Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

I think the best solution is to introduce each and every member to Room 101 and go from there.

[jwhitlock]

I think the best solution is to introduce each and every member to Room 101 and go from there.

Not room 101!!

Oh the humanity!

[Scott Lloyd]

Not room 101!!

Oh the humanity!

OK, guys, let us unenlightened ones in on the joke.

[selek]

Not room 101!!

Oh the humanity!

Not......the third switch!

Throw it! Throw it, I say!!!!!

Werewolf?

There.........there wolf.......

There......castle.

Ten points to the first person to name the source of either quote, and fifteen to points to anyone who can demonstrate that the Church has a moral obligation to expose poor RDL to that source!

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Notwithstanding certain notable exceptions such as B. H. Roberts, I think the primary role of preachers of the gospel has been and always will be to invite and testify, not necessarily to debate.

Through it all, the Church somehow continues to thrive and grow. May it ever be so.

[LifeOnaPlate]

OK, guys, let us unenlightened ones in on the joke.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

RDL reminds me of an editor I once had who always assumed that because he personally hadn't been exposed to something, no one else would have been either. Which might have been OK were it not for the fact that he had rather limited interests.

[Paul Ray]

Huh?

Paul, I'm well aware of what duties to disclose are owed under the law to a church's or religion's adherents.

Are you really? Then why don't you understand how churches are not legally required to share certain types of information.

The primary point of my post was the reasons for my disagreement with that lack of duty.

What duty? Do you mean the duty they are not required to perform?

Are you trying to start some kind of revolution by getting people to do something you think they need to do, just because you think people should do it?

Personally, I'm more into allowing people the freedom to do/say/think/believe anything they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other people to do the same things... although only to a point because without some kind of boundaries there would be anarchy and no rules of conduct to govern society, collectively... which I don't believe would be a good thing, personally.

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.

Yeah, there you go. That's what I was actually thinking when I wrote what I wrote.

Thank you for that clarification.

Now what about that do you still not understand?

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 do too, but what can we do? I believe they should be legally protected in their religious rights whether there are "shysters" out there or not, and to have some public organization or even some government organization come in and determine or make rules for determining who all the "shysters" are could be an infringement on the religious rights of everyone to do/say/think/believe anything they want... within certain limits.

Personally, I let my money/work/energy/life do the talking.

Those I support get my money/work/energy/life, or at least a part of all of it and/or me.

... and those I don't support don't get any of my support.

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.

I don't know why you thought that either. How did you come to hear of MADB, btw?

Are we getting a reputation out there in the world as a good place to come to for dialogue?

That's a neat thought.

I suppose I believe it in some sense otherwise I wouldn't be here.

[Life Rocks]

There's a practice that we're all familiar with even if we don't know the actual expression, it's called "zooming in" and "zooming out". It describes what we almost all do instinctively when we're working on a project. It's like when an artist is busy painting the details, he's close to the canvas. But when he needs to see a broader perspective, how things are going, he naturally steps back to get the entire view. In the course of creating his art...he'll be adjusting his focus...back and forth and back and forth the whole time.

In football, there's always someone up in the booth that has the full picture of the field that has a zoomed out perspective that's sending plays down to the field.

We do it in the car as we're traveling, a check in front, the side mirror, and the rear view mirror. When we get to a stop sign or traffic light, we can all agree that for our own safety, it makes sense to stop and to glance both ways even if we have the right of way.

I think when the LDS Church or any organization makes it a rule of membership not to criticize the leaders, at the risk of losing their membership in the tribe, I see that as a way of keeping people zoomed in such that they can't have a broad perspective of what's going on. Then they make it a taboo to confront the intelligence of those who are suppose to be looking out for them.

In January I "went" to the wedding of my 2nd daughter...I didn't actually get to go in because I'm no longer a member...I drove to the Temple with my son-in-law and other daughter, we were driving past the Church headquarter and we stopped while the people crossed the street. My son-in-law recognized one of the people crossing as a "general authority" even though he couldn't actually remember his name.

He said..."Oh...Oh...there's Elder...uh...oh what's his name...dang, I can't remember his name." I could plainly see how excited he was. And I was sitting in the back of the car, I couldn't help but think, why is my son in law giving this level of energy and interest to some old man he doesn't even know? And is a position, a title any reason to give that kind of revere?

When people hold an almost "celebrity" level of reverence for the leaders, and totally unfounded, how can they be objective at all?

