Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Teancum]

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.

Given your stance I am not surprised the nondisclosure seems to strong for your taste. Fine. Use selectivity. It seems the Church selectively leaves things out that may persuade people that maybe the LDS Church is not the path to Christ for them. It still seems problematic and puts the Church squarely in the camp of selecting to leave things out.

[Scott Lloyd]

What are the reasons for not occupying SS time?

I think that question has been answered multiple times on this thread. But if you want a quick summation, the post from Daniel Peterson just above this one is a superb response.

[Scott Lloyd]

Given your stance I am not surprised the nondisclosure seems to strong for your taste. Fine. Use selectivity. It seems the Church selectively leaves things out that may persuade people that maybe the LDS Church is not the path to Christ for them. It still seems problematic and puts the Church squarely in the camp of selecting to leave things out.

I view it as the Church "selectively" including elements that will lead people, on their own, to seek and receive a witness by the Holy Spirit. When that witness is received and nurtured, they are better able to deal with non-fundamental aspects of Church history.

[Teancum]

All comparisons are flawed.

There is no perfect analogy.

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.

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.

The problem is the Church does find time to emphasize things it selectively feels are important. It found time to put most members through a teachers training course. It finds time to take members out of SS and put them into Family History courses or marriage and family courses. Why not offer a C type history course for those interested?

Further I am not asking or expecting the Church to give an exhaustive phd level history course or deal with every facet of every criticism. If you have time go back to page 25 of this thread and read my post there. I make I think some reasonable suggestions and ask some reasonable questions. Interestingly rather than discuss ideas that might be useful and maybe work and search ofr a happy medium more seem interested in justifying at least past approaches to this. As noted even Elder Oaks admits this has been problematic. . It would really be quite easy to develop a curriculum say about JS using a book like RSR as the basis.

So I am mot asking for a never ending seminar on Church instruction. But I think more is needed. And for investigators more is needed as well. Two week baptisms seem fairly ineffective in retaining new members. I think longer more in depth instruction as well as acclimation to the culture as well as a level of sustained commitment on the investigators part would go a long way towards retention. You may baptize fewer but we would keep many more that do decide to commit.

[Teancum]

I view it as the Church "selectively" including elements that will lead people, on their own, to seek and receive a witness by the Holy Spirit. When that witness is received and nurtured, they are better able to deal with non-fundamental aspects of Church history.

Is this an admission that the difficult issued may lead people to NOT receive a witness by the Holy Spirit?

[jwhitlock]

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.

Absolutely. However, some have made the comparison here on this board (not you), and it evidently needs to be stated several times that the comparison simply doesn't work. Not that it will stop some critics from trying to apply the flawed analogy anyway.

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 Church, and LDS-friendly resources, already do this. As indicated any number of times on this thread, it's up to the individual to decide whether he / she will accept the spiritual witness that the missionaries lead them to on its own merits, or whether further study is needed to "qualify" that witness in their minds.

From my own point of view, I would suggest that efforts to "qualify" a spiritual witness just might not be particularly pleasing to God - as opposed to accepting the witness, joining the Church, and then pursuing ones own study and knowledge, adhering fully to the foundation of the light of that witness.

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

How come?

I think the main point of disagreement on this thread is the fact that many of us (faithful LDS) contend that the spiritual witness is all that is needed to progress through baptism and into the Church, while others who are dissatisfied (or are career skeptics), seem to want to constantly look for ways of seeing if that witness is false - which will never happen until they have all knowledge, sometime after this life. But by then, the test of faith will be over, and they may have failed it.

In any case, some balanced amount of skepticism is always necessary in making an important decision. However, there comes a time when skepticism needs to be put aside (especially concerning spiritual things) and the individual needs to move on, progressing on the foundations that have been built.

Otherwise, they continue to chase the bus long after they have caught it - which really serves no purpose except to stymie ongoing progression.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is this an admission that the difficult issued may lead people to NOT receive a witness by the Holy Spirit?

If they are poorly or inadequately presented, they can interfere with people being motivated to seek such a witness. A good reason, incidentally, for not making them a routine part of Sunday curriculum, but for having information about them available on an as-needed basis, as I have said, from Church-friendly or Church-affiliated sources.

[Daniel Peterson]

The problem is the Church does find time to emphasize things it selectively feels are important.

How is that a problem?

Selection is absolutely necessary. And shouldn't the selection be based upon what the selector thinks important?

It found time to put most members through a teachers training course. It finds time to take members out of SS and put them into Family History courses or marriage and family courses.

All importantly related to furthering the Church's mission, as the Church understands that mission. (Though I'm not a huge fan of teacher training courses, at least as they're typically taught in and out of the Church.)

Why not offer a C type history course for those interested?

Such courses are offered -- at BYU and elsewhere.

The Church offers no truly academic courses during church meetings, on any subject -- including paedagogy, genealogy, or the psychology or sociology of the family.

Do I like academic courses? Yes! I've taken several, and I've actually taught a few. I often show up at meetings of the Mormon History Association, I've spoken both there and at the John Whitmer Historical Society, I subscribe to several journals related to Mormon history, and the like. I wish more people did.

But those gatherings are quite different from church services, and those publications are quite different from the Ensign -- as they should be.

Would I like to see better historical understanding in the Church? Absolutely! Do I agree with Elder Oaks? Completely! Would I love to see missionaries better prepared? Yes! I actually like to imagine that I'm playing at least a small role (sometimes behind the scenes, sometimes not) in improving things.

