Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Bardman]

Mocnarf seems to believe that all things that are true are very useful.

Is this the case?

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

It seems that this idea is obviously false.

Surely truths are valuable according to their relevance, and their relevance can only be determined against the standard of a selected goal.

Yes it is. And when the stated goal is determining the truth of a personâ??s testimony or assertions, then his character comes into play. Knowing what kind of person you are dealing with enhances your ability to decide if the person is telling you the truth.

Mocnarf cites Elder Boyd K. Packer's well-known address to the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators' Symposium, which is entitled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect."

Consider the audience: They were CES instructors. (This was not, in other words, a meeting of the Mormon History Association.) What is the goal of CES instructors? It is, plainly, not merely to transmit knowledge. It is not to create little Church historians or hotshot scriptorians. It is not to conduct value-neutral symposia on LDS historiography. (Such things have their place, but that is clearly not CES's mandate. The overwhelming majority of the members of any given seminary or institute class are not and will never be historians.) Instead, the primary purpose is to foster faith and commitment.

Is it fair to foster faith and commitment in people without telling them the whole truth about what you want them to believe? Is it fair to tell a customer that the car youâ??re selling him has brand-new tires, new paint and upholstery, new spark plugs and battery, but not mention the crack in the engine block? Is it honest to expect people to believe the words of a man without telling the whole truth about the man?

What would be appropriate for a seminary or institute class might very well not be appropriate for an academic treatise or a scholarly seminar on Mormon history or theology, and what is appropriate for an academic treatise or scholarly seminar on Mormon theology or history might not be appropriate for an institute or seminary class. A sermon is not an academic lecture, and an academic lecture is not a sermon. A CES lesson typically falls somewhere between a sermon and an academic lecture.

Granted. But does that mean that only academics should be allowed to examine the more difficult issues with Mormon history? And what are academics supposed to do when they formulate their conclusions? Keep it to themselves? Isnâ??t what youâ??re saying here another way of saying, â??Keep anything that might damage faith away from Seminary and Institute?â? And if so, then arenâ??t the students involved being set up for a rude awakening when they encounter this information without any background of their own?

Moreover, not all topics are very useful even for a value-neutral seminar or an academic treatise: An article on the grand strategy of Mormon settlement in the West (e.g., involving the hope for access to a sea port) would be far more interesting, for instance, than would an article totaling up the number of Lombardy poplars planted on the streets running from east to west in various Mormon settlements of the Iron County Mission in the decade of the 1860s, and comparing that total to the number of Lombardy poplars planted on streets running from north to south.

Without doubt.

Of course, Mocnarf's real intent is to highlight the stale charge that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has routinely, and as a matter of deliberate policy, suppressed the presumably lethal truth about its own sordid and embarrassing past.

Youâ??re engaging in mind-reading here. This is a barrier to effective communication. Shouldnâ??t you stick to â??Iâ? statements? Such as, â??I believe Mocnarfâ??s real intent...etc.?â?

I deny this.

Obviously.

Even if Mocnarf's implicit interpretation of an old talk by one member of the Twelve were correct, though, Elder Packer's speech would not go very far toward bearing out Mocnarf's insinuation. If anything, as a matter of fact, it could be read in precisely the opposite way: Elder Packer's remarks to Church Educational System employees can more plausibly be read as chiding them for telling too many "not very useful" truths than as congratulating them for suppressing those truths or as celebrating the success of the Church's fiendish plan of suppression and historical revisionism.

Whether the instructors are being advised not to tell â??not very usefulâ? truths, or are being chided for already telling too many, the end result is the same. Whether theyâ??re being told, â??Donâ??t do that,â? or â??Stop doing that,â? doesnâ??t matter. Theyâ??re still being told, â??Donâ??t damage faith.â?

Going back over the talk, I think itâ??s important to bring up a few points. The "Second Caution" Packer gives is this: â??There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church History to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.â? It is followed by everybody's favorite gem, "Some things that are true are not very useful."

This seems like an implicit acknowledgement that there are things in church history which are not worthy or faith promoting. Such things would certainly not be useful in building faith.

