Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm hard pressed to understand why you expect a "critic" to put anything more on this thread. I used a perfectly valid example of polyandry and got "Joseph Smith is a charlatan" doesn't come up in the search engine either, as your response.

If you don't want to listen to us or want to mock or riducule our experiences, then don't host a peace talk and expect us to come to the table.

Is it possible to access the names of those sealed to Joseph Smith online? I was under the impression it was; thus I don't see that as an example of suppression.

[jwhitlock]

I find it rather telling that, for all the talk of suppression, the best the critics seem able to do is, in effect, to grumble "I wouldn't put it past 'em."

It seems that when documents are sometimes "unavailable" - for valid reasons - critics are quick to substitute "suppression" as the reason.

And there are very valid reasons for various documents being unavailable, as the three criteria of the Church historical department demonstrate.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wonder which of the above you favor.

Well, technically, it's difficult to prove that there is a "suppressed document" right now if the document has been properly suppressed.

Which goes to my point. Often, what is carelessly and thoughtlessly called "suppression" in discussions such as this one is really no such thing. Is failure to mention polygamy in a priesthood manual suppression when you can read about it in an Institute manual?

[jwhitlock]

I'm hard pressed to understand why you expect a "critic" to put anything more on this thread. I used a perfectly valid example of polyandry and got "Joseph Smith is a charlatan" doesn't come up in the search engine either, as your response.

If you don't want to listen to us or want to mock or riducule our experiences, then don't host a peace talk and expect us to come to the table.

That wasn't the only response you got to your question. Why are you suppressing the other responses?

[selek]

How long is this talk of "suppression" going to keep going on?

Until the particpants or the mods grow weary of it- or the Second Coming, which ever comes first.

Even if the Church did or now does "suppress" information, which I don't believe is the case, the most important truths of this dispensation are in plain sight of anyone who has the eyes and ears to notice them.

Can't we (LDS) just stop catering to the crowd who can't see and hear what we LDS see and hear?

You assume we are catering to the anti's instead of demonstrating the shallowness of their arguments.

Look at the number of guests on this site at any given moment, and tell me that they might not learn something from seeing the anti-Mormon propoganda splashed with Lysol?

Can't we (LDS) just talk about what we know to be true?

Imagine what would happen if we (LDS) just talked amongst ourselves about all of the most important truths we do have and know about while the anti crowd listens as we carry on our conversations with each other, answeering a question or two from the anti's just to placate them a little bit without worrying about whether or not they will agree with us.

In many respects (clearly excepting the LDS part) you just described CARM.

It is a fact of life that the muscle that is exercised that grows- by meeting the challenges of the anti-Mormon Babylon head-on, we are strengthening or ability to teach the faith, defend it, and at the same time, are plumbing its depths.

I cannot tell you how much I have learned about the reasons behind my faith, and the subtle mysteries of the Gospel that I would not know were I stuck listening to a Sunday School/A-Lvl History echo chamber.

Some of you folks don't seem to realize that the "anti" crowd will always be out there, even though they may change the players on their team now and then.

Again, you assume this orchestra is playing to the hecklers and not the audience.

And btw, here's one of the most important truths we have and know about that is worthy of more discussion.

God communicates with us in response to our sincere desire to learn from him, personally.

.. and yes, I know, there are some people out there who disagree with that idea and will even speak up and let us know about the fact that they disagree with it, even offering some reasons for why they do not agree with that idea.

... but the plain and simple truth is that God does communicate with us, and we (LDS) know that.

I would now like to hear from fellow saints concerning what God has told all of you lately.

Sounds like a good topic for another thread- so you might to do that instead of derailing this one- after all, if you don't want to play here, you don't need to post, dong ma?

[Paul Ray]

I'm hard pressed to understand why you expect a "critic" to put anything more on this thread.

I think some of us (LDS) have the idea that if we don't respond to the critics, we won't have anything to talk about since all of us (LDS) perfectly agree with each other. I am not one of those people, even though I am LDS.

I used a perfectly valid example of polyandry and got "Joseph Smith is a charlatan" doesn't come up in the search engine either, as your response.