I went to some LDS discussion group at someone's home a few years back. They had some guy who was working on the original Joseph Smith original papers with the expectations that the papers, after years of being hidden by the Church are finally going to let them out for the public to see. I used to wonder why the Church was so secretive about what they allowed the public to see.

Seems to me that if The LDS Church were really interested in truth, and if the Church was all it claimed to be, they'd let it all of it out and have some reasonable explanations for what seeming errors appear.

Truth is suppose to be transparent. If they were so certain of their position, they wouldn't be so secretive and selective about what they allow out.

As an adult, I think I can think and choose for myself.

[Scott Lloyd]

As this thread seems to have fallen into a lull, perhaps we can return to the accusation made earlier that the Church "suppresses" aspects of its history. I have challenged that assertion; so far, I haven't seen anything by way of substantiation.

Again, the relevant dictionary definition of suppress is "to keep from appearing or being known, published, etc."

And thus, merely being selective about what is presented in, say, a particular lesson manual or a magazine article, does not warrant the loaded and pejorative term "suppression."

So, can the critics here come up with an actual instance where the Church had indeed endeavored to suppress something in its history, bearing in mind the normative definition of that word?

[jwhitlock]

I went to some LDS discussion group at someone's home a few years back. They had some guy who was working on the original Joseph Smith original papers with the expectations that the papers, after years of being hidden by the Church are finally going to let them out for the public to see. I used to wonder why the Church was so secretive about what they allowed the public to see.

Seems to me that if The LDS Church were really interested in truth, and if the Church was all it claimed to be, they'd let it all of it out and have some reasonable explanations for what seeming errors appear.

Truth is suppose to be transparent. If they were so certain of their position, they wouldn't be so secretive and selective about what they allow out.

As an adult, I think I can think and choose for myself.

I suggest you go back and read the thread. Your comments have been addressed earlier.

[Scott Lloyd]

I went to some LDS discussion group at someone's home a few years back. They had some guy who was working on the original Joseph Smith original papers with the expectations that the papers, after years of being hidden by the Church are finally going to let them out for the public to see. I used to wonder why the Church was so secretive about what they allowed the public to see.

CFR that the papers were "hidden by the Church."

I have written articles on the Joseph Smith Papers Project currently going on. My understanding is that the intent of the project is to publish the papers so that the public can access them more readily as opposed to actually visiting the archives in person to view the manuscripts. I never got the impression that the papers were "hidden by the Church."

By the way, Life Rocks, you are new here, so I will explain that "CFR" means "call for references." When that happens, board rules say you have to document your assertion or explain why you can't or won't.

[jwhitlock]

CFR that the papers were "hidden by the Church."

I have written articles on the Joseph Smith Papers Project currently going on. My understanding is that the intent of the project is to publish the papers so that the public can access them more readily as opposed to actually visiting the archives in person to view the manuscripts. I never got the impression that the papers were "hidden by the Church."

This is a new poster, this is the first post, and this person is using certain loaded words and phrases such as "hidden", "secretive", "how can they be objective at all", "selective", "if the LDS Church were really interested in truth", "if the Church was all it claimed to be", "reasonable explanations", "celebrity level of reverence for leaders", and my personal favorite, "Truth is suppose[d] to be transparent".

Anyone want to go out on a limb with an agenda for this one?

[Scott Lloyd]

This is a new poster, this is the first post, and this person is using certain loaded words and phrases such as "hidden", "secretive", "how can they be objective at all", "selective", "if the LDS Church were really interested in truth", "if the Church was all it claimed to be", "reasonable explanations", "celebrity level of reverence for leaders", and my personal favorite, "Truth is suppose[d] to be transparent".

Anyone want to go out on a limb with an agenda for this one?

I'll wait to see how he responds to the CFR. That tends to spotlight bomb throwers and trolls fairly quickly.

[Daniel Peterson]

I went to some LDS discussion group at someone's home a few years back. They had some guy who was working on the original Joseph Smith original papers with the expectations that the papers, after years of being hidden by the Church are finally going to let them out for the public to see. I used to wonder why the Church was so secretive about what they allowed the public to see.

"Hidden by the Church"? "Hidden"?

Do you have even the slightest inkling how much energy, how many professionally-trained academic historians and other experts as well as supporting staff, how many hours of intense labor, how long, how much money it's taking to publish the Joseph Smith Papers?

And you think that the fact that this wasn't done earlier demonstrates that the Church was "hiding" these papers?

Seems to me that if The LDS Church were really interested in truth, and if the Church was all it claimed to be, they'd let it all of it out and have some reasonable explanations for what seeming errors appear.