Packer spends this entire discourse advising his audience to build faith, not destroy it. He includes ideas such as:

1. Church history cannot be written objectively without the things of the Spirit.

2. A person who insists on telling the whole truth is setting himself up for divine judgment.

3. Donâ??t rob us of idealistic views of the great men of the past.

4. Donâ??t give equal time to the adversary.

5. You should only learn about a man from his friends, because they are the ones in whom he confides. (Packer agrees with a quote from Stephen L. Richards)

The address is rife with implicit acknowledgments of the unsavory nature of some early LDS history. His only message appears to be, â??Donâ??t tell these things. If you do, it will go badly for you at the last day."

In my opinion, the best defense of this article is not that it is old (1981 wasnâ??t that long ago). It is that Packerâ??s audience was composed of employees of the church. Of course they would be expected to toe a certain line in order to maintain their employment. Packer has every right to tell the people who work for the church what they can and cannot say in their official capacity as paid instructors. This, I think, is the correct context for this talk, although I'm of the opinion that Packer would be gratified if all historians would follow his advice.

Edited for spelling.

[Paul Ray]

In my opinion, the best defense of this article is not that it is old (1981 wasnâ??t that long ago). It is that Packerâ??s audience was composed of employees of the church. Of course they would be expected to toe a certain line in order to maintain their employment. Packer has every right to tell the people who work for the church what they can and cannot say in their official capacity as paid instructors. This, I think, is the correct context for this talk, although I'm of the opinion that Packer would be gratified if all historians would follow his advice.

Good point, but following the same principle, I believe the authorized servants of God have every right to tell every member of the Church what they can and cannot say/do/believe/teach in their official capacity as members of the Church, and to even excommunicate members who are not "towing the line", so to speak.

We're all getting paid in some way for being a member of the Church, whether our payment is in the form of money, or eternal life, or the buffetings of Satan if we are actually teaching false doctrine... according to God who will judge all of us.

[Bardman]

Good point, but following the same principle, I believe the authorized servants of God have every right to tell every member of the Church what they can and cannot say/do/believe/teach in their official capacity as members of the Church, and to even excommunicate members who are not "towing the line", so to speak.

I agree, but I think the danger zone lies somewhere between the church's interest in maintaining the faithful membership of the church, and a public perception that the church is stifling intellectual freedom, or even freedom of speech. The church leadership has the right to conduct it's affairs as it deems best, but the public will filter those actions through it's own lense (or lenses). How many American Catholics agree with the Pope 100% of the time? What about Jimmy Swaggart, who pleaded for forgiveness from his leaders, but failed to follow their instructions to suspend his ministry for a time as penance for his misdeeds? Americans are used to people being free to disagree with their leaders, secular and religious. While the church has the right to discipline it's members, it will also pay the price in public opinion.

Things that might suffer include the membership (people of conscience who leave), the missionary effort, and the church's public image in general. Admittedly, these are things "of the world," and the GAs might be willing to pay that price to maintain a church of faithful believers.

[Mighty Curelom]

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

Classic strawman. Obviously it's not useful to know, to use one of your own examples, what Napoleon had for breakfast on a particular day, even if it's absolutely true that he had ham and eggs. Nor does it matter how many buttons he had on his jacket, or what color his socks were. Your post is an obvious strawman since no critic is seriously claiming that trivial matters are both true and useful.

Even if Mocnarf's implicit interpretation of an old talk by one member of the Twelve were correct, though, Elder Packer's speech would not go very far toward bearing out Mocnarf's insinuation. If anything, as a matter of fact, it could be read in precisely the opposite way: Elder Packer's remarks to Church Educational System employees can more plausibly be read as chiding them for telling too many "not very useful" truths than as congratulating them for suppressing those truths or as celebrating the success of the Church's fiendish plan of suppression and historical revisionism.

You're responding to a different criticism than the "implicit" interpretation of McNarf's comment. The criticism you're attacking is that LDS scholars suppress non-faith promoting historical material, while McNarf was criticizing an attempt by a member of church leadership to coerce those scholars to suppress non-faith promoting material. They may be related issues, but they are not identical.

Secondly, it's obvious that Packer wasn't referring to trivial "truths," like how often Joseph Smith brushed his teeth, but rather very significant truths that cast doubt on the church approved version of LDS history. Does anyone really think Packer was chiding these historians-in-training for writing "an article totaling up the number of Lombardy poplars planted on the streets running from east to west in various Mormon settlements of the Iron County Mission in the decade of the 1860s, and comparing that total to the number of Lombardy poplars planted on streets running from north to south." Can you point to an example of LDS historians indulging in such matters of irrelevance and triviality? It must be a problem, for Elder Packer to bring it up.

