Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[mms]

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?

No, Jerry. It was intended to make them think that for this "single purpose," all 12 million were "united", which is false.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

No, that's your distortion of what he said.

A more apt restatement would be, reasonable people presumably are bright enough to distinguish between shorthand rhetoric and out-and-out dishonesty.

Notice, I used the qualifier "reasonable."

Now, I really am gone. So you are free to distort my words at will.

Did somebody here mention "honesty"?

[mms]

This is a really good example of how apologists refuse to give on even the most obvious points. No one here really believes that it is honest to suggest that 12 million members were united in that particular single purpose. It was a false statement made to make the Church look like a more significant force than it is in the eyes of the press. Bad judgment one day. You ought to be able to admit it and move on, but you can't because somehow admitting this simply obvious point causes you great insecurity.

Edit: Now it looks like we may have to discuss the difference between "dishonesty" and "out-and-out dishonesty." lol again.

[jerryp48]

This is a really good example of how apologists refuse to give on even the most obvious points. No one here really believes that it is honest to suggest that 12 million members were united in that particular single purpose. It was a false statement made to make the Church look like a more significant force than it is in the eyes of the press. Bad judgment one day. You ought to be able to admit it and move on, but you can't because somehow admitting this simply obvious point causes you great insecurity.

Edit: Now it looks like we may have to discuss the difference between "dishonesty" and "out and out dishonesty." lol again.

Good grief. That statement is the biggest non-issue I've seen yet.

[Daniel Peterson]

You're really straining, mms.

Suppose I read a statement like "Pope Benedict XVI is revered by 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide as the vicar of Christ."

It doesn't bother me a bit, and I certainly wouldn't brand it as a lie -- even though I know full well that not every single one of those 1.1 billion nominal Catholics actually "reveres" Benedict XVI or cares one way or the other, and even though I'm aware that some indeterminate proporition of those 1.1 billion nominal Catholics may actually reject the papacy, and may even attend a Pentecostal church in rural Guatemala.

As a matter of fact, I read statements like "Pope Benedict XVI is revered by 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide as the vicar of Christ" pretty frequently.

They don't trouble me even a teensy weensy itsy bitsy little smidgin, and they certainly aren't "lies."

[mms]

You're really straining, mms.

Suppose I read a statement like "Pope Benedict XVI is revered by 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide as the vicar of Christ."

It doesn't bother me a bit, and I certainly wouldn't brand it as a lie -- even though I know full well that not every single one of those 1.1 billion nominal Catholics actually "reveres" Benedict XVI or cares one way or the other, and even though I'm aware that some indeterminate proporition of those 1.1 billion nominal Catholics may actually reject the papacy, and may even attend a Pentecostal church in rural Guatemala.

As a matter of fact, I read statements like "Pope Benedict XVI is revered by 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide as the vicar of Christ" pretty frequently.

They don't trouble me even a teensy weensy itsy bitsy little smidgin, and they certainly aren't "lies."

Not straining at all. If you are telling me to "suppose" you made a knowingly false statement. I would suppose you made a knowingly false statement. It seems you agree with me, eh DCP? This was a knowingly false statement? But you just think it a harmless one? A little white lie, maybe.

How about the one about plural marriage?

[Daniel Peterson]

Not straining at all. If you are telling me to "suppose" you made a knowingly false statement. I would suppose you made a knowingly false statement. It seems you agree with me, eh DCP? This was a knowingly false statement? But you just think it a harmless one? A little white lie, maybe.

It's not even that. I can't imagine any reasonable person getting upset about it and calling it a lie.

How about the one about plural marriage?

Yes, you'd better try another.

Tell me the one about plural marriage. If I get time before I have to go out the door, I'll respond.

[Pahoran]

No, Jerry. It was intended to make them think that for this "single purpose," all 12 million were "united", which is false.

And you were "just curious," right?

Why were you "curious" about a question the answer to which was already supplied by your vast prejudices?

Once again, this statement was worded as it was, not to deceive anyone, but only for simplicity and brevity. You of all people should appreciate such things.

But I will admit that it is the best evidence of the Church's "dishonesty" that you are likely to find anywhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mms]

It's not even that. I can't imagine any reasonable person getting upset about it and calling it a lie.

Yes, you'd better try another.

Tell me the one about plural marriage. If I get time before I have to go out the door, I'll respond.