Which is precisely what they're doing, and, on the whole, what has been done for years.

Truth is suppose to be transparent. If they were so certain of their position, they wouldn't be so secretive and selective about what they allow out.

Right. They wouldn't hide embarrassing facts in the pages of their official monthly magazine, for example, where ardent truthseekers can't find them.

As an adult, I think I can think and choose for myself.

Precisely. And you always could.

[Alf O'Mega]

As this thread seems to have fallen into a lull, perhaps we can return to the accusation made earlier that the Church "suppresses" aspects of its history. I have challenged that assertion; so far, I haven't seen anything by way off substantiation.

I haven't read most of this thread, but let me offer one instance of suppression that I have come across:

By 8 August 1844 the stage was set for the Rigdon-versus-Young morality play, an ecclesiastical contest, the winner of which would be the next Mormon caretaker. The happenings of this crucial day constitute Mormonism's most pivotal hour. By 10:00 a.m. more than 5,000 Saints had gathered at the grove east of the temple in response to William Marks's announcement. The minutes of this morning meeting, in stenographer Thomas Bullock's shorthand, have never been transcribed. By order of the current LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles they remain unavailable "for public scrutiny." [Note 71: F. Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency, to Richard S. Van Wagoner, 14 June 1993. Bullock's transcription of the afternoon meeting of 8 Aug. is available in the General Minutes Collection.] Nevertheless, several other accounts of the day's events survive (Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994], 339).

I'm not personally acquainted with the facts of this case, so I'd be happy to withdraw this example if somebody can show that Bullock's minutes from that morning have since been made available. (Note that Bullock's minutes of the afternoon meeting at the grove that same day are apparently available in the General Minutes Collection, as Van Wagoner cites them on the next page.)

[Paul Ray]

There's a practice that we're all familiar with even if we don't know the actual expression, it's called "zooming in" and "zooming out". It describes what we almost all do instinctively when we're working on a project. It's like when an artist is busy painting the details, he's close to the canvas. But when he needs to see a broader perspective, how things are going, he naturally steps back to get the entire view. In the course of creating his art...he'll be adjusting his focus...back and forth and back and forth the whole time.

In football, there's always someone up in the booth that has the full picture of the field that has a zoomed out perspective that's sending plays down to the field.

We do it in the car as we're traveling, a check in front, the side mirror, and the rear view mirror. When we get to a stop sign or traffic light, we can all agree that for our own safety, it makes sense to stop and to glance both ways even if we have the right of way.

I think when the LDS Church or any organization makes it a rule of membership not to criticize the leaders, at the risk of losing their membership in the tribe, I see that as a way of keeping people zoomed in such that they can't have a broad perspective of what's going on. Then they make it a taboo to confront the intelligence of those who are suppose to be looking out for them.

I think those of us who say things like that about not criticizing our leaders are the ones of us who have both zoomed in and zoomed out to see the whole picture we see.

For example:

In general, I believe the leaders of the Church give good counsel and it is good to just hear what they have to say while considering what they are saying without any desire to find criticism. They're only trying to look out for the interests of everyone while saying what they think will be of benefit to others.

That's what I say.

Someone else who hasn't both zoomed in and zoomed out might think there is no good reason at all to listen to the leaders of the Church, thinking all kinds of bad things concerning why the leaders of the Church are saying what they are saying.

In January I "went" to the wedding of my 2nd daughter...I didn't actually get to go in because I'm no longer a member...I drove to the Temple with my son-in-law and other daughter, we were driving past the Church headquarter and we stopped while the people crossed the street. My son-in-law recognized one of the people crossing as a "general authority" even though he couldn't actually remember his name.

He said..."Oh...Oh...there's Elder...uh...oh what's his name...dang, I can't remember his name." I could plainly see how excited he was. And I was sitting in the back of the car, I couldn't help but think, why is my son in law giving this level of energy and interest to some old man he doesn't even know? And is a position, a title any reason to give that kind of revere?

When people hold an almost "celebrity" level of reverence for the leaders, and totally unfounded, how can they be objective at all?

Do you mean "objective" from the standpoint of someone who has no idea concerning who that person is or what that person has said?

Well, yes, someone who has learned something about and/or from someone generally can't forget what they have learned, as if they can go back to square one, but that doesn't mean the person who has great admiration and respect for someone or what that someone has said didn't start out as someone who was objective before coming to their conclusions, while still being able to zoom out or being able to see things from the perspective of someone who might not know anything about that person or what that person has said.