Any honest observer will admit that Packer was never concerned about historians including too many trivial details in their work. The truths to which Packer is referring are not useful to the church, not because they are trivial and irrelevant, but because they are significant and faith damaging. They are not useful to the cause of converting and maintaining members, but they are useful in verifying truth claims of the LDS church.

[Daniel Peterson]

Classic strawman.

No. Direct confirmation of the truth of Elder Packer's assertion that not all truths are very useful.

Mocnarf, along with many similarly uncritical critics of Mormonism, regards the assertion as obviously false. But, as a matter of fact, it's obviously true.

Obviously, more treatments are needed, but convincing patients like Mocnarf that the assertion is obviously true is the first step on the road to their recovery.

The criticism you're attacking is that LDS scholars suppress non-faith promoting historical material, while McNarf was criticizing an attempt by a member of church leadership to coerce those scholars to suppress non-faith promoting material. They may be related issues, but they are not identical.

Obviously.

Secondly, it's obvious that Packer wasn't referring to trivial "truths," like how often Joseph Smith brushed his teeth, but rather very significant truths that cast doubt on the church approved version of LDS history.

Obviously.

Does anyone really think Packer was chiding these historians-in-training for writing "an article totaling up the number of Lombardy poplars planted on the streets running from east to west in various Mormon settlements of the Iron County Mission in the decade of the 1860s, and comparing that total to the number of Lombardy poplars planted on streets running from north to south."

No.

Classic straw man, M. LeCurelom.

Can you point to an example of LDS historians indulging in such matters of irrelevance and triviality?

No.

Any honest observer will admit that Packer was never concerned about historians including too many trivial details in their work.

Obviously.

Though some incompetent observers will think that that was the point of my post, above.

The truths to which Packer is referring are not useful to the church, not because they are trivial and irrelevant, but because they are significant and faith damaging. They are not useful to the cause of converting and maintaining members, but they are useful in verifying truth claims of the LDS church.

It just sailed right over your head, did it? Whoosh!

[Calm]

I think a simpler, and non-religious, example might be a Calculus teacher who spent much of his class time lecturing on early/mid twentieth century political systems in Europe. The purpose of the class is clear. The dedication of time for that purpose equally clear. Any diversion from calculus, regardless of the truth or value of the material, is at odds with the common purpose of learning calculus during this hour each day. It is at odds with the will of those involved in the decision to conduct a calculus class: students, parents, administrators, taxpayers, etc.

But that wouldn't keep an arrogant teacher form thinking that he/she knows better than all of those other stakeholders who have allocated capital to the teaching of calculus.

Interesting example because I had a calculus teacher who did just that, though not European politics but pretty much anything that interested him at the moment besides math. He expected the students to ask questions on the math if they were interested, if not he didn't see any reasons to keep on the subject. That was the only math class I got anything besides an A in my entire life, lol, and I've had some pretty rotten math teachers over the years (don't ask me about my PE grades). A good teacher teaches love or at least interest for the subject as well actual content.

[Mighty Curelom]

It just sailed right over your head, did it? Whoosh!

No, I understand what you're trying to do just fine. With respect to MocNarf's sig-line, you're addressing a hyper-literalist rather than the intended meaning (which interpretation you've labeled "implicit"). Congratulations Amelia Bedelia.

[Daniel Peterson]

No, I understand what you're trying to do just fine.

You've betrayed no evidence of it, Mister Magoo.

Gotta go. No more time for playing.

[Paul Ray]

Gotta go. No more time for playing.

What are you going to do instead now? Work?

Don't you know how to play and work at the same time?

Get back in here and say something intelligent, again.

I kinda like it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think it was Thinking or Sethbag or Mighty Curelom who used to have a Dallin Oaks quote in their sig wrested of context. I used to confront the issue every time I saw them post; I haven't seen the quote in a sig anymore, so I guess they finally removed it. I wish I could recall who that was.

[Deborah]

Americans are used to people being free to disagree with their leaders, secular and religious. While the church has the right to discipline it's members, it will also pay the price in public opinion.

