web site a while back.

[Free Agent]

While we're waiting for William James to back up his claim, perhaps you can present some substantiation for his assertion that the Church "suppress[es] aspects of its history," since you are applauding it so.

Ok, pretend I'm an investigator and I use Church sources to learn about history. I just went to the new website on Christ and followed a link about learning more about doctrine. Then I clicked on Basic Beliefs and then the question about the Restoration of the Priesthood. Do you suppose it mentions anything about blacks and the priesthood there? No. Is that not a pertinent part of a history, just as much as any of the other history they choose to include to answer that question? I believe it is. Maybe you don't see it that way.

Another example I see is the new manual on Joseph Smith that we are spending 2 years studying. Why not include one chapter that addresses Joseph's practice of polygamy. When my Bishop and I talked most recently, and I said we've talked alot, and you guys can believe me or not, but he wasn't aware of the numbers of wives Joseph Smith had. He just really didn't know a lot about it. He is now asking me questions and I pointed him to the book In Sacred Loneliness that used to be sold at Deseret Book, and perhaps still is. My point was that my Bishop's take on Joseph and polygamy is that perhaps he was being tested as Abraham was with his sacrifice of Isaac. However, why not share that turmoil Joseph went through? Why not use that as a tool to teach obedience?

I could go on with many more examples. I don't know if this is what you were looking for but these were a couple to me that while you may not see it as suppression I see it as omission.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think it would be great if RDL attempted to sue the Church over this.

[William Schryver]

RDL:

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.

No, it is not.

In fact, to many who have plumbed the depths of the issue, it is painlessly obvious that the Book of Abraham is an authentic ancient work.

staccato:

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.

Right.

I have no problem encountering a God in the afterlife and justifying my train of thought as I am an honest person who has honestly spent a life seeking for truth.

Good for you.

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

Understandable.

[jwhitlock]

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

You can't be serious.

This is supposed to be evidence of systematic suppression of history and doctrine in the Church?? Get real.

[jwhitlock]

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.)

One of the last things I want is to belong to a Church in "my image". Part of coming to Christ is giving yourself up to Him. It is sadly apparent that many of those who reject the Church and the gospel have no intention of giving anything of themselves up. And eventually, what light they had dims and goes out - as is so readily demonstrated by some who post here.

[Paul Ray]

Merely trumpeting the same, tired, anti-Mormon refrains over and over does not make them true.

Isn't it interesting that people continually do that, though, as if doing that makes what they say true.

You'd think that at some point one of these guys would realize that all of these issues have already been addressed to the satisfaction of all members who have received guidance and/or assurances about those issues from God, and that all those who don't receive guidance and assurances from God on those issues are the ones who are and/or will remain on the outside.

But no, that never does happen, does it.

... or when it does, those who were on the outside who then come inside are not considered to be reliable witnesses to those who remain on the outside... because they are then on the inside and not on the outside anymore with the outsiders.

I think it's a fairly interesting phenomenon, in that in never does seem to end.

I think there will always be people on the inside and on the outside... unless everyone somehow comes to the point of agreeing with everyone else on every issue... which I don't believe will ever happen.

[Free Agent]

Ok, so I read one more post - sue me ---- I seem to remember a Ensign article a few years back that devoted many pages to Joseph Smith and his plural marriages, on top of the fact that the Revelation was given to him and the institute manual and teh D&C manual both mention it. along with a listing of all the women sealed to him being on the LDS owned FamilySearch.org website -- yep, that sure is hidden. <<shuts the door on his way out>>

Could you let us know where to find it? I just searched for it at LDS.org and couldn't seem to find it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

One of the last things I want is to belong to a Church in "my image". Part of coming to Christ is giving yourself up to Him. It is sadly apparent that many of those who reject the Church and the gospel have no intention of giving anything of themselves up. And eventually, what light they had dims and goes out - as is so readily demonstrated by some who post here.

Perhaps. I don't see Free Agent as having left the Church, though. She seems to be griping. Put her in a room of critics who are mocking the Church and she might just surprise us by turning around and defending it.

But yes, as I have said before: A religion that automatically made sense and invariably appealed to me from the very start both morally, intellectually, and otherwise would make me reconsider whether I was seeking to worship a God, or merely seeking vindication for my own prejudices.

[Free Agent]

Tell you what. Please find for me an organization or individual that has been absolutely up front and complete in documenting it's / his / her history and actions. After you do that, then perhaps we can discuss the actions of the Church against the very unrealistic "tell all" standard you are inferring.

We're not just talking about any organization. We're talking about an organization who claims to be the true Church on the face of the earth with the 13th Article of Faith that talks of honesty. No one is asking for minutiae so please stop insinuating that we are.

[Scott Lloyd]

Could you let us know where to find it? I just searched for it at LDS.org and couldn't seem to find it.

mmn already gave the URL. familysearch.org, not lds.org.

But if you're not already familiar with it, you may get lost there. It is a site for doing genealogical research.

We're not just talking about any organization. We're talking about an organization who claims to be the true Church on the face of the earth with the 13th Article of Faith that talks of honesty. No one is asking for minutiae so please stop insinuating that we are.