Members of the Church often the word "polygamy" when referring to a man having more than one wife, and since all of our official sources of information come from members of the Church... with little or no desire to quote from corrupt, apostate Christians, much less "anti" sources... that is the word you should use if you want to find more information on that topic.

If what I have said is unclear to you in any way I will rephrase that thought for you just to be sure that you do understand what I'm saying.

If you don't want to listen to us or want to mock or riducule our experiences, then don't host a peace talk and expect us to come to the table.

We do want to teach you, but only if you are interested in learning from us.

We are not here to be taught by you, or at least I'm not, although I do enjoy socializing with you.

[staccato]

Is it possible to access the names of those sealed to Joseph Smith online? I was under the impression it was; thus I don't see that as an example of suppression.

Suppress: To retain without disclosure; to conceal; not to reveal; to prevent publication of; as, to suppress evidence; to suppress a pamphlet; to suppress the truth.

wivesofjosephsmith.org is not the church. Todd Compton is not the church. FAIR is not the church. None of the anti sites which provide listings of Joseph's wives are the church.

LDS.org is the church. "Your search for polyandry has returned 0 results in All Church Content."

JosephSmith.net is the church. "Your search for polyandry has returned 0 results in JosephSmith.net." Interesting enough, JosephSmith.net also says "Your search for polygamy has returned 0 results in Joseph Smith.net" Did you mean Poland?

In the new Teachings of the President's of the Church manual which devotes an entire two years of studying the life and ministry of Joseph Smith, there is one mention of plural marriage, much less polyandry. It is on pg 22.

In 1841 the first sealings of couples were performed, and in 1843 the Prophet dictated the revelation that describes the eternal nature of the marriage covenant (see D&C 132). The doctrines in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831. As commanded by God, he also taught the doctrine of plural marriage.

Someone in the church is deliberately making the decision to not disclose Joseph's practice of polygamy/polyandry to the church masses through their channels of communication.

Is that, or is that not, a form of suppression?

Edited to fix typo.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Suppress: To retain without disclosure; to conceal; not to reveal; to prevent publication of; as, to suppress evidence; to suppress a pamphlet; to suppress the truth.

wivesofjosephsmith.org is not the church. Todd Compton is not the church. FAIR is not the church. None of the anti sites which provide listings of Joseph's wives are the church.

LDS.org is the church. "Your search for polyandry has returned 0 results in All Church Content."

JosephSmith.net is the church. "Your search for polyandry has returned 0 results in JosephSmith.net." Interesting enough, JosephSmith.net also says "Your search for polygamy has returned 0 results in Joseph Smith.net" Did you mean Poland?

In the new Teachings of the President's of the Church manual which devotes an entire two years of studying the life and ministry of Joseph Smith, there is one mention of plural marriage, much less polyandry. It is on pg 22.

Someone in the church is deliberately making the decision to not disclose Joseph's practice of polygamy/polyandry to the church masses through their channels of communication.

Is that, or is that not, a form of suppression?

Edited to fix typo.

Can you think of any reasons why extended detailed lessons on plural marriage are not in the current Sunday meeting Church curriculum?

[Paul Ray]

You assume we are catering to the anti's instead of demonstrating the shallowness of their arguments.

No, I was basing that statement others like it by what I see as a response to the idea advanced by critics who claim the Church suppresses information, which is only a tangent on the true subject of this thread.

This thread started out with the idea concerning how some truths are more important than other truths, and/or how not all truths are as important as others.

For some reason we've been talking about this "suppression" idea for quite a while now, and I think there are better things we can talk about in relation to the original idea for this thread.

Look at the number of guests on this site at any given moment, and tell me that they might not learn something from seeing the anti-Mormon propoganda splashed with Lysol?

Some might, but I think we've beaten that horse sufficiently to death already.

Let's go onto other more enlightening ideas now, shall we?

In many respects (clearly excepting the LDS part) you just described CARM.

Only in the sense that their board is set up mainly to be of benefit to the CARMites.

I'm not suggesting that we start becoming as rude and/or obnoxious as those... people.

It is a fact of life that the muscle that is exercised that grows- by meeting the challenges of the anti-Mormon Babylon head-on, we are strengthening or ability to teach the faith, defend it, and at the same time, are plumbing its depths.

Can't we do that while talking of some other issues now... besides "suppression".