Getting to know anything or anyone generally starts out with the zoom out, so to speak, or in an objective approach, and from there it then becomes more subjective as they zoom in a little closer, with the person who has zoomed in still being able to zoom back out and see things from the broader perspective.

I went to some LDS discussion group at someone's home a few years back. They had some guy who was working on the original Joseph Smith original papers with the expectations that the papers, after years of being hidden by the Church are finally going to let them out for the public to see. I used to wonder why the Church was so secretive about what they allowed the public to see.

The word "secretive" is subjective. Try taking a more objective approach to see why it might have taken some time before the Church made that information available to the public... from the subjective perspective of those who were involved in the process.

Seems to me...

Do you see that "Seems to me" statement? That's what I'm talking about. Try looking at it more objectively now.

Seems to me that if The LDS Church were really interested in truth, and if the Church was all it claimed to be, they'd let it all of it out and have some reasonable explanations for what seeming errors appear.

Have you tried to search for those answers? If you do, I'm sure you will find them.

Sometimes you just need to know who to ask, as well as what to ask, to get answers.

Truth is suppose to be transparent.

It is, but there are people who can manipulate the truth and make it appear deceptive.

If they were so certain of their position, they wouldn't be so secretive and selective about what they allow out.

What is "secretive" to one person can be seen as "sacred" to someone else?

Are you familiar with that concept?

I think we all need to be careful about what we share, for certain reasons. It is "prudent".

As an adult, I think I can think and choose for myself.

Yes, but please be aware of the dangers of the "dark side".

There are two forces at work in this world and only one has your best interest in mind.

[mnn727]

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.

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.

2 of the most profound quotes on this board in a long time - Thank You JWhitlock

[mnn727]

Not......the third switch!

Throw it! Throw it, I say!!!!!

Werewolf?

There.........there wolf.......

There......castle.

Ten points to the first person to name the source of either quote, and fifteen to points to anyone who can demonstrate that the Church has a moral obligation to expose poor RDL to that source!

Young Frankensein -- do I win!!!!!! Igor (eye-gor) to be exact

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven't read most of this thread, but let me offer one instance of suppression that I have come across:

I'm not personally acquainted with the facts of this case, so I'd be happy to withdraw this example if somebody can show that Bullock's minutes from that morning have since been made available. (Note that Bullock's minutes of the afternoon meeting at the grove that same day are apparently available in the General Minutes Collection, as Van Wagoner cites them on the next page.)

The challenge was to substantiate the charge that Church suppresses aspects of its history. I don't think this qualifies. There are reasons why the Church might decline to make public the minutes of its high-level meetings other than a desire to suppress historical facts and events. Material that is considered too sacred for public view (such as temple ceremony content) might be withheld, for example. As would confidential discussion pertaining to the character of an individual pursuant to, say, a disciplinary proceeding.

In any event, this example is pretty obscure. The impression I get from critics here on the board is that "suppression" is the order of the day for the Church when it comes to its history. I just don't see any evidence of that.

Incidentally, I'm getting a flash of deja vu here, Alf. It seems you and I have discussed this subject before.

By the way, Alf, I wish you would correct my typos when you quote my posts.

[William Schryver]

I haven't read most of this thread, but let me offer one instance of suppression that I have come across:

By 8 August 1844 the stage was set for the Rigdon-versus-Young morality play, an ecclesiastical contest, the winner of which would be the next Mormon caretaker. The happenings of this crucial day constitute Mormonism's most pivotal hour. By 10:00 a.m. more than 5,000 Saints had gathered at the grove east of the temple in response to William Marks's announcement. The minutes of this morning meeting, in stenographer Thomas Bullock's shorthand, have never been transcribed. By order of the current LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles they remain unavailable "for public scrutiny." [Note 71: F. Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency, to Richard S. Van Wagoner, 14 June 1993. Bullock's transcription of the afternoon meeting of 8 Aug. is available in the General Minutes Collection.] Nevertheless, several other accounts of the day's events survive (Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994], 339).

I'm not personally acquainted with the facts of this case, so I'd be happy to withdraw this example if somebody can show that Bullock's minutes from that morning have since been made available. (Note that Bullock's minutes of the afternoon meeting at the grove that same day are apparently available in the General Minutes Collection, as Van Wagoner cites them on the next page.)

What do you suppose it could be? I'm sure it must be something that would simply rewrite Mormon history!

