Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[mnn727]

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.

Since we no longer practice polygamy and the Priesthood manuals are to teach us how to live our lives today, Why would you think they should talk about a practice that has not been used for over 100 years? Priesthood manuals are not history books

From the introduction:

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophetâ??s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.

I guess we must be hiding the practice in 10 million copies of the manual in black and white. (or however many were printed and given away free of charge to every adult member of the Church)

[Pahoran]

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.

So there's only two ways of looking at this issue: your way and the "Wonderland" way. Got it.

For those of us who don't assume that "critical thinking" means "uncritical acceptance of negative propaganda," and who have looked further into this issue than merely swallowing the Hofmann-Tanner version, there really doesn't need to be a sinister hidden agenda behind putting an expensive piece of paper in a safe place.

So I guess you can include me in the "Wonderland" crowd.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Paul Ray]

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 our 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.

You clicked on Basic Beliefs and then found some information on the Restoration fo the Priesthood.

Basically, everyone can receive the priesthood today by doing what it takes to receive it.

Why do you think the idea that the priesthood hasn't always been available to everyone is something everyone needs to know to be able to know our basic beliefs today concerning priesthood. I havent' been to that site for a while, but I think you'll likely find that it also doesn't mention the fact that the priesthood was once restricted to people of the lineage of Aaron, with the exception of the type of priesthood Moses had which was passed down to Joshua and the other great leaders of God's people, collectively. There are other places you can go to find that information, though, if you want it. It's just not necessary to include all of that information when giving someone a basic idea of our beliefs concerning priesthood.

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.

I wouldn't mind if there was, but I'm not complaining because there isn't. There are a lot of other things that were left out of Joseph's history too, which you can learn more about if you are interested in doing a deeper investigation.

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.

I don't know a lot about that either, and frankly, I am not really that interested in finding out more about who he was married to. I don't know that much about other men's wives either and I have no complaints at all about any of that. Who someone is married to is none of my business unless he/she wants to make it my business.

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.

I have some questions for you on this issue. Please read all of them before you begin to answer any of them. Who wrote that book? Do you trust the person who wrote it? If so, why and how far? Does that person claim to have personal knowledge of Joseph Smith and/or his wives? If so, that doesn't necessarily mean he really does. Where did he get his information? Why should that information be trusted? Do you have a personal assurance from God to assure you that what is written in that book is true? You don't need to answer any of these questions I have asked you about this. I'm still not interested in the wives of other men unless those men tell me that they want to make that a part of my business, and even then I will not be that interested because they are their wives. They are not my wives, and they probably never will be.

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 have enough concerns of my own without taking on the challenges of other men who are now dead.

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.

I see all of that kind of thing as of secondary importance to my personal relationship with God and/or Jesus Christ. I'm more interested in knowing what I need to know today to return to their presence. Some truths are more important than other truths to me and I'm now focusing on the issues which will be of the most importance to me and my family, personally.

[Deborah]

Yikes! I stay off one day and there are 7 new pages of banter.

As I previously said, I was 14 when I joined the church, with no family support, and lots of questions. I knew the church was true therefore the answers I knew were out there even if I didn't have them yet. It took another 3 years before I had access to material that could answer my questions.

The point is, which I also reiterate, is that too many are too willing to dump too soon all they once found true and uplifting before they have the opportunity to really discover the truth from scholars and sources who are faithful and uplifting.

[Tchild2]

Tchild2:

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?

Will, that is fine. The "proofs" work for you. Must they work for everyone? If they don't, are we to blame for not seeing the world through the same lens as you, Selek, MNN or Jwhitlock? Are we "lazy", foolish or any of the other derogatory adjectives thrown our way for our conclusions?

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?

Let me ask you the same thing. What is the explanation for one time believers who are turned out by the "controversies"? What are the explanations for those in other faiths who cannot see these supposed "proofs" and remain active in their respective churches? Answer my questions and I will have answered yours.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I see Wonderland's getting awfully crowded.

If your skills are demonstrated to be faulty I seen no reason why I shouldn't politely point it out. I do note that your response to my refutation was a snide remark though. That doesn't bode well for your arguments.

[Paul Ray]

The "proofs" work for you. Must they work for everyone?

No, they must not. I think some people receive the assurance of God and reject it.

If they don't, are we to blame for not seeing the world through the same lens as you, Selek, MNN or Jwhitlock?