Let's just talk about what is obvious without worrying about those who do not get it.

I cannot tell you how much I have learned about the reasons behind my faith, and the subtle mysteries of the Gospel that I would not know were I stuck listening to a Sunday School/A-Lvl History echo chamber.

I imagine all you learned that was worth learning came from a fellow LDS, and perhaps some other sort of Christians on occasions. I doubt seriously that you learned anything of worth from someone who was anti to our cause, except perhaps that it's fruitless to try to teach anything to someone who is anti.

... or perhaps you still haven't learned that lesson just yet.

Again, you assume this orchestra is playing to the hecklers and not the audience.

Again, I was basing those thoughts on what I saw and could still see as a response to what the hecklers had to say about "suppression".

There is no suppression. Case closed. Let's discuss other issues related to this thread now.

Sounds like a good topic for another thread- so you might to do that instead of derailing this one- after all, if you don't want to play here, you don't need to post, dong ma?

This thread has the potential to be about a heck of a lot more than "suppression".

This thread can be about the most important truths we have now, as well as an explanation of why some truths of more important than other truths.

... but hey, if you want to keep talking about "suppression" because you don't think you've heard enough about "suppression' just yet, please continue to talk about "suppression" to your heart's content. I'm certainly not trying to force you to talk about some other things in relation to this thread.

It was just a thought. Use it or abuse it to your heart's content.

[staccato]

That wasn't the only response you got to your question. Why are you suppressing the other responses?

I used Scott's response because I was responding directly to Scott's comment.

[staccato]

Can you think of any reasons why extended detailed lessons on plural marriage are not in the current Sunday meeting Church curriculum?

No, I cannot. Particularly within lessons discussing marriage, the new and everlasting covenant, and the history behind this ordinance and eternal concept.

You know about Joseph's practice. Has it harmed you? How would discussion of such a thing harm the church to the extent that discussion of it becomes a great big no-no?

[Scott Lloyd]

wivesofjosephsmith.org is not the church. Todd Compton is not the church. FAIR is not the church. None of the anti sites which provide listings of Joseph's wives are the church.

Yet, in the case of FAIR, it does have the tacit approval of the Church. I write for a Church-correlated periodical which has published several articles about FAIR. In each of those articles, a URL for the FAIR Web site has been given, where one can go to read about polyandry and a host of other polemical topics on which antagonists choose to attack the Church.

Also, the official Church Web site has linked to FAIR and FARMS articles on, for example, the subject of DNA and the Book of Mormon.

Also, LDS scholars at BYU and elsewhere have written about polygamy in the Church and any number of other topics the critics bring up.

If the Church is into suppression, it is surely going about it poorly.

In line with its mission the Church focuses its energy and resources on teaching the essentials for salvation and exaltation and leaves it to capable and knowledgeable Church members to deal with the periphery. That does not amount to suppression.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No, I cannot. Particularly within lessons discussing marriage, the new and everlasting covenant, and the history behind this ordinance and eternal concept.

You know about Joseph's practice. Has it harmed you? How would discussion of such a thing harm the church to the extent that discussion of it becomes a great big no-no?

I dunno, ask Warren Jeffs or the LeBaron boys.

You can't think of any reasons why the Church doesn't include specifics about plural marriage in Sunday School lessons? Really? No guesses?

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I cannot. Particularly within lessons discussing marriage, the new and everlasting covenant, and the history behind this ordinance and eternal concept.

You know about Joseph's practice. Has it harmed you? How would discussion of such a thing harm the church to the extent that discussion of it becomes a great big no-no?

As a Sunday School gospel doctrine teacher, I have precious little time to take up the essential doctrines as it is, without going into the protracted and potentially acrimonious discussion that would transpire about polygamy.

That said, I feel perfectly free to bring up the topic if, in my judgment, it is necessary. In last Sunday's gospel doctrine lesson on the first several chapters of Jacob, for example, the teacher could have mentioned plural marriage. There was optional material in the teacher's manual for it.

[Calm]

None of the anti sites which provide listings of Joseph's wives are the church.

www.familysearch.org is.

