Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Calm]

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.)

I'm pretty sure your position is my position as well.

I may have misunderstood from her comments that she was placing the responsibility for her frustration on the Church or its members such as the bishop and missionaries she referenced directly. I'd like some clarification if I am wrong in this.

[aka]

But there is no hard and fast rule about what a Mormon can read and what she can't, and there was certainly never any prohibition against reading Fawn Brodie's historical novel about Joseph Smith.

Dr. Peterson refers to Fawn Brodie's book No Man Knows My History as an "historical novel."

Dr. Richard Bushman, writing in Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling declares Ms. Brodie to be â??the most eminent of Joseph Smith's un-believing biographers" and speaks of No Man Knows My History. as a "landmark biography."

Is a biography the same thing as an historical novel, or do Dr. Bushman and Dr. Peterson disagree about what it is that Ms. Brodie wrote ?

[Calm]

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.

Did you also point him to the FARMS review of the book or perhaps Nighthawke's comments on this board of the some gaps in his presentation?

I have a serious reason for asking this, this is not meant to be criticism, I am sincerely asking if you did this.

[Calm]

(don't you just hate long posts?)

If she does, I must be on her most despised lists, lol.

[Calm]

Your lawyerly obfuscation continues.....

It's becoming tiresome. But that's what lawyers do, right?

Some of us have lawyers among our friends and family and they from time to time use their awesome cosmic mental powers on the side of Truth, Peace and Justice and even on occasion Mercy, so please try to restrain yourself from painting with quite so broad a brush.

[William Schryver]

Tchild2:

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?

I would assume you are fully responsible for your choices.

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

I have never suggested anything of the sort. I have only ever suggested that you are responsible for your conclusions.

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.

I already did. The answer is free agency.

Which means the answer is not that there is only one way to look at the evidence.

You see, I donâ??t attempt to evangelize to you and others like you. I am content that you have made your choices by the light of whatever lamp illuminates your path.

I only wonder why that path so often seems to consist of you paralleling our path and heckling us along the way? Let it go. Move on. Why expend so much effort in places like this attempting to justify, in our eyes, the choices you have made?

[mms]

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?

Actually, here is what one Dallin Oaks (fairly prominent Church leader I'd say) said in his interview with Helen Whitney on the matter:

"Itâ??s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. Thatâ??s an old problem in Mormonism â?? a feeling of members that they shouldnâ??t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they shouldâ??ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life.

There are several different elements of that. One element is that weâ??re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesnâ??t deal with anything thatâ??s unfavorable, and weâ??re coming into a period of â??warts and allâ? kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things â?? there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.

On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You donâ??t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didnâ??t exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and thatâ??s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members havenâ??t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives â??Brother Jonesâ? his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. Itâ??s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that weâ??re moving with the times, weâ??re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldnâ??t."

Bolding mine.

[mms]

Mms,

you previously accused:

And now you bleat:

Your double standards are hilarious.

Regards,

Pahoran

Although I find it refreshing that you find something hilarious, Pahoran (sort of makes you less "scary"), you are a little off. I am not reading anything into the Church's words other than what it said. You, on the other hand, are reading far beyond what I have said. Rather obvious point, really.

[Calm]

Actually, here is what one Dallin Oaks (fairly prominent Church leader I'd say) said in his interview with Helen Whitney on the matter:

Bolding mine.

And how does this indicate that the Church didn't believe it was being fair in its treatment when it made its decisions in the past. Don't even really see where Elder Oaks is saying the Church wasn't being "fair" even if its presentation was one-sided in one aspect of its choices. In fact he says, "I believe that there is purpose in all these things â?? there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now."

[mms]

And how does this indicate that the Church didn't believe it was being fair in its treatment when it made its decisions in the past. Don't even really see where Elder Oaks is saying the Church wasn't being "fair" even if its presentation was one-sided in one aspect of its choices. In fact he says, "I believe that there is purpose in all these things â?? there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now."

