Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[RDL]

jwhitlock, mms, calmoriah, LOAP--

I ask you to read what you've written about the personal responsibility of members, and specifically FA, to independently become aware of history or doctrine that she or he might one day find troubling--and square that with the quote I provided from Jeffrey R. Holland--a direct exhortation for parents to show not even an ounce of skepticism to their children.

Here are a few direct quotes:

Parents simply cannot flirt with skepticism or cynicism, then be surprised when their children expand that flirtation into full-blown romance. If in matters of faith and belief children are at risk of being swept downstream by this intellectual current or that cultural rapid, we as their parents must be more certain than ever to hold to anchored, unmistakable moorings clearly recognizable to those of our own household. It wonâ??t help anyone if we go over the edge with them, explaining through the roar of the falls all the way down that we really did know the Church was true and that the keys of the priesthood really were lodged there but we just didnâ??t want to stifle anyoneâ??s freedom to think otherwise.

To lead a child (or anyone else!), even inadvertently, away from faithfulness, away from loyalty and bedrock belief simply because we want to be clever or independent is license no parent nor any other person has ever been given. In matters of religion a skeptical mind is not a higher manifestation of virtue than is a believing heart, and analytical deconstruction in the field of, say, literary fiction can be just plain old-fashioned destruction when transferred to families yearning for faith at home.

Are you not expecting FA, as a teenager, to act contrary to Holland's exhortation? Aren't you saying it was her or his responsibility to analytically deconstruct history and/or doctrine, when doing so would be contrary to this exhortation?

And I'll add this thought, since my "fraud" assertion seems to gave gotten some riled up, and I see that it has been misinterpreted for whatever reason, perhaps my lack of clarity. And I'll use an example that has nothing to do with the Mormon faith, and perhaps you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Earlier, I brought up the example of Scientology coming into the possession of a letter written by L. Ron Hubbard, which described his amazement that so many people are believing his tall tales. I asked whether the Church of Scientology would have a legal duty to disclose the existence of that letter to its members. I think the only answer I got was from Dr. Peterson, who suggested my Scientology example and the Abraham/papyrus issues are unrelated, since the Hubbard letter would be conclusive proof (or something along those lines) that Scientology was bogus (or something along those lines).

Now consider whether the Church of Scientology would have a legal duty to disclose the existence of that letter to members on the verge of performing two years of missionary work for the Church of Scientology. If it were a corporation, and not a church, it certainly would have a duty to disclose that information, or it would be guilty of fraud--the standard being whether the institution has information that it knows or should know could be material to those acting at the institutions behest. And in this context, "disclose" doesn't mean publish in a magazine, but to ensure people know about it.

But, as Scientology is a church, it can refuse to disclose the letter, it can hide it in a vault, it can do anything it wants with impunity, because the first amendment prevents courts from considering any matter of religious faith, even though it's not the beliefs of Scientology that are at issue here, but full disclosure of what some might think is contravening evidence.

I believe Scientology should have a legal obligation to disclose such a letter, if it existed. I do not think the first amendment should insulate churches from deceiving its members as to facts, or as to the existence of documents relevant to a church's claims.

I know you'll almost certainly disagree, but I view the Abraham/papyrus issue as fairly conclusive proof that the Pearl of Great Price is not divine, in line with the Hubbard letter I dreamt up. And if it is true (which it may have been in my case) that some would consider the papyrus's discovery to be material to the church's claims, and some would alter their conduct if they were so informed, not making people aware of it would be fraud under the law, if churches were not protected by the establishment clause. And I never said the LDS church has to take a position on the papyrus, or to argue the cynic's case for him, but merely to make sure that I knew about the papyrus's existence before committing two years of my life preaching the divinity of the Pearl of Great Price.

Maybe you disagree, and think that churches and religions should not have a legal duty to make their members aware of potentially contraverting facts. Maybe you'll agree with the Supreme Court, which (as I recall from reading a case a number of months ago) was afraid that opening any inquest into a matter of religious faith, even if a matter of faith is on the periphery, would invariably lead some courts to tread where they should not. Maybe, since your membership in the LDS church seemingly has been positive, you could care less. Maybe you'll say my take on the papyrus is so wrong on its face that my analogy is half baked, and you can refuse to answer or even contemplate the Scientology hypothetical on those grounds.