[staccato]

Yet, in the case of FAIR, it does have the tacit approval of the Church. I write for a Church-correlated periodical which has published several articles about FAIR. In each of those articles, a URL for the FAIR Web site has been given, where one can go to read about polyandry and a host of other polemical topics on which antagonists choose to attack the Church.

Also, the official Church Web site has linked to FAIR and FARMS articles on, for example, the subject of DNA and the Book of Mormon.

Also, LDS scholars at BYU and elsewhere have written about polygamy in the Church and any number of other topics the critics bring up.

If the Church is into suppression, it is surely going about it poorly.

Tacit approval? The front page of FAIR has this disclaimer:

FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

And since you write for FAIR, perhaps you could give me an approximate percentage of the number of church members who subscribe to FAIR? At first glance I was unable to find any numbers.

[jwhitlock]

I used Scott's response because I was responding directly to Scott's comment.

Well, you were given other responses. I'd suggest it would be appropriate to consider them when making a general comment on the board; it was not at all apparent that you were responding to Scott only.

[Scott Lloyd]

I used Scott's response because I was responding directly to Scott's comment.

I think you missed his point. By logical extension of your reasoning, the fact that you focused on my comment and nobody else's amounts to suppression.

[mnn727]

Is it possible to access the names of those sealed to Joseph Smith online? I was under the impression it was; thus I don't see that as an example of suppression.

Its on www.familysearch.org

Hidden there in plain sight for anyone with a computer to see.

[Paul Ray]

I dunno, ask Warren Jeffs or the LeBaron boys.

You can't think of any reasons why the Church doesn't include specifics about plural marriage in Sunday School lessons? Really? No guesses?

Perhaps you haven't heard.

His guess was and most likely still is "suppression".

Sometimes you have to tell people something instead of thinking they will alreday know it.

Come here, staccato, I will help you.

The reason polygamy isn't taught in Sunday School manuals today is because it isn't relevant today.

We focus on what we need to know to live our lives in harmony with the will of God, today.

We don't focus on teaching history in Sunday School meetings.

I think that's enough for now. Please think about that. Thank you.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Tacit approval? The front page of FAIR has this disclaimer:

And since you write for FAIR, perhaps you could give me an approximate percentage of the number of church members who subscribe to FAIR? At first glance I was unable to find any numbers.

Subscribe?

Lloyd writes for the Church News, which is published by the Deseret News.

On a completely unrelated note, even when people disclose stuff other people have a hard time getting the disclosures straight.

[Scott Lloyd]

Tacit approval? The front page of FAIR has this disclaimer:

Tacit approval is not official approval. By "tacit," I meant to convey that the Church does nothing to prevent or discourage FAIR in what FAIR does.

And since you write for FAIR, perhaps you could give me an approximate percentage of the number of church members who subscribe to FAIR? At first glance I was unable to find any numbers.

I don't write for FAIR. I said I write for a Church-correlated publication. It is the Church News.

But I do know that FAIR does not have subscribers as such. It is essentially a Web site that anyone with Internet capability can access. The URL is

www.fairlds.org

[jwhitlock]

I think you missed his point. By logical extension of your reasoning, the fact that you focused on my comment and nobody eles's amounts to suppression.

Actually, staccato is being quite consistent in his reasoning - which is surprising.

His reasoning is that lds.org, and perhaps one or two related Church operated web sites are the only sources that can be considered for Church history and doctrine. Everything else must be ignored. They don't count. Anything that is not mentioned in detail in his "approved" sources must be considered as suppressed.

His response to you (and it was unclear that the response was to you) is also reasoned in the same way. Yours was the only response to his question that was designated to be considered; everything else must be ignored.

Of course, such artificial designations do not make much sense in the larger discussion - but at least we can see where the flaw in his reasoning is.

[staccato]

Well, as much fun as this really is, I am out the door to catch a plane and will not return until next week. I will expect you folks will all have this whole suppression thing worked out by then, and all of of us disenfranchised apostates will return to the fold because we trust that you are not hiding the truth from us because "it is in our best interests."

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, as much fun as this really is, I am out the door to catch a plane and will not return until next week. I will expect you folks will all have this whole suppression thing worked out by then, and all of of us disenfranchised apostates will return to the fold because we trust that you are not hiding the truth from us because "it is in our best interests."

It's always about you, aye?

Best interests indeed.