"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."

[Daniel Peterson]

Let's say that there were 150 million Americans on 7 December 1941. (The number was roughly in that vicinity, I think.)

An announcer on the radio, responding to news from Hawaii, declares that "the treacherous attack on our sailors at Pearl Harbor has awakened the wrath and indignation of 150 million Americans."

I would imagine that many such statements were, in fact, made in the days following the Japanese attack.

And, very strictly speaking, they were inaccurate.

A fair number of those 150 million Americans were children, and totally clueless about the attack. At least some were senile, in comas, or mentally retarded, and, so, were not particularly upset by the news. And some small but significant proportion were either pro-German or pro-Japanese, and secretly rejoiced in the success of Admiral Yamamoto's strike.

So the announcer and his fellow deceivers were lying, right?

Normal people, I suggest, would see the statement for the rhetorical declaration that it was, and would not require scientific survey data, certificates of loyalty, and proof of mental competence for the entire American population before absolving those who uttered it of a crime against integrity and honesty.

[jwhitlock]

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.

RDL said that he wanted the Church to teach the entirety of its history and doctrine to people going on missions and investigators.

Entirety includes minutiae. There's no insinuation at all. He said it was fraud if that wasn't done.

It appears you didn't get the point. It is impossible for any individual, let alone any organization that would be far older and more complex, to entirely document everything about itself and its history. It would also be impossible for any organization to document everything in detail that might be interesting to anybody.

That's the whole point. People who want the Church to be more "up front" with everything speak only in generalizations - not in specifics. They can't agree on what, exactly, the Church needs to be "up front" with for every individual - individuals whose needs, interests, and desires differ radically.

It's simply impossible. And yet we continue to hear critics claim that the Church didn't meet their needs for information - even they though themselves often had no idea of what those needs were at the time. It is, simply, ridiculous to fault the Church in the manner done on this thread when speaking of this.

[Daniel Peterson]

The statement about plural marriage is not precisely accurate, but it seems close enough to me for ordinary domestic purposes.

There was, yes, post-Manifesto plural marriage. And, in fact, some continued to live in plural marriages even after the so-called Second Manifesto. And, very possibly, there are some members, still on the books, living in plural marriage at this very moment.

It's unreasonable to demand detailed, precise accuracy from shorthand rhetorical statements, and it's unreasonable to accuse those making them of "lying."

That's a charge that should be leveled only very rarely, and after serious consideration, not casually.

[mms]

Let's say that there were 150 million Americans on 7 December 1941. (The number was roughly in that vicinity, I think.)

An announcer on the radio, responding to news from Hawaii, declares that "the treacherous attack on our sailors at Pearl Harbor has awakened the wrath and indignation of 150 million Americans."

I would imagine that many such statements were, in fact, made in the days following the Japanese attack.

And, very strictly speaking, they were inaccurate.

A fair number of those 150 million Americans were children, and totally clueless about the attack. At least some were senile, in comas, or mentally retarded, and, so, were not particularly upset by the news. And some small but significant proportion were either pro-German or pro-Japanese, and secretly rejoiced in the success of Admiral Yamamoto's strike.

So the announcer and his fellow deceivers were lying, right?

Normal people, I suggest, would see the statement for the rhetorical declaration that it was, and would not require scientific survey data, certificates of loyalty, and proof of mental competence for the entire American population before absolving those who uttered it of a crime against integrity and honesty.

It's not quite that simple, now is it DCP? In fact, the issue of the Church inflating its membership and activity numbers has been a source of controversy. Indeed, just this past January, the Church stated this in a press release in response to criticism:

Commenting on the Churchâ??s statistical growth and methodology, The Christian Century recently published an article that attempts to discount its steady membership growth. Though growth may be captured by statistics, success cannot be. The Church does not claim to be the fastest-growing religion and does not measure its success by that standard. Because the Church does not remove from its records those members who have lost contact with the Church or who have become inactive, the publication casts doubt on the accuracy of the membership totals, claiming that they are intentionally inflated.

But since there is no universal standard for compiling statistics among the various churches in the United States, the Church remains as inclusive as possible in its membership rolls so as not to preclude any potential return or change of heart of a member who has become inactive. Taking such individuals off the records does no one any good. No particular statistical methodology should serve as a means for the spiritual write-off and disfellowship of any member. Statistics do not operate in that realm, nor do they aim to.