I probably should have bolded your "unbiased". The point is, the presentation has been intentionally biased toward the favorable and avoiding the unfavorable. This is not unbiased, but entirely biased toward the Church. So the Church knew very well it was being biased, but simply justifies it based on the belief that despite the unfavorbale aspects of its history it is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. Oaks even goes so far as to say that the point was to not create doubt.

[mnn727]

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.

or as I said a number of pages back(earlier today), to many lawyers the truth is irrelevant

[Tchild2]

Tchild2:

I would assume you are fully responsible for your choices.

I have never suggested anything of the sort. I have only ever suggested that you are responsible for your conclusions.

My comments were directed more towards Mnn, Jwhitlock and others who make references towards those who have doubts about the material facts of foundational Mormonism as to being persons lazy, foolish or "shockingly sloppy" in coming to our conclusions. Don't you find it "shocking" that so many people keep making this claim of lack of disclosure on facts believed material? It is all over the RFM boards, here and with most ex-members who have decided to research foundational claims. Surely our collective voice aren't random musings, but means something?

I have commented that it is not our problem but the church's issue. Does the church concern itself with finding and retaining members? If yes, then we are mirrors to help the church see its weak points (not that critics do so with any altruism)...unless it wants to keep on losing members and merely blaming and making scapegoats.

My comments are not directed towards you, Dr. P and a few others who have made very cogent arguments while being respectful of differing opinions. That is the purpose of this forum isn't it, to find rationales that bolster faith and defuse criticisms?

Which means the answer is not that there is only one way to look at the evidence.

You see, I donâ??t attempt to evangelize to you and others like you. I am content that you have made your choices by the light of whatever lamp illuminates your path.

I only wonder why that path so often seems to consist of you paralleling our path and heckling us along the way? Let it go. Move on. Why expend so much effort in places like this attempting to justify, in our eyes, the choices you have made?

I enjoy sharing another viewpoint, and try to do so as respectfully as possible. I would like to move on. I can't I guess. Penitence to pay for being so zealous as a member perhaps.

[jwhitlock]

Some of us have lawyers among our friends and family and they from time to time use their awesome cosmic mental powers on the side of Truth, Peace and Justice and even on occasion Mercy, so please try to restrain yourself from painting with quite so broad a brush.

My comments are directed towards the lawyerly attitude RDL seems to have; he has noted several times that he is a corporate tort lawyer. My comments are not, of course, directed at the good lawyers that are out there.

However, I will note that while good lawyers do much that is highly necessary and commendable, there is a special place reserved in the inferno for many of the individuals that practice law nowadays. I suspect that you also know some of those types, besides the ones you refer to; they seem to be all too plentiful and have been quite successful, by their actions, in shaping negative public attitudes towards lawyers in general.

[jwhitlock]

My comments were directed more towards Mnn, Jwhitlock and others who make references towards those who have doubts about the material facts of foundational Mormonism as to being persons lazy, foolish or "shockingly sloppy" in coming to our conclusions. Don't you find it "shocking" that so many people keep making this claim of lack of disclosure on facts believed material? It is all over the RFM boards, here and with most ex-members who have decided to research foundational claims. Surely our collective voice aren't random musings, but means something?

You have, as you are wont to do, conflated what we have really said with what you want us to have said.

The discussion has been specifically about people claiming lack of disclosure. Our comments have related to people who claim that the Church is fraudulent in not disclosing everything in its history or doctrine before they were baptized or went on missions. Yet you, in your comment, want to twist it to make it seem like we directed them primarily towards people who doubt. Quit trying to shift the discussion to something that did not occur and be more honest in your characterizations.

What does it all mean? It simply means that some ex-Mormons are trying to find yet another way of justifying their departure from the Church. It is, after all, the American way to find a scapegoat and blame someone else for your own poor decisions. This whole issue of the Church being responsible for disclosing absolutely everything in its history and doctrine to members is simply absurd to any clear thinking person.

[Tchild2]

You have, as you are wont to do, conflated what we have really said with what you want us to have said.