Jwhitlock, if you do read closely, you'll find that I previously brought up fraud only in the context of my lack of knowledge of the discovery of the papyrus before my mission. If you really do think I suggested the church is guilty of fraud for not giving an A to Z history before people are baptized or go on missions, have at it. I would imagine that if you reread my posts after digesting this one, you'll see that what I wrote yesterday is consistent with the contents of this post.

Regardless, I would be interested in knowing what people think about my actual position, which I hope is clarified by this post.

[Daniel Peterson]

I know you'll almost certainly disagree, but I view the Abraham/papyrus issue as fairly conclusive proof that the Pearl of Great Price is not divine, in line with the Hubbard letter I dreamt up.

I certainly do disagree. I think your claim absurd.

And I never said the LDS church has to take a position on the papyrus, or to argue the cynic's case for him, but merely to make sure that I knew about the papyrus's existence before committing two years of my life preaching the divinity of the Pearl of Great Price.

Articles about the Joseph Smith papyri have been published in the Church's official magazine (including a very lengthy series of pieces by Hugh Nibley). Articles and books about the Joseph Smith papyri have been published in numerous venues, by Deseret Book, by FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute), and many others. I myself have attended several public lectures on the subject, some of which were subsequently made available on audiotape and in videotape.

By "make sure that I knew," what exactly do you have in mind? Would it be sufficient if two apostles came to your home, personally talked you through the issue in the presence of sworn witnesses, and then obtained from you a signed and notarized affidavit that the matter had been fully disclosed to you to your complete satisfaction? Or would something more be required?

Maybe you'll say my take on the papyrus is so wrong on its face that my analogy is half baked, and you can refuse to answer or even contemplate the Scientology hypothetical on those grounds.

I think that would be a reasonable response.

Jwhitlock, if you do read closely, you'll find that I previously brought up fraud only in the context of my lack of knowledge of the discovery of the papyrus before my mission.

Then your case for fraud is without merit.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Seems to me Elder Holland is telling parents they have a responsibility to help their children gain and maintain faith in the gospel. I believe there are some parents who may take it as a call to cover the eyes of their children or be overzealous and overprotective. I do not believe I wish to be that type of parent.

I also see a difference between critical thinking and just being critical.

[ohyeah]

i don't see why people want to make things so complicated.

i generally find that when i discover the truth of something, it's quite simple.

if you look at my introduction, you will see i have a media background.

the media can't seem to get it right when they're trying to get it right. when you combine that with an agenda...oh boy.

for the church to purposely misrepresent its history is inconsistent with its character.

ask the question: what would the leaders of the church or any of it's members have to gain by advancing the church if it was in any way false; is it going to make us rich or help us in the eternities?

it's much more likely that the church foments the history of the church that it believes is the closest thing to representing the truth about the church and its leaders.

[Orpheus]

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.

Stay out of the thread, if you keep this up you will be banned. We have too much traffic to put up with bomb throwers anymore.

[RDL]

By "make sure that I knew," what exactly do you have in mind? Would it be sufficient if two apostles came to your home, personally talked you through the issue in the presence of sworn witnesses, and then obtained from you a signed and notarized affidavit that the matter had been fully disclosed to you to your complete satisfaction? Or would something more be required?

How about being told at some point during my 19 years of obedience to the church's dictates that the papyrus Smith translated from probably had been discovered, and the figures are translated by Egyptologists as follows: " ." Maybe there just wasn't enough time in the MTC to squeeze that in.

[Daniel Peterson]

How about being told at some point during my 19 years of obedience to the church's dictates that the papyrus Smith translated from probably had been discovered, and the figures are translated by Egyptologists as follows: " ." Maybe there just wasn't enough time in the MTC to squeeze that in.

There wasn't enough time in the MTC to squeeze that in.

Now, though, you've raised the bar even higher. Unaware of the Church's official magazine, which had published lengthy treatments of the issue for month after month after month, to say nothing of various other articles and books, you expect to have had these matters spoonfed to you in the MTC?

Are you this passive in your everyday life? Did your law school professors have to visit you at home, tie you up, and read the relevant case materials aloud to you every evening?