Maybe Brigham Young positioned "plants" in the audience to heckle Sidney Rigdon as he spoke? Or maybe Brigham was seen making rabbit ears with his fingers behind Rigdon's head? (That would be funny!)

[Free Agent]

The challenge was to substantiate the charge that Church suppresses aspects of its history. I don't think this qualifies. There are reasons why the Church might decline to make public the minutes of its high-level meetings other than a desire to suppress historical facts and events. Material that is considered too sacred for public view (such as temple ceremony content) might be withheld, for example. As would confidential discussion pertaining to the character of an individual pursuant to, say, a disciplinary proceeding.

In any event, this example is pretty obscure. The impression I get from critics here on the board is that suppression" is the order of the day for the Church when it comes to its history. I just don't see any evidence of that.

No fair changing the rules. This is an example of the Church not allowing something to be seen. It obviously wasn't too sacred as 5,000 people were in attendance, nor was it confidential. And just because it seems obscure to you, it is still, no less, an example.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think when the LDS Church or any organization makes it a rule of membership not to criticize the leaders, at the risk of losing their membership in the tribe, I see that as a way of keeping people zoomed in such that they can't have a broad perspective of what's going on. Then they make it a taboo to confront the intelligence of those who are suppose to be looking out for them.

I've always been instructed to pray for my leaders as well as to ask whether their council is applicable to me personally.

He said..."Oh...Oh...there's Elder...uh...oh what's his name...dang, I can't remember his name." I could plainly see how excited he was. And I was sitting in the back of the car, I couldn't help but think, why is my son in law giving this level of energy and interest to some old man he doesn't even know? And is a position, a title any reason to give that kind of revere?

When people hold an almost "celebrity" level of reverence for the leaders, and totally unfounded, how can they be objective at all?

I've seen people get that excited over a McDonalds.

As far as "objectivity" and reverence for leaders, I believe we would do well to refrain from holding the leaders up as celebrities, as well, for those who may do so. I feel no encouragement to do so from the leaders, either.

I went to some LDS discussion group at someone's home a few years back. They had some guy who was working on the original Joseph Smith original papers with the expectations that the papers, after years of being hidden by the Church are finally going to let them out for the public to see. I used to wonder why the Church was so secretive about what they allowed the public to see.

Are you familiar with how "papers projects" and archives, etc. generally work?

That said, more access to the archives would be excellent, I would take advantage to the fullest. So would an invariable number of quote miners, over-zealous members and non, and others. Some materials in the archives, believe it or not, are private.

Seems to me that if The LDS Church were really interested in truth, and if the Church was all it claimed to be, they'd let it all of it out and have some reasonable explanations for what seeming errors appear.

Truth is suppose to be transparent. If they were so certain of their position, they wouldn't be so secretive and selective about what they allow out.

You talk about the Church as though it were an entity with its own mind. It isn't, though.

As an adult, I think I can think and choose for myself.

And you did. You chose to leave. I am also an adult and I choose to remain.

[LifeOnaPlate]

As this thread seems to have fallen into a lull, perhaps we can return to the accusation made earlier that the Church "suppresses" aspects of its history. I have challenged that assertion; so far, I haven't seen anything by way of substantiation.

Again, the relevant dictionary definition of suppress is "to keep from appearing or being known, published, etc."

And thus, merely being selective about what is presented in, say, a particular lesson manual or a magazine article, does not warrant the loaded and pejorative term "suppression."

So, can the critics here come up with an actual instance where the Church had indeed endeavored to suppress something in its history, bearing in mind the normative definition of that word?

I think one example of withholding information is the Church archives. Not all of the materials are open for public perusal. Additionally, Church financial records are withheld from the general public. I believe both of these things are fully within the rights of the Church to do.

[LifeOnaPlate]

"Hidden by the Church"? "Hidden"?

Do you have even the slightest inkling how much energy, how many professionally-trained academic historians and other experts as well as supporting staff, how many hours of intense labor, how long, how much money it's taking to publish the Joseph Smith Papers?

And you think that the fact that this wasn't done earlier demonstrates that the Church was "hiding" these papers?

You see, Dan, the Church needs to just set up a nice table on Temple Square with any and all Church documents where we can all go browse through them at our own convenience. Of course, there will still be those who will complain that this isn't enough, and they will wonder why the Church was suppressing all the documents by not mailing copies out to all members and potential converts, as well as placing advertisements in all major newspapers, and sending a member of the Quorum of the 12 to each home instructed people to read the documents.