The discussion has been specifically about people claiming lack of disclosure. Our comments have related to people who claim that the Church is fraudulent in not disclosing everything in its history or doctrine before they were baptized or went on missions. Yet you, in your comment, want to twist it to make it seem like we directed them primarily towards people who doubt. Quit trying to shift the discussion to something that did not occur and be more honest in your characterizations.

I don't believe the church is "consciously" fradulent in any regard towards its past. That would imply that some person knew that the church was untrue, but felt they had to hide that/those certain glaring fact(s) to keep the truth from being known. I think two arguments have been put forth and got mixed together.

What does it all mean? It simply means that some ex-Mormons are trying to find yet another way of justifying their departure from the Church.

No, that is not what it means. Now you are the one conflating and twisting intent. I don't need to justify anything to anyone, and why would I, and for what purpose? People are discovering what are to them material facts that changes the very outcome of the veracity of the truthfullness of the church. It is just perplexing that what is supposed to be the ultimate truth (that is how a believer sees it) of an eternal God. If a person claimed to find treasure through a rock and also sought out investers for "oil leases" and wanted me to invest my money with them, they would be out on their ear. Yet, we don't demand any more from the prophet of the restoration of the fullness of times? That isn't material to deciding to believe the unproveable (faith based) claims of Joseph Smith?

It is, after all, the American way to find a scapegoat and blame someone else for your own poor decisions. This whole issue of the Church being responsible for disclosing absolutely everything in its history and doctrine to members is simply absurd to any clear thinking person.

If you are going to claim to be the "truest" way to an eternal God and eternal life, you better well stand the most intense scrutiny that can be put to such a claim.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson refers to Fawn Brodie's book No Man Knows My History as an "historical novel."

Dr. Richard Bushman, writing in Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling declares Ms. Brodie to be â??the most eminent of Joseph Smith's un-believing biographers" and speaks of No Man Knows My History. as a "landmark biography."

Is a biography the same thing as an historical novel, or do Dr. Bushman and Dr. Peterson disagree about what it is that Ms. Brodie wrote ?

Richard and I probably don't really disagree all that much.

No Man Knows My History was, beyond dispute, a landmark biography, and there is no question that it has been very influential, particularly among non-Mormon academics.

It also purports, on several occasions, to tell what Joseph was thinking -- which, to my mind, is more novelistic than historical.

My saying that it was important and that it has been influential -- and Richard's saying the same thing -- in no way contradicts my judgment that it is seriously flawed.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

It would have been extraordinarily difficult to be completely accurate in that release, and perhaps even impossible.

Do you have any real idea how complex and detailed the end of plural marriage in the Church was? How many monographs and books have been written on the subject?

The press release was substantially accurate, and, to my mind, adequately so for its (entirely legitimate) purpose.

If you want a historical monograph on the termination of plural marriage, you won't be able to cram it entirely into a brief press release.

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

Oh. Sorry. They sail right past you. My apologies.

[erichard]

...

Are all truths equally useful for all things? Are all truths equally important?

It seems that this idea is obviously false.

...

Hi Dan,

I never bothered before to look at this thread, and so came into this very late. But looking at it did generation some thoughts.

First, I found your essay, and subsequent posts, on this matter convincing. But I am concerned about one matter, which I will ask later.

I was raised LDS. In my own life at some point it seemed to me that President Young's "Adam-God" teachings were important. Here are some of my reasons:

1. I felt exhilaration when I read them.

2. President Young was the ordained Revelator for the church when he gave them.

3. He was also a close and very trusted friend of the Prophet Joseph. And more could be said about him.

4. The understanding of the nature of God certainly must be quite important. To me, the understanding restored by the First Vision, and other revelations to Joseph are critical for developing faith in the true God.

Should I just have overruled my instincts to understand these strange Adam-God quotes? Was I wrong in trying to get to the bottom of this matter?

It led me to reject the Fundamentalist versions of Adam-God. But neither could I fully trust the church's disinterest and seeming confusion about the matter.

Eventually it led me to a spiritual witness that the Second Book of Commandments revelations on the matter were correct. Which led me to a lot of prayer and study to understand how such a problem could exist in the church.