So, how about changing your little hypos to account for this.

[Daniel Peterson]

It's not quite that simple, now is it DCP?

Precisely my point.

[mms]

The statement about plural marriage is not precisely accurate, but it seems close enough to me for ordinary domestic purposes.

There was, yes, post-Manifesto plural marriage. And, in fact, some continued to live in plural marriages even after the so-called Second Manifesto. And, very possibly, there are some members, still on the books, living in plural marriage at this very moment.

It's unreasonable to demand detailed, precise accuracy from shorthand rhetorical statements, and it's unreasonable to accuse those making them of "lying."

That's a charge that should be leveled only very rarely, and after serious consideration, not casually.

It would have been very easy for the Church to put a more accurate date in that release. Very, very, easy. The irony is that that very press release was asking the media to be more "accurate" in discussing Mormons and polygamy.

Precisely my point.

Your point is that your hypos are objectionable/inapplicable based on their oversimplicity of the issue? Uhh. Okay.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Your lawyerly obfuscation continues. I've written and commented on what you said, I've shown where denied what you said, and I've shown how you continue to ignore a discussion of the evidence presented, and instead still continue to make unsubstantiated assertions.

It's becoming tiresome. But that's what lawyers do, right? Throw doubt and contradictions out until the other side throws up its hands in disgust. Anything but address the issues at hand.

And you continue to try to quote things in "support" of your claims that have nothing to do with them - and then, when that's pointed out, say that we're living in "wonderland". Whatever. It appears that dissenters will stoop to anything in order to justify their faulty perspectives of the Church.

[Pahoran]

It's not quite that simple, now is it DCP? In fact, the issue of the Church inflating its membership and activity numbers has been a source of controversy.

That's an unusual way to spell "gnat-straining."

And it is yet another example of an accusation based in malice.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mms]

And it is yet another example of an accusation based in malice.

Regards,

Pahoran

And Pahoran the great judges my heart yet again. It's been too long.

[Calm]

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 have no problem understanding that our paths were different. I do have a problem why you are blaming the Church because you didn't happen to go down a particular path, that your choices didn't bring you in contact with ideas and other things that troubled you in what you feel was a timely fashion.

I'm going to go into detail why because you keep seeming to miss this point of my comments which is what they've all been directed toward. I apologize for the length. I'm using a lot of personal comments to make a point that I'm missing how important you see this knowledge would have been to you, I've had quite a few times in my life where I was deprived of important facts and experiences due to others' inadequacies so I understand how frustrating and even hurtful the situation is when you think of 'what might have been'....

----

I can understand why this attitude of "if I don't know there are any problems, there must not be any, so I don't need look for them" can be so appealing. Eliminates a whole bunch of worry....at least until you bump up against the reality that everything has problems of some sort or the other.

But imagine applying it in other areas of your life---the guy you're attracted to looks perfectly respectable and no one you know and trust has said anything bad about him...probably for the reason they don't know anything bad about him, so you make the decision that there's no reason to be cautious about him.

And what about the case where you are cautious about it, you take your time getting to know him, you associate with his friends, etc. He asks you to marry him, you feel good about it and again no one has told you anything that troubles you so you go ahead. But marriage isn't what you expected. He's not exactly what you thought he was and you've only been able to learn of this by living with him. You talk to one of your mutual friends and tell him how much a particular habit bothers you. The other is surprised and responds it never bothered him that much. You are shocked. He knew about this horrible habit and didn't bother to inform you before you got married? What a jerk!

To insist that people inform you of potential problems beforehand requires two things...one, that they know about the issue themselves and two, that they know that you might see these issues as problems.

You say that all you needed was a point in the right direction and you would have found out for yourself...but are you sure that this didn't occur, that you didn't get the same sort of nudge the rest of us got and it just didn't register with you like it did with us? And if that did happen, then whose fault is it really that you didn't take the path some of us others did. Each life is such a complicated combination of events and choices, can anyone really point to something and say "I never got an opportunity that I should have had?"

So you didn't take a certain path for whatever reason...that's life, there are only so many hours in the day, we all make choices---even very important ones--based on incomplete and at times inaccurate information given to us by others. It would be nice if it was different, if everyone had enough time and enough knowledge to smooth the way for ourselves and each others so that missteps weren't taken...but that's not reality. The only concern I have is if an action is malicious. In the case of the Church, well, most bishops and missionaries actually think they are helping others....

