Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Hammer]

Yes, and only those who are valiant in the testimony of Jesus will be heirs of Celestial glory.

Some people don't seem to understand what that means, but they can find out if they want to enough.

Yes they can. And if they are spiritually living close to the Lord, if something comes up they haven't heard before, they will be spiritually prepared to have the right attitude about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I see Free Agent's point. She wishes the church lessons would have better prepared her to encounter aspects of the Church's history such as plural marriage. We have to acknowledge that in the Church one is not likely to see a correlated lesson or article or talk discussing plural marriage with any "depth."

I can think of a few reasons why this is so. To mention a few, first, we no longer practice plural marriage in the Church. Second, plural marriage still runs counter to our cultural heritage (as it did when it was practiced, as well.) It can upset people. It's uncomfortable. People aren't generally uplifted or encouraged by learning about it.

It would do us all well to assess the purpose of religious lessons we are taught and analyze their contents based on their purposed, rather than solely on what we would like them to explain.

I agree with what you say here.

I would reiterate, however, what I have already pointed out: Last week's gospel doctrine lesson on the first several chapters of Jacob in the Book of Mormon contains the option under "Additional Teaching Ideas" to discuss plural marriage. Here's a cite:

1. Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage

*

â?¢ Whom did the Nephites claim as examples to justify their whoredoms? (See Jacob 2:23â??24.) Why were David and Solomon unworthy examples? (See D&C 132:38â??39. The Lord gave wives and concubines to David and Solomon, but they sinned by marrying additional wives outside of the covenant.) You may want to explain that anciently, a concubine was not an immoral mistress, but a legal wife of lesser social standing (see Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 154).

*

â?¢ What marriage law did Jacob teach to the Nephites? (See Jacob 2:27â??28.)

o

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, â??I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwiseâ? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 324).

o

Explain that the Lord gave such direction (see D&C 132), but He later withdrew His sanction of plural marriage when conditions changed (see Official Declaration 1). Emphasize that the law of the Lord regarding marriage today is the same as it was in Jacobâ??s day.

Here's a link:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...contentLocale=0

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ah, so there we have it. In an official lesson, as well. Good find.

Now this is obviously a very terse discussion of plural marriage, but again, it applies today. And it can lead any questioner to seek further light and knowledge.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ah, so there we have it. In an official lesson, as well. Good find.

Now this is obviously a very terse discussion of plural marriage, but again, it applies today. And it can lead any questioner to seek further light and knowledge.

True. And a knowledgeable teacher, working under inspiration, presumably would be able to field reasonably well any questions that might come up in an ensuing discussion. Especially if that teacher had devoted some time and energy to exploring non-official but reliable sources of information such as FAIR and the Maxwell Institute (hint-hint, nudge-nudge).

[Free Agent]

I agree with what you say here.

I would reiterate, however, what I have already pointed out: Last week's gospel doctrine lesson on the first several chapters of Jacob in the Book of Mormon contains the option under "Additional Teaching Ideas" to discuss plural marriage. Here's a cite:

Here's a link:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...contentLocale=0

What in the lesson would have lead me to ask myself the question, "hmmm, I wonder if I should do a little research on if Joseph Smith had more than one wife?" Nothing in the lesson ideas, which was optional anyway, contained anything I didn't know.

[Scott Lloyd]

What in the lesson would have lead me to ask myself the question, "hmmm, I wonder if I should do a little research on if Joseph Smith had more than one wife?" Nothing in the lesson ideas, which was optional anyway, contained anything I didn't know.

Again, I find it enigmatic that one would suppose Joseph received the commandment instituting plural marriage in this dispensation without being instructed to practice it himself.

And if you read the relevant Doctrine and Covenants section (cited in the lesson material), there is little if any room for misunderstanding on this point. So if you didn't realize that Joseph practiced plural marriage, apparently something in the lesson material (the Doctrine and Covenants citation) does contain information you didn't know.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What in the lesson would have lead me to ask myself the question, "hmmm, I wonder if I should do a little research on if Joseph Smith had more than one wife?" Nothing in the lesson ideas, which was optional anyway, contained anything I didn't know.

Explain that the Lord gave such direction (see D&C 132)[to participate in plural marriage. If not Joseph, who?], but He later withdrew His sanction of plural marriage when conditions changed (see Official Declaration 1). Emphasize that the law of the Lord regarding marriage today is the same as it was in Jacobâ??s day.

[Paul Ray]

What in the lesson would have lead me to ask myself the question, "hmmm, I wonder if I should do a little research on if Joseph Smith had more than one wife?" Nothing in the lesson ideas, which was optional anyway, contained anything I didn't know.

I think it might help you to know that the lesson is actually in the book, not just in what the teacher tells you.