[Free Agent]

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.

I didn't really make any kind of judgement call with the Bishop. I'm not following you here on your point.

I do believe that the problems of how we have shared information in the past are now beginning to cause more problems, most likely due to the Internet and that we are having more members find out things that before could only be found out if you happened upon the right book or article or Ensign article, etc. I think we might need to change with the times, like Dallin Oaks has suggested in the quotes people have posted here. People have asked here in this thread how best to do that while preserving the 3 hour block of worship time for building faith. I think there are a lot of places we could start and as I mentioned earlier I wish in our study of Joseph Smith at least just one chapter had been devoted to some of the the items that might cause members to then take their study elsewhere, i.e. Joseph's multiple wives, differing accounts of his First Vision, using a stone in a hat, etc.

I also would really like to see our misionaries at least have a working knowledge of these issues, and I thought an opportunity was lost when Preach My Gospel came out and nothing was included in there. From my perspective, even though most of you don't agree, at the time I started going through all of this I had a son who was in his senior year of high school and his Sunday School class was spending that year teaching out of Preach My Gospel. I was very disappointed that here I was learning about all these issues of history and my son who was to be going out on a mission would be teaching people and not given the tools to share elements of history that not only myself but many others wish they would have known about. I really don't think it is a crazy notion to expect the Church to provide those tools and to help steer people in that direction if they choose to study those issues.

I don't expect everyone to understand this, but I do think we really need to start acknowledging that the way information has been disemminated in the past hasn't worked for many folks who are leaving the Church. We can choose to have an attitude about it, or we can choose to try and change the situation if we really want to retain people down the road so instead of feeling blindsided by these things we feel like we've gotten a knowledge of them all along by the organization that we place all our trust in. I know I did.

[LifeOnaPlate]

How about being told at some point during my 19 years of obedience to the church's dictates that the papyrus Smith translated from probably had been discovered, and the figures are translated by Egyptologists as follows: " ." Maybe there just wasn't enough time in the MTC to squeeze that in.

I somehow knew about it. I cut an article out of the Ensign and pasted it into my scriptures all by my little 17-year old lonesome.

[Paul Ray]

Earlier, I brought up the example of Scientology coming into the possession of a letter written by L. Ron Hubbard, which described his amazement that so many people are believing his tall tales. I asked whether the Church of Scientology would have a legal duty to disclose the existence of that letter to its members.

If I understand you correctly, not having read what you said earlier about that letter, you are basically asking whether the Church of Scientology would have a legal duty to disclose the existence of that letter to its members, that letter being a letter written by L. Ron Hubbard which described his amazement that so many people are believing his tall tales.

That answer would be No, according to prevailing law in this country.

Case dismissed.

I think the only answer I got was from Dr. Peterson, who suggested my Scientology example and the Abraham/papyrus issues are unrelated, since the Hubbard letter would be conclusive proof (or something along those lines) that Scientology was bogus (or something along those lines).

Rather than state it is unrelated, I would state it is irrelevant.

... and your objection, if you have one, is overruled.

Now consider whether the Church of Scientology would have a legal duty to disclose the existence of that letter to members on the verge of performing two years of missionary work for the Church of Scientology. If it were a corporation, and not a church, it certainly would have a duty to disclose that information, or it would be guilty of fraud--the standard being whether the institution has information that it knows or should know could be material to those acting at the institutions behest. And in this context, "disclose" doesn't mean publish in a magazine, but to ensure people know about it.

Again that answer would be No, according to prevailing law in this country.

The Church of Scientology is not a corporation and therefore it is not subject to corporate law.

... and wishing it were otherwise will not make it legally binding on them.

But, as Scientology is a church, it can refuse to disclose the letter, it can hide it in a vault, it can do anything it wants with impunity, because the first amendment prevents courts from considering any matter of religious faith, even though it's not the beliefs of Scientology that are at issue here, but full disclosure of what some might think is contravening evidence.

Yep. That's right.

The Church of Scientology is a church, and as a church it can refuse to disclose the letter...

... a letter which as written by someone is claiming that what they have written is bogus, or something along those lines.

... which is has nothing at all to do with the writings of Abraham which Abraham never claimed to be bogus, or something along those lines.