So the goalpost has to be shifted not to just having the information out there available to the general public but to making it easy to find out...but whether or not it's "easy" enough is not left to the judgment of the person who has the information and is trying to share it with those who they think might be interested or need it, but is left to the judgment of the person who thinks they want that information. Is it surprising then that any effort that has been made won't be seen as sufficient if that person isn't aware of it? It seems that's the only acceptable outcome---that the individual gets what he wants when he wants it, not that any good faith efforts are made.

There is no way to for an individual to be aware of the decisions by the leadership or by individuals that are made on why some things are taught and others not and on what basis these decisions get made...yet many feel perfectly comfortable to criticize these decisions anyway even lacking this background. Again, this is an attitude that I don't get, especially when the criticism is that "we made the wrong decisions ourselves...but it's not our fault even if your decision is your fault."

There have been people who have claimed to have gone to all of the Institute classes and been attentive students and yet are still completely unaware of the information that is within the covers of the manual. And it may not be their fault in the sense that they read it, but just didn't have the ability to process it sufficiently like some people who read D&C 132 and come away from that with no hint that JS might have engaged in plural marriage though there are direct references to him practicing it. But I don't see it as the fault of the teacher or church that all the information out there is not presented in all the multitudes of ways that each individual needs in order to become aware of all the details that they think are important. That is just an impossible measure to be met. Decisions have to be made on how much effort, time and resources are to be spent on spreading information and judgment calls must be made on which information is important enough to be invested in.

FA, the blame can be easily reversed...why didn't you inform the people who were your missionaries and your bishop that you needed to know everything that might be a problem, how could you expect them to know without you telling them? Can you imagine the shock they might feel learning years later that this was important to you and yet you didn't ensure that they understood this while they were teaching you? Maybe they even feel betrayed because you didn't speak up enough, make it obvious to them that they should have been teaching you this and instead had them wasting their time on stuff that wasn't as important apparently.

---

For me the bottomline is that I believe that first off, what I learn has been my personal responsibility since at least junior high. Even in high school, while I was disappointed when I got a lousy teacher, I never let that stop me from learning what I was interested in and even later when I found out I had missed some stuff that other classes got, I didn't see it as a problem...I learned other things such as independence and personal involvement especially in one math classe where several students came to rely on me to help them with concepts our first year of teaching teacher just didn't get yet...at least not in a way that he could teach it to these other students. As it turned out, while that lack of some of the more advanced concepts that I missed out on hampered me in the future in my advanced math courses, what I had learned paid off in other ways so I consider that the teacher did just fine even if he didn't meet my expectations.

Could I hold the later resulting hardships in my life against him? Sure, he certainly didn't measure up to what the high school was promoting him as. And those hardships may have been the 'straw that broke the camel's back' in a few cases that contributed to choices of mine that redirected my life down a completely different path.

I could also hold responsible for my current health problems all those doctors over the decades who misdiagnosed me because they didn't take the time to listen to everything I told them or could have told them or to study it further so they knew what type of questions to ask me to get to the important answers and instead made assumptions that made me sicker, not healthier. Their lack ended up making my particular disorder significantly worse due to inappropriate medications...to the point that some people see me now as a semiinvalid. Definitely prevented me from having a career, doing all the things I dreamed and planned for or even having as many children as I desired. It's created a huge hardship for my family as well.

And the doctors didn't even solve the mystery themselves, lol. It wasn't solved until I had educated myself enough that I had discovered what the disorder was on my own and even when I went in and informed them, I still didn't get the right treatment until I learned how to talk the 'medical' talk so I could give them the answers that they didn't bother asking me for, but needed (by this point I'm educated enough every new doctor I go to asks me if I have a medical background, lol). So here I'm even paying these experts to take care of me and I'm still required to do all the major work for myself...they are left with only having to order a few tests to be run to confirm my diagnosis and then fill out the prescriptions for the drugs I've chosen.

I supposed I could sue them for fraud, lol. What a total waste of everyone's time and attention that would be.