If you don't generally buy the Teacher's manual, from Deseret bookstore, you might want to think about doing that. You don't have to settle for only what the teacher tells you about the lesson during Sunday School.

[MormonMason]

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.

How about something from an official source such as a Church manual or from the CHI. Just a page number would be sufficient.

[Theophilus07]

Again, I find it enigmatic that one would suppose Joseph received the commandment instituting plural marriage in this dispensation without being instructed to practice it himself.

Again, there is ample evidence displayed in explicit statements in this forum on multiple threads that some LDS truly believe precisely that.

Theophilus07

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thank you for putting that into context...I love context, don't you? It is the finishing touch on any picture.

[mnn727]

Again, my main point is not that the information isn't there, it's not knowing that there is anything to look for. Just because some of you on this board knew about Joseph Smith's wives doesn't mean that everyone does. So someone who attends class, reads their Ensign (oops, maybe misses that one article published every 15 years or so) picks up a few Church books here and there its very feasible they wouldn't hear about it so they would never know to go looking for it on Family Search. And please stop blaming me and others like me because we didn't know. You are always calling into question my testimony, my lack of study on Gospel matters, etc. and yet there are thousands like me posting on boards other than this who have had very similar experiences. Faithful, temple going, calling holding members who all of a sudden open a can of historical worms they didn't know was there. Maybe we spent more time serving in our callings while you guys had your nose in a book. I hate to sound bitter, but the attitude some of you bring towards me and my situation is really puzzling and disheartening.

Its not a problem that you don't know everything - what IS a problem is that you want to blame other people for not holding your hand and guiding you to everything you could possibly ever want to know.

The D&C is studied every 4 years in SS which includes the revelation on plural marriage - the revelation was given to JS and he was commanded to live it. Did you miss that lesson everytime it came around or did you just not put 2 + 2 together?

Let me also ask you this, do you study your SS and PH/RS lessons every week? or do you rely on the teacher to fill you in? -- as a teacher in EQ I am sadly aware of how few people actually study their lessons ahead of time - but who's fault is that? the Church strongly recommends you read scripture daily and study your lessons, should we send the Dannites around to enforce that?

[Teancum]

Like selek, I am more concerned with the unseen lurkers here than I am with "disenfranchised apostates."

And we already have the suppression thing worked out. Here it is in a nutshell: When antagonists accuse the Church of suppression, they are incapable of substantiating the accusation.

Well yes an no. Perhaps suppress is to strong a word. Perhaps non disclosure is better. The Church leaves a lot out. That is plain as day. Even the Elder Oaks comment I provide below admits that and this is now the third time I have posted it here. It seems that many here are conveniently ignoring what he says. The Church does not, and in fact cannot supress information that is out there in the public domain. And writer or historian or anti or ex LDS with and ax to grind or whomever can find lots of stuff. However much of this the Church did not make available and perhaps might be happy of some of it never surfaced.

So let's look at what Elder Oaks says:

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

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

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

Read the last paragraph carefully now. He says we do not want to get into creating doubts. Be default he seems to say that there are things that create doubt and thus the Church does not emphasize them. So I think better than the word suppress I would say the Church practices non disclosure. Members or investigators are left on their own for finding information that may be useful in making their decision about what is an is not true. The Church discloses only that that is seemingly faith promoting and testimony building. Even Dan Peterson had stated that seminary and institute intentionally leaves stuff out in order to foster faith and testimony and commitment and seems to think this is right and proper. He also argues that Sunday school and priesthood and RS is not the place because for some odd reason he thinks there is not enough time or even this is not the place yet he seem to be a proponent of a C type history somewhere and somehow.

Thus it seems to me when it comes to deciding whether one should commit all that is expected to be LDS that the person is left on their own and it is a buyer beware situation. Like Ford, or Apple or the democratic party many here thing the Church is only obligated to give the good side of things in order to better package it for the sale.

I disagree. I think the Church is obligated to, in a healthy and proper way, disclose issues that are difficult and may cause one to take pause and question before they commit their lives to this religion. There are laws in place that demand such disclosure for investing in financial instruments. One would think that a religion that requires all the faith and major sacrifice of it members as well as asks for honesty to attend its temples would voluntarily disclose things to help prospective members make a reasonable conclusion with as many facts as possible. In the long run I think you would have a stronger Church body.

[Teancum]

Yes, really. We use the scriptures, which we know are historical documents, but if you'll notice, our focus is to liken the scriptures unto ourselves by applying the principles from the scriptures to our own lives, today.

The scriptures, themselves, were written by people who applied the principles of the gospel to their own lives, not by people who were trying to focus on teaching history.