I believe Scientology should have a legal obligation to disclose such a letter, if it existed. I do not think the first amendment should insulate churches from deceiving its members as to facts, or as to the existence of documents relevant to a church's claims.

Okay. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Let's stick with what is now required by law and the facts that are relevant to this case, shall we.

If today someone named Abraham claimed to be the same Abraham wrote the writings which later became known as the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price in the collection of scriptures maintained by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while also writing some other documents claiming that those 'Book of Abraham' writings were bogus, the laws of the United States of America would not require the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to make sure all of the members of the Church knew about that person named Abraham and/or those other documents he had written.

... and I thank God for those laws, otherwise I would be hearing a lot of nonsense from a lot of people.

I know you'll almost certainly disagree, but I view the Abraham/papyrus issue as fairly conclusive proof that the Pearl of Great Price is not divine, in line with the Hubbard letter I dreamt up.

Yes, I disagree, personally, but please feel free to continue dreaming.

And if it is true (which it may have been in my case) that some would consider the papyrus's discovery to be material to the church's claims, and some would alter their conduct if they were so informed, not making people aware of it would be fraud under the law, if churches were not protected by the establishment clause.

But they are, so it isn't.

Your beef seems to be with the laws of America. Try writing a letter to your representatives.

And I never said the LDS church has to take a position on the papyrus, or to argue the cynic's case for him, but merely to make sure that I knew about the papyrus's existence before committing two years of my life preaching the divinity of the Pearl of Great Price.

Do you now admit that the Church had and now has no legal obligation to do so?

Personally, I'm more interested in knowing how you would ever convince yourself to preach about anything while claiming it is true, if/when you don't know it is/was true for yourself?

Do you normally go around believing what other people tell you simply because that is what those other people are telling you?

Even as a child I knew that I didn't always agree with my parents or other people who told me things.

I usually figured they were telling me what they were telling me based on what they believed to be true, even though I might have and often did have some different ideas of my own.

Perhaps you should focus on why you do the things you do, and why you believe the things you believe.

Most people I know are independent enough to want to find out what is true for themselves without just automatically believing what other people are telling them, but, hey, if you want to be different, just believe me what I tell you that what I believe is true and you should try to get to the point where you believe what I have to tell you.... regardless of what you believe and/or what other people have to tell you.

... oh, and you can also believe that you and I are friends, starting now.

[Free Agent]

There wasn't enough time in the MTC to squeeze that in.

Now, though, you've raised the bar even higher. Unaware of the Church's official magazine, which had published lengthy treatments of the issue for month after month after month, to say nothing of various other articles and books, you expect to have had these matters spoonfed to you in the MTC?

Are you this passive in your everyday life? Did your law school professors have to visit you at home, tie you up, and read the relevant case materials aloud to you every evening?

I'm sure the MTC could squeeze in one day, or half a day of teaching these 19 year old boys some of the less than known truths that investigators could very easily ask them about. And I think we've established that not many 19 year old kids are perusing the Ensign cover to cover. I feel like the MTC would be a great start to get this information out there to these kids on the front lines who will be potential future leaders in the Church. Maybe some will feel blindsided and it'll shake them, and if that happens I think we have to allow it. I don't see how that is spoonfeeding. You could apply that to then anything these kids are learning in the MTC. Why is that information any different?

[thesometimesaint]

RDL:

Unless you are a lot older than I think you are. Your questions have been answered.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/papyri.htm

[Daniel Peterson]

I somehow knew about it. I cut an article out of the Ensign and pasted it into my scriptures all by my little 17-year old lonesome.

Yes, that might have worked for you.

But can you seriously expect ordinary members of the Church to have gone to such heroic lengths of research as you did, actually opening the official monthly Church magazine and reading an article in it?

I stand by my position: The Church concealed the discovery of the Joseph Smith Papyri. If publishing articles about a topic in the Church News and the Improvement Era or the Ensign isn't clear proof of an intent on the Church's part to suppress and deceive, I really can't imagine what more can be said on the matter. You're impervious to logic and evidence.