I have no doubt that they were doing the best that they could when they saw me even if it was not the best they could have done on a 'good' day or based on all their skills and education. They after all had access to resources I didn't have (until the internet at least) and yet didn't take full advantage of them. But I have no doubt they would have taken advantage of them if they had realized the need in my particular case. Instead they treated me in the way they did based on their best judgmental ability at the time. They were good people who cared. That it turned out wrong is just a fact of life. I've learned to live with it and I don't hold them responsible for the mistakes and current lacks in my life anymore than I hold that high school teacher responsible for the fact that geometry has never been as easy for me as algebra. Or that I hold my dad responsible for the fact that I took a degree in psychology instead of physics and ended up thereby in a totally different life.

I just don't understand the mentality that feels the need to blame someone else for being unintentionally imperfect and making mistakes when that is exactly what each and everyone of us is doing every day of our life and if we were held to the same standard of not saying the right thing at the right time, we would all stand convicted by it. And I don't see how the 'imperfect being' being an organization rather than an individual makes any difference since each organization is made up of individuals after all.

And that anger and resentment that comes from feeling like someone else screwed you over...especially if it was with the best of intentions of helping you out, why is that a burden anyone would choose to carry or even nourish to the point that it starts interfering with how one lives? Bitterness and resentment isn't going to be something I spend my limited resources on. Life is way too precious for that, if I got 'cheated' out of something in the past, I'm not going to let it continue to 'cheat' me out of my present or future.

So no, I'm never going to get the feeling of entitlement to complain about someone else's mistaken good intentions or to the tendency to place responsibility for any action that I chose on someone else's back even while I recognize the at times immense influence that others had on me making these decisions.

[Calm]

You should respect my free agency and where it has led me thus far.

I do. I just don't understand why you feel the need to blame others because they didn't act in a particular way so that you could get there sooner or someplace different.

If you aren't intending to come across this way, my apologies.

[Free Agent]

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.

I am plowing through this thread, albeit I'm behind what with being a Mom and all. I sent a PM to Life letting him know how grateful I was that he seemed to understand where I was coming from. I don't ask that you guys condone it. Just understand is all. And you are right. I would definitely defend the Church. In fact, my teenage daughter now attends an all girl Catholic high school. The change had nothing to do with the Church issues we were having, more that she wanted to be a part of the all girl environment and not public schooling. I digress, though. However, she is now required to take religion class and gosh darn it if she didn't let the teacher know that she wasn't Catholic when he started saying something about Mormonism. That takes gumption wearing a private school uniform in a room full of Catholics.

Life, the Mormon religion, I will tell you, all of you, that it resonated with me at the age of 16. I was on a path that wasn't great and I met an LDS guy and things just fell into place. But I struggled with leaving the Church of my parents and the Church I had known for 16 years. What resonated with me was family and love and warmth and goodness. Not that my parents weren't all of that, but the LDS just have a way of making it so much more personal. I loved how it made me feel, but I studies 3 years and took discussions and attended classes and finally came to the realization that it was true. I absolutely, unequivocally promise you all that I never knew any of the troubling aspects of our history. Do I wish that now, in hindsight, there'd been a class I could have taken, a primer handed to me, something that could have gently eased me into the knowledge of what hit me full bore after I"d been a member for over 20 years? Yes I do. I'm not bitter though, and I hope I haven't given that impression. I am glad it works for so many of you, I really am. I appreciate that your experiences and knowledge and exposures were not mine, and so we are all at different places. What makes me upset is the insinuation by so many that somehow I didn't dig deep enough at the right time, or that I never really had a testimony, and on and on. That hurts and I think its unfair.

[Calm]

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.

I suspect the Church leadership believes that it is being completely fair in presenting all aspects of its history that is required to make an 'unbiased' informed decision about the church and its doctrinal and historical claims.

That it doesn't meet someone else's standard of "fairness"....

Well, just who should have the right to decide what is fair here and impose a standard on the Church--the individual/organization spending their own time, efforts and resources or someone else?

[Pahoran]

Mms,

you previously accused:

No, Jerry. It was intended to make them think that for this "single purpose," all 12 million were "united", which is false.

And now you bleat:

And Pahoran the great judges my heart yet again. It's been too long.

Your double standards are hilarious.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jerryp48]

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?)

Bump for Free Agent. Did you see this?

[Calm]

I would be hard pressed to compose a more self-contradictory statement.

This is what is very confusing to me. There seems to be a demand for a type of behaviour from the Church that they don't expect or even want from themselves.