Things that might suffer include the membership (people of conscience who leave), the missionary effort, and the church's public image in general. Admittedly, these are things "of the world," and the GAs might be willing to pay that price to maintain a church of faithful believers.

Interesting you should say that. In fact there was a period in the early history of the modern church where there was a great sifting and many left the church. But those who remained were the most faithful and were the ones who had to endure the trek west and build up the kingdom of God. It is God not the GA's who do the sifting, and the Lord would rather have a few who are faithful and tried and true than many who will blow with every wind of worldly ideology.

[Deborah]

Consider the audience: They were CES instructors. (This was not, in other words, a meeting of the Mormon History Association.)

Context is critical to defining what is true. A statement may be true but when taken out of context it's meaning can totally change. The critics love to take things out of context and then make an issue of something that if properly read and understood would not be an issue.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Context is critical to defining what is true. A statement may be true but when taken out of context it's meaning can totally change. The critics love to take things out of context and then make an issue of something that if properly read and understood would not be an issue.

I've heard about that kind of thing somewhere. Can't put my finger on it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Critics also love to dwell on an old speech by one member of the Twelve (Elder Packer), as if their particular interpretation of that speech were, in itself, sufficient to demonstrate the supposedly unified view of the Brethren and conclusive proof of a sinister Church policy of historical suppression and lies.

At the same time, they ignore the fact that another member of the Twelve (Elder Oaks) had a reasonably substantial record (despite the fact that it was not his principal academic field) of very competent and respectable scholarly publications in Mormon historiography (a book published by the University of Illinois Press and a few articles) prior to his call to the apostleship.

And, of course, they downplay the extraordinary commitment that the institutional Church has shown for many, many years to preserving its history (including the Church's museum and the new history building under construction), they discount such efforts as the forthcoming two volume Oxford University Press work on the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the enormous Joseph Smith Papers project, and they ignore the vast historical literature produced by (mostly believing) academic historians of Mormonism over especially the past five decades or so. (There is very little, in my experience, to lead me to believe that most such critics are particularly familiar with that literature; not a few may be wholly ignorant of the fact that it even exists.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Elder Oaks was also involved with the earlier stages of Dialogue.

So let me see if I get this. Some people take a quote, or even a full talk, and use it to advance their own point of view without taking into account other variables that would harm their interpretation?

I'm shocked.

[John Larsen]

Critics also love to dwell on an old speech by one member of the Twelve (Elder Packer), as if their particular interpretation of that speech were, in itself, sufficient to demonstrate the supposedly unified view of the Brethren and conclusive proof of a sinister Church policy of historical suppression and lies.

Sorry to interrupt, but I believe you are suggesting that the presented evidence of anti-intellectualism is insufficient to establish the case. What, prey tell, would be sufficient. If I can find 20 such statements? 50? 100?

You seem to be trying to divide and conquer by suggesting that a single item was "taken out of context" or "misunderstood" or "speaking as a man" or some other excuse. How many examples can I show you in order to show a "unified view of the brethren".

If you want to claim insufficiency of evidence, you better be prepared to explain what sufficient evidence would look like.

I will be awaiting your response.

[Calm]

Interesting you should say that. In fact there was a period in the early history of the modern church where there was a great sifting and many left the church. But those who remained were the most faithful and were the ones who had to endure the trek west and build up the kingdom of God. It is God not the GA's who do the sifting, and the Lord would rather have a few who are faithful and tried and true than many who will blow with every wind of worldly ideology.

I like this quote myself:

D&C 121:34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

Most people see this as a rebuke of being too rigid in trying to control others, but in my opinion it is just as appropriately applied to those who would remove all restrictions and differences in order to make the Church supposedly more 'appealing' and comfortable for a wider audience. This is setting one's heart on the things of this world and aspiring to the honours of men.....

[Daniel Peterson]

Sorry to interrupt, but I believe you are suggesting that the presented evidence of anti-intellectualism is insufficient to establish the case.

That's correct.

What, prey tell, would be sufficient. If I can find 20 such statements? 50? 100?

I'm afraid that I can't name an arbitrary number for you, though 34.57 sounds like a good one.

You would not only have to present a significant number of such quotations from a representative number of sufficiently authoritative Church leaders over a sufficiently lengthy period of time, but you would have to convince me that such quotations represented a unified, monolithic Church position.