When I was a teenager, I heard Hugh Nibley speak to a packed California stake center about the Joseph Smith Papyri, which had been recovered not long before. Attendance, however, was not mandatory. Nobody was dragged into the meeting in chains, and I suspect that nobody was ever dragged to any such meeting in chains. How could anybody in the Church ever have learned that the Joseph Smith Papyri had been found, under such conditions?

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm sure the MTC could squeeze in one day, or half a day of teaching these 19 year old boys some of the less than known truths that investigators could very easily ask them about.

That's rather a different matter.

I've long advocated that some small portion of time in the MTC be given over to discussing controversial issues, or challenges that missionaries are likely to face. I've done so in circles where I hope that the suggestion will eventually bear some fruit.

But hoping for a modest change in MTC curriculum is far different than claiming that, because such items haven't thus far been incorporated into the curriculum, the Church is suppressing them.

And I think we've established that not many 19 year old kids are perusing the Ensign cover to cover.

And even fewer of them are whining that, because they never opened the Ensign, the Church was hiding things from them in its pages.

I remember, from some years ago, an unpleasant conversation with a fellow who was on his way out of the Church because the Brethren were liars. His parade example? He had never been told that there were different accounts of the First Vision. When I pointed out that articles on that topic had appeared in the official monthly magazine of the Church and that numerous articles and books had been published on that topic (from BYU, Bookcraft, and Deseret Book, among others), he reiterated his claim that, because he had never heard of these different accounts, the Brethren were liars and the Church had deceived him.

I feel like the MTC would be a great start to get this information out there to these kids on the front lines who will be potential future leaders in the Church. Maybe some will feel blindsided and it'll shake them, and if that happens I think we have to allow it. I don't see how that is spoonfeeding.

I don't either.

Please try not to confuse distinct issues.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I didn't really make any kind of judgement call with the Bishop. I'm not following you here on your point.

I do believe that the problems of how we have shared information in the past are now beginning to cause more problems, most likely due to the Internet and that we are having more members find out things that before could only be found out if you happened upon the right book or article or Ensign article, etc. I think we might need to change with the times, like Dallin Oaks has suggested in the quotes people have posted here. People have asked here in this thread how best to do that while preserving the 3 hour block of worship time for building faith. I think there are a lot of places we could start and as I mentioned earlier I wish in our study of Joseph Smith at least just one chapter had been devoted to some of the the items that might cause members to then take their study elsewhere, i.e. Joseph's multiple wives, differing accounts of his First Vision, using a stone in a hat, etc.

I also would really like to see our misionaries at least have a working knowledge of these issues, and I thought an opportunity was lost when Preach My Gospel came out and nothing was included in there. From my perspective, even though most of you don't agree, at the time I started going through all of this I had a son who was in his senior year of high school and his Sunday School class was spending that year teaching out of Preach My Gospel. I was very disappointed that here I was learning about all these issues of history and my son who was to be going out on a mission would be teaching people and not given the tools to share elements of history that not only myself but many others wish they would have known about. I really don't think it is a crazy notion to expect the Church to provide those tools and to help steer people in that direction if they choose to study those issues.

I don't expect everyone to understand this, but I do think we really need to start acknowledging that the way information has been disemminated in the past hasn't worked for many folks who are leaving the Church. We can choose to have an attitude about it, or we can choose to try and change the situation if we really want to retain people down the road so instead of feeling blindsided by these things we feel like we've gotten a knowledge of them all along by the organization that we place all our trust in. I know I did.

You should check out Elder Oaks' Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary.

[Free Agent]

Please try not to confuse distinct issues.

I think the Book of Abraham is one of the issues that is grouped with all the many other historical issues that time could be devoted to.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes, that might have worked for you.

But can you seriously expect ordinary members of the Church to have gone to such heroic lengths of research as you did, actually opening the official monthly Church magazine and reading an article in it?

True enough. It was a rather extraordinary thing for me to have done.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think the Book of Abraham is one of the issues that is grouped with all the many other historical issues that time could be devoted to.

That's not what I meant.

I meant that the question of what should or should not be included within a given curriculum is quite distinct from the question of whether information on a certain topic is being suppressed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That's rather a different matter.

I've long advocated that some small portion of time in the MTC be given over to discussing controversial issues, or challenges that missionaries are likely to face. I've done so in circles where I hope that the suggestion will eventually bear some fruit.