... and/or Paul Ray.

Nah, you're not to blame. Somebody else is forcing you to see what you are choosing to see.

Are we "lazy", foolish or any of the other derogatory adjectives thrown our way for our conclusions?

.... like "deceived", maybe? Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

Someone else is deceiving you, and it's the fault of those who are deceiving you.

Let me ask you the same thing. What is the explanation for one time believers who are turned out by the "controversies"?

Same thing, probably. They're deceived if they choose to reject what God has told them, and us.

... or if they're deceived into believing God will not answer them, personally.

... or if they're decieved into thinking God has given them answers that conflict with his answers to us.

... and if you don't like the word "deceived" try replacing it with the word "blinded"

... you know, as if they are blinded by Satan and/or the subtle craftiness of men.

What are the explanations for those in other faiths who cannot see these supposed "proofs" and remain active in their respective churches? Answer my questions and I will have answered yours.

Deceived, and/or blinded. How's that?

Oh, and let's not forget that it's not their fault for believing what they have chosen to believe.

... and/or see... and/or not see.

Yep, that's the ticket.

[mms]

Please show how the Church has been dishonest.

Scott, is this statement by the Church in Sept 2007 dishonest?

"For the record, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued its practice of polygamy in 1890, and for 117 years Mormons have followed a monogamous lifestyle."

And how about this title of an April 2005 press release regarding the 175th Annual General Conference and talking about all members on the Church records:

"Over 12 Million Worldwide United in a Single Purpose"

Just curious.

[LifeOnaPlate]

"Over 12 Million Worldwide United in a Single Purpose"

Just curious.

As far as this one goes, there are many more on the other side of the veil than 12 mil. We undersold that one.

[mms]

As far as this one goes, there are many more on the other side of the veil than 12 mil. We undersold that one.

Very slippery, aren't we LOAP. Long time no snide remarks. How you been?

[Paul Ray]

As far as this one goes, there are many more on the other side of the veil than 12 mil. We undersold that one.

That's where that word "over" comes in handy.

"Over 12 million...

... you knew that.

[Pahoran]

Scott, is this statement by the Church in Sept 2007 dishonest?

"For the record, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued its practice of polygamy in 1890, and for 117 years Mormons have followed a monogamous lifestyle."

And how about this title of an April 2005 press release regarding the 175th Annual General Conference and talking about all members on the Church records:

"Over 12 Million Worldwide United in a Single Purpose"

Just curious.

Sure, mms. You are just curious.

No part of that heavily loaded "question" was intended to influence any opinions one way or the other.

Should we apply your standards of "dishonesty" to your own statements?

But just in case there is anyone reading this thread who is "just curious," in answer to your "question:" it is possible, by adopting an uber-pharisaical approach, to describe any statement as "dishonest" if it fails to disclose some detail that a longer version would.

That is not within the normal parameters of the word "dishonest" but appears to be a private anti-Mormon usage.

Are anti-Mormons dishonest when they don't disclose the fact that they are relying upon private redefinitions of key terms?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mms]

Sure, mms. You are just curious.

No part of that heavily loaded "question" was intended to influence any opinions one way or the other.

Should we apply your standards of "dishonesty" to your own statements?

But just in case there is anyone reading this thread who is "just curious," in answer to your "question:" it is possible, by adopting an uber-pharisaical approach, to describe any statement as "dishonest" if it fails to disclose some detail that a longer version would.

That is not within the normal parameters of the word "dishonest" but appears to be a private anti-Mormon usage.

Are anti-Mormons dishonest when they don't disclose the fact that they are relying upon private redefinitions of key terms?

Regards,

Pahoran

lol, Pahoran. How you been, man? Still up to the same old twists and turns, huh?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

We could argue back and forth all day long about the efficacy, relevance and propriety of including this or that item or fact in this or that lesson manual or Web page.

But what we're talking about here is suppression, not omission. Suppression is the accusation that was made, which you applauded. Suppression is a loaded, potentially defamatory term. To suppress, according to a standard dictionary definition, is "to keep from appearing or being known, published, etc." This is nothing like what the Church does with its history, and being selective about a focus in an individual lesson manual or Web site does not warrant the pejorative term "suppression."

lol, Pahoran. How you been, man? Still up to the same old twists and turns, huh?

So is that your answer then? Is it the best you can do?