So I agree if you are suggesting that a lot of intellectuals and fundamentalists get off on unwise tangents, and worry about "truths" that are not really valuable for their salvation.

But I do not agree if you are trying to convince us that we should never question the "Authorities" in the church. No, I fully encourage everyone to place "Question Authority" posters around.

The FIRST rule of any government must be this: those being ruled over should NEVER be expected to fully trust the government. There always must be a way those being governed can voice legitimate dissent, and seek answers or redress. Even in the Lord's church. Do you agree?

Richard

[Daniel Peterson]

I prefer not to talk openly about Adam-God.

That said, I would never speak against researching, reflecting, and praying about anything at all.

[ohyeah]

i have not seen anything that those of the critics of the lds church can come up with that comes close to touching the width, depth breadth whatever and how intricately the gospel fits together which i recognize somewhat requires having the spirit to support it.

how this is relative to this thread, to me, is that i find things that are truths and other items included in the gospel that may seem extra niceties are, in our ah ha moments, more integral than we may have previously imagined. a recent example for me is patriarchal blessings.

[Free Agent]

Did you also point him to the FARMS review of the book or perhaps Nighthawke's comments on this board of the some gaps in his presentation?

I have a serious reason for asking this, this is not meant to be criticism, I am sincerely asking if you did this.

I just read through 4 pages of long posts that I feel I need to respond to, but not sure I have the time tonight. Still have a 6 year old to tuck in and that takes awhile.

Calmoriah, thank you for all the thought in your very long post. I really only had time to quickly peruse, I'm sorry. I felt, though, that I needed to quickly respond to this one. You ask if I pointed him to anything else. Isn't it interesting you are asking me to point him somewhere when all I'm telling you is I wish someone had pointed me somewhere. Why is it my responsibility to tell my Bishop anything? Not that I mind doing that at all, just saying you're kind of expecting behavior from me towards him that you criticize me for wanting when I was investigating. And, no, I didn't point him to the items you referenced. I have let him know about FAIR, not FARMS and I don't even know to what you refer about Nighthawke. Only so much time in the day.

Jerry,

I saw your post as well and I appreciate your thoughts. I unfortunately don't have the time right now to respond, but thank you and I'll try to get back on later.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

What are you talking about? I haven't been snide with you. I do recall, however, encouraging you to not get caught up in banter in the past.

[Calm]

I probably should have bolded your "unbiased". The point is, the presentation has been intentionally biased toward the favorable and avoiding the unfavorable. This is not unbiased, but entirely biased toward the Church. So the Church knew very well it was being biased, but simply justifies it based on the belief that despite the unfavorbale aspects of its history it is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. Oaks even goes so far as to say that the point was to not create doubt.

It wasn't my "unbiased" but the original poster's claim of what was fair. I don't believe there is anything "unbiased." What is and isn't "unbiased" is purely what a person defines it to be in his or her own mind and in most cases I've seen it used, it's more about the outcome than what is actually going on.

A doctor believes a procedure is the only way to save a patient's life. He knows the patient is reluctant about any such treatments. Do you really think he's going to think his presentation that is mostly, if not entirely about the positive aspect that it will save the guy's life is not fair? And he most likely....if he's like every doctor I've known...believes that his judgment decision to present that certain set of facts is as objective and as unbiased as possible and that the only reason why he is not telling all the details that might lead to another decision on the patient's part is because he thinks the patient is overly biased in the opposite direction and so he is creating balance with his selection of facts where no balance existed before.

Course the patient may see it completely different if he ever learns he didn't get all the details that he thought would have influenced his decision in one way or the other.

[Calm]

I just read through 4 pages of long posts that I feel I need to respond to, but not sure I have the time tonight. Still have a 6 year old to tuck in and that takes awhile.