Edited to add: I was referring to what we teach in our meetings on Sunday. We offer courses on other days in other places that focus on history simply for the sake of understanding history.

Sure we teach history in SS, PR, RS, Sem and Inst. It is all chock full of it. The new JS manual has all sorts of history. We just leave out the stuff that may not promote faith and testimony.

In that regard, latter-day Church history as taught in the Church is analogous to the role of history in ancient scripture. That is, it serves as a vehicle or thread to illustrate and learn gospel doctrines and teachings, not the other way around.

Thus, every fourth year in gospel doctrine class, we study "the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History," not merely "Church History."

Yup! We got a whole lot of history on polyandry when we discussed D&C 132 last go round.

[Teancum]

I am joining this thread late-- and I have only read 5 pages, but this statement/thought is so wacko and has been challenged so many times that it hurts!

Spiritual things are not to be judged by the temporal mind set.

D&C 50: 19-20

19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

Wacko? Having read much of what you say here I wil consider the source.

I assume Mr Hammer that this must mean that for you honesty is not important when it comes to spiritual truths. Let the buyer beware.

I can understand what you're saying, Free Agent, but I think the point others are trying to make is that it is the responsibility of each individual to learn what they want to learn. In other words, you shouldn't blame others because you don't know something when the information is out there to be found.

Do you accept those ideas?

If so, just tell me who's fault it is when you don't know something that you could know.

Whose fault is it when things that help you decide where, what and how to invest your money are not disclosed?

I see Free Agent's point. She wishes the church lessons would have better prepared her to encounter aspects of the Church's history such as plural marriage. We have to acknowledge that in the Church one is not likely to see a correlated lesson or article or talk discussing plural marriage with any "depth."

I can think of a few reasons why this is so. To mention a few, first, we no longer practice plural marriage in the Church. Second, plural marriage still runs counter to our cultural heritage (as it did when it was practiced, as well.) It can upset people. It's uncomfortable. People aren't generally uplifted or encouraged by learning about it.

It would do us all well to assess the purpose of religious lessons we are taught and analyze their contents based on their purposed, rather than solely on what we would like them to explain.

And it may cause some to reject JS as a prophet!!! Really that is what it is all about now is it not?

[Paul Ray]

Whose fault is it when things that help you decide where, what and how to invest your money are not disclosed?

How do YOU find out what is disclosed and what isn't disclosed?

Who do YOU rely on to give you the information YOU will rely on to determine where and/or how YOU will use YOUR money?

Pick any scenario you can think of and follow it through to the end.

Suppose you want to buy a new car. How do YOU determine which one YOU will buy, or if you will buy one at all?

Suppose YOU go direct to each dealership. How will YOU determine which car is best?

Suppose YOU go direct to each car manufacturer. How will YOU determine which car manufacturer is the best?

Suppose YOU use something like Consumer Reports on cars and car manufacturers. How will YOU determine if those Consumer Reports are giving you the best information available?

Suppose YOU decide to learn

everything about car manufacturing from the best educational institution on the planet. How will YOU determine if you are receiving the best education available?

Suppose YOU use something like Consumer Reports on educational institutions. How will YOU determine if those Consumer Reports are giving you the best information?

Suppose YOU decide to read every piece of information on the planet concerning cars. How will YOU determine if each piece of information is true, or that YOU have actually read every piece of relevant information concerning cars?

Now suppose the car you have now, if you have one, stops working and YOU determine that it really is not worth fixing, and that YOU are now without a car. Which car will you buy... or will you simply go on without a car?

And btw, I've shopped around for all of the best information concerning God and religion and churches, and I am as certain as I think I can be certain that I have the best information avaiable, even though I know I don't have every piece of information available. All it takes for me is to get a reliable answer from God.

[Teancum]

How do YOU find out what is disclosed and what isn't disclosed?

T:

The idea of disclosure is you should not have to worry about what is and is not disclosed.

Who do YOU rely on to give you the information YOU will rely on to determine where and/or how YOU will use YOUR money?

When I invest I trust that the information given will give me enough data in what is called the prospectus to make an intelligent decision. I may want to do some leg work on my own but the info in a prospectus is fairly comprehensive. If an investment rep is involved he/she must follow strict rules on what they say and how they present the data or they can lost their license and or be fined.

Pick any scenario you can think of and follow it through to the end.

Sure. When I do I find that disclosure seems right and required in many instances. Even cars can be returned under certain lemon laws.

Suppose you want to buy a new car. How do YOU determine which one YOU will buy, or if you will buy one at all?

Suppose YOU go direct to each dealership. How will YOU determine which car is best?

Suppose YOU go direct to each car manufacturer. How will YOU determine which car manufacturer is the best?