That would be great, in my opinion. I see why there is some reticence, however. Some missionaries arrive at the MTC without a spiritual conversion, which is paramount to any other type of conversion. Getting them started on intellectual pursuits can bear quicker and easier (imo) fruits than seeking the voice of God. We're not dealing with a mass of robotic missionaries, here.

Additionally, many of them are learning languages.

Lastly, the Church does not have a desire to convert by intellect more than spirit. The missionaries equipped with the latest apologetic works would likely tend to be more combative, or less driven by the Holy Ghost. It will be difficult but fruitful to find a balance, and I hope the Church moves forward.

Preach My Gospel is a great step in that direction, in my opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Stay out of the thread, if you keep this up you will be banned. We have too much traffic to put up with bomb throwers anymore.

I find it more than a little telling that, when pressed to substantiate an accusation of dishonesty on the part of the Church, the most someone can come up with is a bit of harmless hype in a news release.

[jwhitlock]

I ask you to read what you've written about the personal responsibility of members, and specifically FA, to independently become aware of history or doctrine that she or he might one day find troubling--and square that with the quote I provided from Jeffrey R. Holland--a direct exhortation for parents to show not even an ounce of skepticism to their children.

Here are a few direct quotes:

You continue to miss the point of Elder Holland's talk; his point is that it's important for parents to nurture the faith of their children, not to suppress information and questioning as you want to claim.

It's as simple as that. Your quote of him as proof of the Church suppressing information is severely colored by your personal bias, and does nothing to bolster your claim.

Are you not expecting FA, as a teenager, to act contrary to Holland's exhortation? Aren't you saying it was her or his responsibility to analytically deconstruct history and/or doctrine, when doing so would be contrary to this exhortation?

Free Agent has been sending mixed messages about her experience in this thread. And yes, it is ultimately her decision and responsibility to learn and to make decisions about what she learns. It's no one else's responsibility. Since it is clearly evident that the Church has not suppressed or hidden information, attempts to blame it on the Church and its members do not go over well here - especially with the number of people here who have had very different experiences during their tenure in the Church.

I think the only answer I got was from Dr. Peterson, who suggested my Scientology example and the Abraham/papyrus issues are unrelated, since the Hubbard letter would be conclusive proof (or something along those lines) that Scientology was bogus (or something along those lines).

DCP is correct. Your analogy is totally unrelated to what we're talking about here.

Now consider whether the Church of Scientology would have a legal duty to disclose the existence of that letter to members on the verge of performing two years of missionary work for the Church of Scientology. If it were a corporation, and not a church, it certainly would have a duty to disclose that information, or it would be guilty of fraud--the standard being whether the institution has information that it knows or should know could be material to those acting at the institutions behest. And in this context, "disclose" doesn't mean publish in a magazine, but to ensure people know about it.

This is odd rationalization, considering that the majority of corporations regularly skirt their ethical and legal duties in deference to the bottom line. I suspect, also, that anyone here who has worked in a corporation would find your claim of full disclosure by corporations to be simply silly. Corporations simple disclose as little as they possibly can - guided, of course, by their corporate lawyers.

In any case, I find that the Church is far more open about itself than most corporations are, so any attempt to hold the Church to some corporate standard you consider "higher" is really a dead end argument.

But, as Scientology is a church, it can refuse to disclose the letter, it can hide it in a vault, it can do anything it wants with impunity, because the first amendment prevents courts from considering any matter of religious faith, even though it's not the beliefs of Scientology that are at issue here, but full disclosure of what some might think is contravening evidence.

Sorry, but I consider this simple rationalization to move something from the category of belief into an area that a lawyer can use to sue for fraud. It's a matter of belief, simple as that - and the courts need to stay out of it.

I believe Scientology should have a legal obligation to disclose such a letter, if it existed. I do not think the first amendment should insulate churches from deceiving its members as to facts, or as to the existence of documents relevant to a church's claims.

This continues to be irrelevant in this discussion, because the LDS Church has not been demonstrated in any way to systematically suppress or deceive in the manner your hypothetical situation suggests.

I know you'll almost certainly disagree, but I view the Abraham/papyrus issue as fairly conclusive proof that the Pearl of Great Price is not divine, in line with the Hubbard letter I dreamt up.