[mms]

So tell me this, Pahoran. Is it not a knowingly false statement for the Church to tell the world that all of its 12 million members were "united in a single purpose" for the 175th GC? Doesn't seem like this is a sin of omission, but of comission to me. How am I wrong?

Edit: Sorry, Scott, missed yours. You can feel free to answer my questions any time, as well as the one posted here for Pahoran. Would appreciate honesty in your answers. Sometimes you just have to admit the obvious, like, for example, it is obvious that 12 million were not united in the single purpose of GC in 2005 (such as many members of my own family who continue on the records of church but have not seen the inside of an LDS Church in 20 years). (Now that I think about it, it is just as obvious that the Church did not stop practicing plural marriage in 1890.)

[mms]

C'mon guys, was it a knowingly false statement or not?

[Scott Lloyd]

C'mon guys, was it a knowingly false statement or not?

Present your quotes again and I'll deal with them individually. The quote function on this board makes it too difficult to cut and paste quoted material.

[jerryp48]

C'mon guys, was it a knowingly false statement or not?

Not in the least.

Do you think we're a bunch of idiots that would have assumed ALL 12 million are perfectly united in every thing?

[Pahoran]

So tell me this, Pahoran. Is it not a knowingly false statement for the Church to tell the world that all of its 12 million members were "united in a single purpose" for the 175th GC? Doesn't seem like this is a sin of omission, but of comission to me. How am I wrong?

You're wrong because a generalisation for the sake of brevity and simplicity is not, as normal people use the word, "dishonest." That's why nobody accuses people with bumper stickers of being liars. Unless the people with bumper stickers are Mormons and the accusers are bigots, that is.

Edit: Sorry, Scott, missed yours. You can feel free to answer my questions any time, as well as the one posted here for Pahoran. Would appreciate honesty in your answers.

And we would appreciate honesty in yours. And it is apparent that we are more likely to be disappointed than you are.

Sometimes you just have to admit the obvious, like, for example, it is obvious that 12 million were not united in the single purpose of GC in 2005 (such as many members of my own family who continue on the records of church but have not seen the inside of an LDS Church in 20 years). (Now that I think about it, it is just as obvious that the Church did not stop practicing plural marriage in 1890.)

And it is even more obvious that you weren't "just curious."

Like I said: it's not about anything more sinister than simplicity and brevity. One would expect you to appreciate such things.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Paul Ray]

Is it not a knowingly false statement for the Church to tell the world that all of its 12 million members were "united in a single purpose" for the 175th GC?

If there is any way at all in which all the members of the Church could be united for a single purpose, would you admit the fact that all of those members were united for that purpose, in that sense?

How about in the sense of being united as members of the Church?

Anyone who is in our Church is still united with us, in some sense.

Now my only question left for you right now is whether or not you will admit that as a fact.

Doesn't seem like this is a sin of omission, but of comission to me. How am I wrong?

You are wrong in the sense of not realizing how all the members of the Church are united, in some sense.

[Scott Lloyd]

Present your quotes again and I'll deal with them individually. The quote function on this board makes it too difficult to cut and paste quoted material.

Gotta hurry mms, or you'll have to wait until tomorrow. I'm about to hit the road.

Edit: Never mind, mms. Pahoran answered as well or better than I could. I'll let his response suffice for me as well. Bye bye.

[mms]

Not in the least.

Do you think we're a bunch of idiots that would have assumed ALL 12 million are perfectly united in every thing?

Umm, hey, Jerry, the press release was intended for the "press" -- get it? The public in general?

[jerryp48]

Umm, hey, Jerry, the press release was intended for the "press" -- get it? The public in general?

Oh yeah you're right. They're idiots.

[mms]

Oh yeah you're right. They're idiots.

So your learned response is, "Do you think the public was really stupid enough to believe the Church?" Nice work, Jer.

Gotta hurry mms, or you'll have to wait until tomorrow. I'm about to hit the road.

Edit: Never mind, mms. Pahoran answered as well or better than I could. I'll let his response suffice for me as well. Bye bye.

Somehow I thought you would.

Anyone else want to actually explain how the statement is not a knowingly false statement. Jerry seems to think it is so patently obvious that no one would believe it in the first place.

[jerryp48]

So your learned response is, "Do you think the public was really stupid enough to believe the Church?" Nice work, Jer.

My response is the statement was not intended to make the press think that all 12 million were united in every thing all the time. What idiot would swallow that?