You're unlikely to be able to do that.

Incidentally, I've just returned from the second annual Neal A. Maxwell Lecture, which, tonight, was given by Elder Bruce Hafen, of the First Quorum of the Seventy. (Elder Hafen was formerly provost of BYU, dean of the BYU law school, and president of Ricks College.) It was a superb speech, and it just added a bit more weight to the side of the balance against which your selected quotations would need to compete. It could scarcely have been aimed more squarely at your charge of "anti-intellectualism."

You seem to be trying to divide and conquer by suggesting that a single item was "taken out of context" or "misunderstood" or "speaking as a man" or some other excuse.

I don't know about the "divide and conquer" idea. You seem to be using that phrase in a sense I haven't seen before.

As far as the passage being "taken out of context," well . . . yes and no. I'm not alleging a misquotation. I just think that it shouldn't be overlooked that this was a lecture to Church Educational System instructors, not to academics or historians (though there is some overlap between the groups).

Was it "misunderstood"? Possibly.

Was he "speaking as a man"? Maybe. In any event, as a single member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Elder Packer was not and is not in a position to set Church doctrine unilaterally.

I would also point out something that you seem to have missed: Elder Packer's is one voice among the Twelve. Just one.

Are these "excuses"? No, they're considerations.

How many examples can I show you in order to show a "unified view of the brethren".

Well, I don't want to have you waste your time, so I might as well tell you up front that you're very unlikely to convince me. And I don't need to marshall cherry-picked quotations to support my position, although I can certainly do so. Years of involvement with Brigham Young University as both a student and a member of the faculty, including (perhaps somewhat unusual) personal involvement over those years with Dallin Oaks, Bruce Hafen, Jeffrey Holland, Merrill Bateman, Rex Lee, Hugh Nibley, Cecil Samuelson, Neal Maxwell, and many others (including, yes, Boyd K. Packer), coupled with years of involvement with FARMS, Sunstone, the Maxwell Institute, the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology, the Mormon History Association, the John Whitmer Historical Association, and the like, have given me a pretty secure experiential sense of Mormon intellectual life that your carefully chosen quotations are unlikely to disturb.

If you want to claim insufficiency of evidence, you better be prepared to explain what sufficient evidence would look like.

Green and irregularly globular might do.

(Sorry, but I find your challenge rather silly.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Will there be a transcript of Elder Hafen's remarks? I was fortunate to meet him when he visited my mission in '02.

[Teancum]

Mocnarf cites Elder Boyd K. Packer's well-known address to the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators' Symposium, which is entitled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect."

Consider the audience: They were CES instructors. (This was not, in other words, a meeting of the Mormon History Association.) What is the goal of CES instructors? It is, plainly, not merely to transmit knowledge. It is not to create little Church historians or hotshot scriptorians. It is not to conduct value-neutral symposia on LDS historiography. (Such things have their place, but that is clearly not CES's mandate. The overwhelming majority of the members of any given seminary or institute class are not and will never be historians.) Instead, the primary purpose is to foster faith and commitment. (Mocnarf's cynical suggestion that the purpose is to maximize membership numbers and Church income is unworthy of serious notice. If he seriously believes such a thing, it is revealing . . . but not about the Church.)

What would be appropriate for a seminary or institute class might very well not be appropriate for an academic treatise or a scholarly seminar on Mormon history or theology, and what is appropriate for an academic treatise or scholarly seminar on Mormon theology or history might not be appropriate for an institute or seminary class. A sermon is not an academic lecture, and an academic lecture is not a sermon. A CES lesson typically falls somewhere between a sermon and an academic lecture.

Of course not all truth's are useful. However some truths are. So the question really becomes are the historical truth's that surround the life of the founding prophet important to know in determining whether his claims were true? Does the fact that he used a seer stone in failed treasure digging that was later put in a hat an used to translate the plates have an impact on whether one decides that the Book of Mormon was really from God? Do the events surrounding polygamy, the early alleged marriage to Fanny Alger and the polyandrous marriages impact how one might view the revelation in D&C 132 as from God or not? Does the later editing of previous revelations and the insertion of events that before hand were not in them lend any information that might help one in deciding whether the revelations and facts about the timing of some historical events impact how reliable the whole story really is?