Calmoriah, thank you for all the thought in your very long post. I really only had time to quickly peruse, I'm sorry. I felt, though, that I needed to quickly respond to this one. You ask if I pointed him to anything else. Isn't it interesting you are asking me to point him somewhere when all I'm telling you is I wish someone had pointed me somewhere. Why is it my responsibility to tell my Bishop anything? Not that I mind doing that at all, just saying you're kind of expecting behavior from me towards him that you criticize me for wanting when I was investigating. And, no, I didn't point him to the items you referenced. I have let him know about FAIR, not FARMS and I don't even know to what you refer about Nighthawke. Only so much time in the day.

Exactly! I wasn't expecting you to tell him that. I thought you directing him to ISL was perfectly sufficient for your conversation considering what you were aiming for at the time.

Why is it you see (if I'm reading you correctly) that it was the Bishop or missionaries' responsibility to provide you with details that they either didn't know that you might want to know or didn't know themselves? And why do you transfer that responsibility further up the line to the Church leadership that might not see things as important in the way that you do.

I didn't mean the questions as a 'gotcha' type of thing, just was pointing out that everyone makes a judgment call on what they tell others and most often it's simply because there's "only so much time in the day" and they are either saving time for themselves or think they are saving the other guy some time by not wasting it on what they see as unimportant or at least less important. And I waited until you responded so I could use your language instead of mine so that my point might be clearer.

Don't worry about only skimming that obscenely long post. It really just boils down to the same point I'm trying to make here.

[jwhitlock]

I don't believe the church is "consciously" fradulent in any regard towards its past. That would imply that some person knew that the church was untrue, but felt they had to hide that/those certain glaring fact(s) to keep the truth from being known. I think two arguments have been put forth and got mixed together.

Nice of you to qualify fraudulent as "consciously". It allows you and RDL to keep the door open for the charge of fraud - no matter how it's defined.

What I've seen here is critics of the Church trying to find any angle to prove that the Church has suppressed and omitted history, and that it is responsible for teaching members and investigators absolutely everything before they make any kind of commitment to it. You don't agree with each other, but you have to support each other in your efforts.

No, that is not what it means. Now you are the one conflating and twisting intent. I don't need to justify anything to anyone, and why would I, and for what purpose? People are discovering what are to them material facts that changes the very outcome of the veracity of the truthfullness of the church. It is just perplexing that what is supposed to be the ultimate truth (that is how a believer sees it) of an eternal God. If a person claimed to find treasure through a rock and also sought out investers for "oil leases" and wanted me to invest my money with them, they would be out on their ear. Yet, we don't demand any more from the prophet of the restoration of the fullness of times? That isn't material to deciding to believe the unproveable (faith based) claims of Joseph Smith?

Odd, then, how there are soooo many boards for ex-Mormons dedicated to trashing the Church. Much of it reads like self justification for poor decisions to leave the Church. The "discovery" of material facts is simply another way of claiming that you've found something to further rationalize why you left the Church.

This thread continues to be a prime example of that. The claim that the Church needs to teach everything about itself to investigators, new members, etc. from all angles, and that if it doesn't "inoculate" the membership, then it is at fault, is absolutely ludicrous. It has been proven to be logistically impossible. It is unrealistic. Critics cannot agree on which hot button issues the Church has to teach. They cannot agree on which anti-Mormon viewpoints should be emphasized. It is, in the end, simply a rationalization and justification for people's poor decisions to leave the Church.

If you don't need to justify anything to anybody, why are you here on this board? I doubt it it to learn about anything, because your posts typically don't seek to understand the LDS viewpoint of anything. Rather, they seek to try to validate why you are justified in your dismissal of the claims of the Church.

I'll give you another clue here. If you're trying to characterize the LDS system of belief in any way as "ultimate truth", you just don't get it. Most faithful LDS have no such extreme perspective.

If you are going to claim to be the "truest" way to an eternal God and eternal life, you better well stand the most intense scrutiny that can be put to such a claim.

And again, it is apparent in the way you phrase this that you do not understand how the Church views itself relative to salvation.

On the other hand, the Church welcomes honest scrutiny. However, any dependence on anti-Mormon sources for such scrutiny is, in the end, a false trail.