This is classic. Do you mind if I use this elsewhere?

And if it is true (which it may have been in my case) that some would consider the papyrus's discovery to be material to the church's claims, and some would alter their conduct if they were so informed, not making people aware of it would be fraud under the law, if churches were not protected by the establishment clause. And I never said the LDS church has to take a position on the papyrus, or to argue the cynic's case for him, but merely to make sure that I knew about the papyrus's existence before committing two years of my life preaching the divinity of the Pearl of Great Price.

It's always possible that someone will alter their position, either for or against something, given more information. The problem that you seem not to be able to see, is that there is always more information that could be made available that could impact the decision. If you wait to make a decision until you have all the information you think you need, then you will never make a decision at all.

As has been clearly expressed here, the primary foundation for someone joining the Church, studying about the Church, or going on a mission is the testimony - through the Spirit - that this is the Church of Jesus Christ. It's as simple as that. Everything else should be built on that foundation. The Church has never indicated that it, its history, or its people are perfect. As new information comes to light, it needs to be understood in the context of that foundational testimony.

It will not be well understood by intellectual study of evidence, where one picks and chooses which evidence is to be believed and which is to be rejected. Doing that simply becomes a popularity contest, as has been amply demonstrated in cases where expert scholars draw sharply differing conclusions from the same historical events.

Faithful LDS choose to be guided by spiritual witness in their study of the Church. Those who leave the Church reject that spiritual witness as a foundation and choose to be guided by conclusions made by other people - conclusions that are often faulty and misleading (aka, anti-Mormonism).

Maybe you disagree, and think that churches and religions should not have a legal duty to make their members aware of potentially contraverting facts. Maybe you'll agree with the Supreme Court, which (as I recall from reading a case a number of months ago) was afraid that opening any inquest into a matter of religious faith, even if a matter of faith is on the periphery, would invariably lead some courts to tread where they should not.

I agree with the courts, in this case.

Maybe, since your membership in the LDS church seemingly has been positive, you could care less. Maybe you'll say my take on the papyrus is so wrong on its face that my analogy is half baked, and you can refuse to answer or even contemplate the Scientology hypothetical on those grounds.

See above.

Jwhitlock, if you do read closely, you'll find that I previously brought up fraud only in the context of my lack of knowledge of the discovery of the papyrus before my mission. If you really do think I suggested the church is guilty of fraud for not giving an A to Z history before people are baptized or go on missions, have at it. I would imagine that if you reread my posts after digesting this one, you'll see that what I wrote yesterday is consistent with the contents of this post.

For you, it's the Book of Abraham. For someone else, it's polygamy. For still another person, it's too many British immigrants.

You continue to be severely mistaken in your attempt to label this as fraud. It has been clearly shown that the Church has been open about publishing things concerning the Book of Abraham. That you claim to have been unaware of this is totally irrelevant. Neither the Church nor its members have any responsibility to read your mind for you, and determine what you need to have spoon fed to you. That you continue to harp on some totally subjective standard of personal notification to you continues to be tiresome and frustrating to the rest of us who try to take at least some responsibility for our own destiny.

[RDL]

If I understand you correctly, not having read what you said earlier about that letter, you are basically asking whether the Church of Scientology would have a legal duty to disclose the existence of that letter to its members, that letter being a letter written by L. Ron Hubbard which described his amazement that so many people are believing his tall tales.

That answer would be No, according to prevailing law in this country.

Case dismissed.

Rather than state it is unrelated, I would state it is irrelevant.

... and your objection, if you have one, is overruled.

Again that answer would be No, according to prevailing law in this country.

The Church of Scientology is not a corporation and therefore it is not subject to corporate law.

... and wishing it were otherwise will not make it legally binding on them.

Yep. That's right.

The Church of Scientology is a church, and as a church it can refuse to disclose the letter...

... a letter which as written by someone is claiming that what they have written is bogus, or something along those lines.

... which is has nothing at all to do with the writings of Abraham which Abraham never claimed to be bogus, or something along those lines.

Okay. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Let's stick with what is now required by law and the facts that are relevant to this case, shall we.