It seems to me that you are saying that including such information may damage the testimony forming mission the CES is mandated? But can that be good and right? Are you saying that by including these historical issues that those attending CES may not have faith an commitment fostered? If yes what does that say about the history of the Church?

It seems to me that if faith and commitment towards the Church, and we know that the commitment is large and demanding. is to be expected, and appropriate disclosure of the history and what we know about it is only right and fair. As I have mentioned before, when one choses to put money in a financial investment one can expect fill disclosure before deciding to commit. The same could be said about accepting a job, buying property or so on. One would hope that full disclosure would be appropriate in all these types of things. One should hope that the Church of Jesus Christ would want to be as open as it attempts to develop faith and commitment from its members. Seminary and institute are level 1 or level A as you have discussed before. I think a wholesome level 3 or C needs to be the way to go. It will help protect people from later disillusionment and also give people more information to make a better decision as to what and how they want to commit their lives.

[Teancum]

It's all about viewpoint - what Hyrum Smith, the Franklin Planner guy - called "belief windows."

If you believe Joseph Smith was a lecherous fraud, then your most important "truths" will revolve around how many women he "married" and/or whether the witnesses hallucinated or were fooled by tin plates. That will be all important and you'll believe the church should devote all its resources to pursuing and broadcasting the "truths" of these matters, as far as they can be discovered.

Didn't we just have a recent poster - Billy, I think it was - who said he left the church because of "blood atonement"? Does that make any sense at all? I guess it did to Billy, as "blood atonement" became the most important "truth" for him.

If you're a believing member, then the most important truths will revolve around how the scriptures and revelations brought forward by Joseph Smith will help you come closer to God. Everything else will be secondary or less. That's where CES instructors should certainly focus.

I am going to invest 1 million dollars in financial vehicle. The person managing the money is supposed to be a financial whiz and makes returns of 15% a year even in a down year. I look at the advertising info that promotes the investment plan and talks about how great, wise and smart the money manager is. So I invest. Two years later I find out that the money manager has been convicted of fraud and embezzlements twice in the past 20 year. Now had I known that relevant truth I may have opted to invest my money else where. Or perhaps had I known that the money manager had done his time and been honest and kept the law for the past 10 year I could have opted to over look his past bad behavior and invested anyway.

When one is asked to pray and rely on a feeling that is supposed to be from God and then base their entire life on these things why do so many here think it is not relevant to know about the character, actions and behaviors of the person claiming that God is speaking to them. This is all I ask. I don't know. Maybe I am just stupid. But it seems that a Church that demands honesty in ALL our dealings with our fellow men would want to be open in all the ways it teaches. I understand that to teach young people one must be wise and prudent. But I think it could be done. I think a book like Bushman's as the base for a high school seminary class about LDS history would be totally appropriate. Do we fear the truth? Do we think that if our youth were taught or aware of this that fewer would serve missions or enter the temple? Do we think disclosing such information to adult investigators would make them less likely to believe JS was a prophet and thus not join the Church? Please help me understand here.

[Teancum]

If someone decides that this foundational truth is not important to them, or rejects it for whatever reason, then (as you posted) some other "truth" will become foundational for them - whether it is factual or not. Some may decide that Mormons are decent people, and that what is taught in the Church is good, and respect them as a people - while not joining the Church. Others may decide that Joseph Smith was a _____(fill in the blank with something negative) because of what they read about polygamy, etc. and that becomes their foundational "truth" in perceiving the Mormons. Still others may hate Brigham Young and decide that Brigham's perceived character is their foundational "truth" about Mormonism.

The rejection of the real foundation of Jesus Christ as the Head of this Church is, in effect, putting the cart before the horse. Any claim that the "truth" of Mormonism must be understood by studying its history is going to miss the mark by a wide margin.

But one may conclude that if the person claiming Christ is directing them lacks integrity on other areas of their life or has questionable behavior relating to a number of other activities that maybe Jesus is not really directing them.

Is this really so hard to see or am I totally all wet on this one. Really it is odd to me that so many here seem to dance around this. Does Joseph's history, life, character, actions and behavior have any impact on whether we can trust his claims? It seems to me that all the great things about him are used the bolster up his claims. Often I see many post about how those closest to him trusted him, loved him and did not turn away from him. Well if the positive is used as evidence that we can trust his claims why not the things that are not so positive in determining our trust level as well?