Suppose YOU use something like Consumer Reports on cars and car manufacturers. How will YOU determine if those Consumer Reports are giving you the best information available?

Suppose YOU decide to learn

everything about car manufacturing from the best educational institution on the planet. How will YOU determine if you are receiving the best education available?

Sure. I also deal with someone in the business I trust will be forthrigtht. However if you want to use the same methods that a car person uses to sell a car when presenting the gospel of salvation and really want to equate the two, more power to you.

[jwhitlock]

Sure. I also deal with someone in the business I trust will be forthrigtht. However if you want to use the same methods that a car person uses to sell a car when presenting the gospel of salvation and really want to equate the two, more power to you.

I really don't find that much commonality in method between buying a car (or investing money, for that matter) and the investigation of a religion.

Buying a car or investing money is done (or really should be done) by gathering enough relevant information and then simply making an informed decision.

Investigating a religion is done not only by gathering relevant information, but also includes some very personal and intangible aspects such as faith, trust, prayer, and fellowship, among other things. This is because these latter things are very necessary to religious conversion, but are of far less value in a financial transaction, where solid, factual information is what primarily drives a successful decision.

Shopping a religion the same way you shop a car is ultimately a waste of time.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it might help you to know that the lesson is actually in the book, not just in what the teacher tells you.

If you don't generally buy the Teacher's manual, from Deseret bookstore, you might want to think about doing that.

She doesn't even have to buy it. She can access it free on lds.org -- as I did when I quoted the snippet from the manual.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yup! We got a whole lot of history on polyandry when we discussed D&C 132 last go round.

As I said a couple of posts ago, there is good reason to see that such information is available and accessible from Church-friendly or Church-affiliated sources such as FAIR or the Maxwell Institute at BYU; the reasons are not so good for insisting that we occupy Sunday School time and curricula with it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps suppress is to strong a word. Perhaps non disclosure is better.

Even that term is too loaded for my taste. There is still an implied accusation of sinister or underhanded motive there.

Selective or selectivity works for me, conveying the idea of discretion in the selection of elements for Sunday instruction that furthers the Church's mission of bringing souls to Christ.

I do think we should deep-six the "suppression" rhetoric. The Church does not endeavor to suppress it's history, even if it could.

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, I find it enigmatic that one would suppose Joseph received the commandment instituting plural marriage in this dispensation without being instructed to practice it himself.

Again, there is ample evidence displayed in explicit statements in this forum on multiple threads that some LDS truly believe precisely that.

I never denied that some people make such an erroneous supposition; I said I find it enigmatic that they do when the Doctrine and Covenants section clearly indicates otherwise.

[Teancum]

I really don't find that much commonality in method between buying a car (or investing money, for that matter) and the investigation of a religion.

Buying a car or investing money is done (or really should be done) by gathering enough relevant information and then simply making an informed decision.

Investigating a religion is done not only by gathering relevant information, but also includes some very personal and intangible aspects such as faith, trust, prayer, and fellowship, among other things. This is because these latter things are very necessary to religious conversion, but are of far less value in a financial transaction, where solid, factual information is what primarily drives a successful decision.

Shopping a religion the same way you shop a car is ultimately a waste of time.

I am not proposing one "shop" for religion like they do a car. Others here have compared lack of disclosure in the LDS Church to the way Ford sells its car or the way a political party promotes its philosophy. I think both are comparisons are flawed. I think a religion that claims to be the True Church should disclose in a healthy way as much information as it can about its foundations. The person investigating should not have to take a buyer beware attitude about it.

[Teancum]

As I said a couple of posts ago, there is good reason to see that such information is available and accessible from Church-friendly or Church-affiliated sources such as FAIR or the Maxwell Institute at BYU; the reasons are not so good for insisting that we occupy Sunday School time and curricula with it.

What are the reasons for not occupying SS time?

[Daniel Peterson]

Others here have compared lack of disclosure in the LDS Church to the way Ford sells its car or the way a political party promotes its philosophy. I think both are comparisons are flawed.

All comparisons are flawed.

There is no perfect analogy.

I think a religion that claims to be the True Church should disclose in a healthy way as much information as it can about its foundations.

This is unrealistic.

There wouldn't be time in a long life-span to learn all of the information about the foundations of the Church that exists and that someone, somewhere, might deem relevant.

The person investigating should not have to take a buyer beware attitude about it.

I simply don't think it reasonable to expect the advocate of any position to deal with, let alone to call the attention of others to, every argument or fact or pseudo-fact that someone, somewhere, might judge to count against that advocate's claims.

And, what is more, I think it unreasonable to expect missionaries or Sunday School teachers to conduct the equivalent of a never-ending seminar in Mormon history.