If today someone named Abraham claimed to be the same Abraham wrote the writings which later became known as the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price in the collection of scriptures maintained by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while also writing some other documents claiming that those 'Book of Abraham' writings were bogus, the laws of the United States of America would not require the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to make sure all of the members of the Church knew about that person named Abraham and/or those other documents he had written.

... and I thank God for those laws, otherwise I would be hearing a lot of nonsense from a lot of people.

Yes, I disagree, personally, but please feel free to continue dreaming.

But they are, so it isn't.

Your beef seems to be with the laws of America. Try writing a letter to your representatives.

Do you now admit that the Church had and now has no legal obligation to do so?

Personally, I'm more interested in knowing how you would ever convince yourself to preach about anything while claiming it is true, if/when you don't know it is/was true for yourself?

Do you normally go around believing what other people tell you simply because that is what those other people are telling you?

Even as a child I knew that I didn't always agree with my parents or other people who told me things.

I usually figured they were telling me what they were telling me based on what they believed to be true, even though I might have and often did have some different ideas of my own.

Perhaps you should focus on why you do the things you do, and why you believe the things you believe.

Most people I know are independent enough to want to find out what is true for themselves without just automatically believing what other people are telling them, but, hey, if you want to be different, just believe me what I tell you that what I believe is true and you should try to get to the point where you believe what I have to tell you.... regardless of what you believe and/or what other people have to tell you.

... oh, and you can also believe that you and I are friends, starting now.

Huh?

Paul, I'm well aware of what duties to disclose are owed under the law to a church's or religion's adherents. The primary point of my post was the reasons for my disagreement with that lack of duty.

On the bolded portion, many churches incorporate for many different reasons, for tax purposes, eligibility for grants, procurement of property and services, liability concerns, etc... I suspect the Church of Scientology has incorporated in various forms just like the LDS church has. As such, it is subject to '"corporate laws" regarding property, employees (in various ways), gifts, etc... But as a church, it doesn't have the same duty that corporations generally have when it comes to disclosing information to its members, because that information concerns matters of faith, so courts won't get involved. I see shysters rip people off with impunity because their impossible promises are "grounded" in faith, or a lack thereof (and I'm not talking about the Mormon church in this regard). I think it shouldn't happen.

I don't know why I thought posing this issue here would lead to interesting debate (on whether churches should owe duties of disclosure to their members--many of the responses have been quite interesting, for reasons apart from "duty" or a lack thereof). Lesson learned.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't know why I thought posing this issue here would lead to interesting debate (on whether churches should owe duties of disclosure to their members--many of the responses have been quite interesting, for reasons apart from "duty" or a lack thereof). Lesson learned.

The Church "discloses" things all the time. Just not the particular things you want in the particular ways you want.

[jwhitlock]

Lastly, the Church does not have a desire to convert by intellect more than spirit. The missionaries equipped with the latest apologetic works would likely tend to be more combative, or less driven by the Holy Ghost. It will be difficult but fruitful to find a balance, and I hope the Church moves forward.

Missionaries tend to be like the rest of us. I know of missionaries who knew quite a bit about the history of the Church, had studied issues and anti-Mormon material, and who could pretty well hold their own in any discussion of that type. I know of other missionaries who simply weren't that interested, or who had other perspectives and directions on their missions.

From time to time, I've taken informal polls of missionaries in my area to see if they new about certain "issues" in the Church. Usually, most of the missionaries have been at least exposed to those issues and aren't particularly concerned about them.

Missionaries come with individual personalities, as you have noted. I suspect that "balance" will always be shifting, depending on the current crop of missionaries.

As an aside, critics are trying to place the blame on the Church for people leaving the Church. Personally, I think that the proliferation of false, negative information about the Church is causing most of the churn. The real challenge for the Church is how to respond to shifting negative outside influences. The claim on this thread that the Church is responsible for "inoculating" its members, is a red herring.

[Daniel Peterson]

The Church "discloses" things all the time. Just not the particular things you want in the particular ways you want.

I wonder if skywriting directly over his house would have satisfied RDL?

Maybe not. Too easy to miss.

He was unable to overcome the Church's fiendishly clever method of hiding topics in its official monthly magazine, but perhaps a giant flaming Book of Abraham planted on his front lawn would have done the trick.