Please show how the Church has been dishonest.

And just so you know, being selective in the presentation of doctrine and history depending on audience and setting is not dishonesty.

Perhaps. I don't see Free Agent as having left the Church, though. She seems to be griping. Put her in a room of critics who are mocking the Church and she might just surprise us by turning around and defending it.

I hope that's true. But there's a lot of mocking that goes on here, and I haven't seen much defense from her end.

[jerryp48]

Ok, pretend I'm an investigator and I use Church sources to learn about history. I just went to the new website on Christ and followed a link about learning more about doctrine. Then I clicked on Basic Beliefs and then the question about the Restoration of the Priesthood. Do you suppose it mentions anything about blacks and the priesthood there? No. Is that not a pertinent part of a history, just as much as any of the other history they choose to include to answer that question? I believe it is. Maybe you don't see it that way.

Another example I see is the new manual on Joseph Smith that we are spending 2 years studying. Why not include one chapter that addresses Joseph's practice of polygamy. When my Bishop and I talked most recently, and I said we've talked alot, and you guys can believe me or not, but he wasn't aware of the numbers of wives Joseph Smith had. He just really didn't know a lot about it. He is now asking me questions and I pointed him to the book In Sacred Loneliness that used to be sold at Deseret Book, and perhaps still is. My point was that my Bishop's take on Joseph and polygamy is that perhaps he was being tested as Abraham was with his sacrifice of Isaac. However, why not share that turmoil Joseph went through? Why not use that as a tool to teach obedience?

I could go on with many more examples. I don't know if this is what you were looking for but these were a couple to me that while you may not see it as suppression I see it as omission.

FA,

I think your being unduly attacked here a bit. Obviously you came to a different conclusion than many of us have. I'm sure that saddens a few of us. I know it does me.

I went through and still on occasion go through the same struggles you describe. I've read about the BoA, polyandry, polygamy, Kinderhook plates, etc and etc.

A few things I think you ought to consider. One, not everyone cares about details of church history. Even ugly details that shock you and me. Even contradictory details. I'm sure you've probably figured that out by now.

Two, the church consists of many different members from the very young to the very old, from new converts to BIC's. When do you think is the appropriate time to bring up the "warts and all" of church history? Should it be when someone is investigating the church? Should it be once they have a spiritual confirmation of it's truthfulness? Should it be taught in Primary?

Three, does non faith-promoting (to put it lightly) church history negate ones spiritual witness of the truth? More importantly, can someone be open to a witness of the truth if their head is clouded with "issues?"

Is the truthfulness of the church like scales? Stack enough evidence on the truth side and it tips that way or stack more on the false side and it tips the other way? If so I would ask is that how you came to believe in the church in the first place?

For me it is a matter of where do I put my trust. What evidence holds the most weight for me? Is it my spiritual confirmation? Or do choose to deny my spiritual witnesses because I can't defend the BoA? Right or wrong I've chosen to trust the witness. In the meantime I'll keep looking for synthesis as DCP put it.

(don't you just hate long posts?)

[Paul Ray]

We're not just talking about any organization. We're talking about an organization who claims to be the true Church on the face of the earth with the 13th Article of Faith that talks of honesty. No one is asking for minutiae so please stop insinuating that we are.

I don't know if you have already answered this question before, but what exactly would you like the Church to do to give you the information you seek?

Surely you realize there isn't enough time in our block meetings to answer all possible questions, and I hope you agree with me in thinking that time is best used to present the idea that will help bring each of us closer to God, personally... you know, the idea concerning how we should seek to know what is true (about anything and everything) by receiving an assurance from God.

With the realization that the Church consists of people who are as imperfect as you and/or I, do you think members of the Church should spend a lot of their time writing books and/or articles explaining every facet of truth?

If that's what you think members of the Church should do, as a member you can begin now to devote however much time you think you should to the writing of such books just as other members of the Church are doing, beginning with whatever topic you feel is most important for the benefit of all mankind.

There are a lot of books out there that have already been written, you know. You can read to your hearts content and probably never finish reading all of them if you keep reading until the day you die. But hey, don't let that stop you. Feel free to add more to the collection as you spend every minute you want to spend doing that.

[RDL]

And the quote finishes up saying:

See here.

"Somebody named Tvedtnes" demonstrated how the Church wasn't hiding the documents. So did Turley's Victims. Thank you for demonstrating how weak your newfound critical thinking and learning skills are as far as your research of LDS history is concerned.

Don't take that too hard, RDL. I'm sure you'll get better with more practice.

You can't be serious.

This is supposed to be evidence of systematic suppression of history and doctrine in the Church?? Get real.

I see Wonderland's getting awfully crowded.

And jwhitlock, do me a favor. Print out all my posts and lay them side by side. Put a circle around every "has an obligation" and a square around every "guilty of fraud." Then draw lines connecting each circle or square to its corresponding infinitive and/or prepositional phrase. You'll see that no circle and square connect to the same modifier.

If that doesn't help, you're on your own.