Dr Peterson you know I respect you immensely. Forgive me if I am wrong. But the OP here as well as others comments seems to say that only the good should be presented when attempting to build testimonies and that difficult and questionable should be left out. How can that be good and right?

[Teancum]

Actually, I have never found anyone who has been able to successfully articulate a compelling reason to me why the foundational truth I understand is wrong.

To do so, they would have to convince me that it is more important to put aside what I have learned from the Spirit and instead rely on the intellectual persuasions of man. And I understand far too well that the persuasions of men are fickle, at best.

Those who do not understand the foundational importance of understanding by the Spirit as the driving force of Mormonism are never, ever going to understand where faithful members of the Church are coming from.

I am not trying to convince you that you are right or wrong. I understand the issues of the spirit and all that. I have been a faithful member all my life. So let me ask you, can the spirit testify of truth even if all the fact are known or do certain facts get in the way?

[Teancum]

Critics also love to dwell on an old speech by one member of the Twelve (Elder Packer), as if their particular interpretation of that speech were, in itself, sufficient to demonstrate the supposedly unified view of the Brethren and conclusive proof of a sinister Church policy of historical suppression and lies.

At the same time, they ignore the fact that another member of the Twelve (Elder Oaks) had a reasonably substantial record (despite the fact that it was not his principal academic field) of very competent and respectable scholarly publications in Mormon historiography (a book published by the University of Illinois Press and a few articles) prior to his call to the apostleship.

And, of course, they downplay the extraordinary commitment that the institutional Church has shown for many, many years to preserving its history (including the Church's museum and the new history building under construction), they discount such efforts as the forthcoming two volume Oxford University Press work on the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the enormous Joseph Smith Papers project, and they ignore the vast historical literature produced by (mostly believing) academic historians of Mormonism over especially the past five decades or so. (There is very little, in my experience, to lead me to believe that most such critics are particularly familiar with that literature; not a few may be wholly ignorant of the fact that it even exists.)

And I certainly laud all these effort. When will these find their way to the average member , seminary or institute student or investigator? Or are these things not useful in developing faith and commitment? This is an honest question.

[jwhitlock]

But one may conclude that if the person claiming Christ is directing them lacks integrity on other areas of their life or has questionable behavior relating to a number of other activities that maybe Jesus is not really directing them.

As has been discussed in great detail on this board, what constitutes "questionable" behavior is so subjective that it is, in effect, useless as a baseline for considering whether Joseph was a prophet of God.

Prophets in the Bible have engaged in behavior far more "questionable" than anything Joseph is alleged to have done - and yet they were still prophets, designated as such by the Lord.

Is this really so hard to see or am I totally all wet on this one. Really it is odd to me that so many here seem to dance around this. Does Joseph's history, life, character, actions and behavior have any impact on whether we can trust his claims? It seems to me that all the great things about him are used the bolster up his claims. Often I see many post about how those closest to him trusted him, loved him and did not turn away from him. Well if the positive is used as evidence that we can trust his claims why not the things that are not so positive in determining our trust level as well?

Does the fact that Joseph made mistakes have any bearing on his prophetic calling? If so, what kind of "mistakes" would be acceptable and still allow someone to believe in him as a prophet? Is there any objective rationale in making such a distinction concerning those "mistakes", especially if many of Joseph's actions (including polygamy and polyandry) may have been directed by God?

How can we, with the very subjective way we have of looking at historical evidences, understand at all what Joseph Smith is all about - just by looking at history? Very intelligent people who do so come to diametrically opposed conclusions concerning Joseph Smith's prophetic calling.

God has provided a way for us to discern that Joseph was a prophet. That discernment comes through the Holy Ghost. It is the foundational method of understanding Joseph Smith and the restored gospel. Historical study of Joseph can only be done correctly with the proper foundational witness of the Spirit in place.

Dr Peterson you know I respect you immensely. Forgive me if I am wrong. But the OP here as well as others comments seems to say that only the good should be presented when attempting to build testimonies and that difficult and questionable should be left out. How can that be good and right?

What behavior of Joseph Smith can be used as absolute proof that he was not a prophet of God? I have yet to see a critic of the Church make any kind of compelling case for such a behavior that does not involve a significant level of subjective filtering on their part - especially with all the behavioral guidance on prophets that we have from the Bible.