Do I think that Church curriculum should be thoroughly overhauled in order to bring it closer to an MHA program or, even, a FARMS symposium? No.

Do I concede that the Church has engaged in a program of systematic suppression and/or falsification of its history? No. I reject that accusation completely.

[Teancum]

The Church, and LDS-friendly resources, already do this. As indicated any number of times on this thread, it's up to the individual to decide whether he / she will accept the spiritual witness that the missionaries lead them to on its own merits, or whether further study is needed to "qualify" that witness in their minds.

T: As noted here it is a hotly debatable issue whether or not the Church itself does enough to provide a reasonable level of information for a person to make a fair and balanced decision. IMO I think it can do better. Others disagree. Perhaps that discussion has been exhausted.

From my own point of view, I would suggest that efforts to "qualify" a spiritual witness just might not be particularly pleasing to God - as opposed to accepting the witness, joining the Church, and then pursuing ones own study and knowledge, adhering fully to the foundation of the light of that witness.

How come?

T: A spiritual witness can be only based on the information one has that they then approach God and pray to him about. It seems to me that if on does not have balanced information and a more complete picture it is hard to obtain an accurate and truthful witness. Many disaffected members that were as faithful as you or I, members brought up LDS and members who joined later in life have become angry and disaffected because they feel their spiritual witness was based on flawed information. Right or wrong they believe they were at some level deceived and are understandably upset and often hurt very much so. I can empathize with them. I have felt some of this myself. For my own reasons and through my own seeking and prayers to God I have worked through those issues and remain a Latter day Saint and I think a fairly committed on as well.

But this is a huge issue. It has become more because more people are able to get info on their own and as they do some choose the path of jettisoning what they once were extremely committed to and loved as much as you or I. They had strong testimonies as well. They were not some weak kneed faithless simpletons. They did not leave because they wanted to go off and sin. Many still live decent and moral lives.

And guess what? I predict this will continue on an even greater scale if the Church does no figure out how to do what I suggest here. You all can argue that it not the Church's job, the people need to do this on their own or that there in not time to do this in a Church setting or seminary or whatever. But you will watch the Church continue to bleed people even more than it is now as well as see the numbers of converts stay at a low level at least in the US where the information can be found.

I think we need to try to fix this.

I think the main point of disagreement on this thread is the fact that many of us (faithful LDS) contend that the spiritual witness is all that is needed to progress through baptism and into the Church, while others who are dissatisfied (or are career skeptics), seem to want to constantly look for ways of seeing if that witness is false - which will never happen until they have all knowledge, sometime after this life. But by then, the test of faith will be over, and they may have failed it.

T:

I am as active and faithful as any of you here and I respectfully disagree with much of your positions on this for reasons outlined above.

[Teancum]

Do I concede that the Church has engaged in a program of systematic suppression and/or falsification of its history? No. I reject that accusation completely.

Nor have I argued this. I think I have carefully avoided that. As for what the Church can teach and where we will have to simply disagree on this point. But as noted, it is a problem and will continue to be. I think the powers that be need to think this through. Inoculation is needed in some way.

[Daniel Peterson]

Nor have I argued this. I think I have carefully avoided that.

Nor have I said that you did. But others, here and elsewhere, have.

Inoculation is needed in some way.

I've been saying that (and writing that) for many years.

And I've always contended that the best innoculation is a better understanding of the topic.

[maxrep12]

This isn't analogous to buying a car that looks good but turns out to have hidden problems. It's more like buying a car with no wheels and then complaining that it leaks oil.

Mighty Curelom,

I chortled a thorough chortling! - Cognate Accusative

[jwhitlock]

T: As noted here it is a hotly debatable issue whether or not the Church itself does enough to provide a reasonable level of information for a person to make a fair and balanced decision. IMO I think it can do better. Others disagree. Perhaps that discussion has been exhausted.

Given the fact that no one can provide an explanation of what a "reasonable level of information" actually means, or if there is a standard for an average investigator to make a "fair and balanced decision", I'm willing to accept what the Church does now on its own merits. Could it be better? Yes. Has anyone here provides specifics on what would make it better? No.

I also know too many converts who received baptism and then jumped into a more concentrated study of the Church, who have remained faithful, despite finding out about "issues". It simply depends on how deeply the spiritual conversion took hold of them, and they of it. So it's not like the Church's current methodology is totally ineffective, as some critics like to infer.

T: A spiritual witness can be only based on the information one has that they then approach God and pray to him about. It seems to me that if on does not have balanced information and a more complete picture it is hard to obtain an accurate and truthful witness.

The reasoning here seems to be flawed. The witness obtained by the new convert is a very general witness of general principles. God lives. Jesus Christ is my Savior. Joseph Smith was a prophet. The Book of Mormon is scripture. The Church and its current prophet continue to hold the keys and ordinances necessary for salvation.

Such a general witness does not need a more complete picture. It is consistent with what the missionaries teach (if they do it right). The general witnesses are foundational witnesses to get a person started. He or she can then join the Church and make the covenants and proceed onward with additional, expanded, and more specific witnesses. That is, after all, the way we all learn.

Many disaffected members that were as faithful as you or I, members brought up LDS and members who joined later in life have become angry and disaffected because they feel their spiritual witness was based on flawed information. Right or wrong they believe they were at some level deceived and are understandably upset and often hurt very much so. I can empathize with them. I have felt some of this myself. For my own reasons and through my own seeking and prayers to God I have worked through those issues and remain a Latter day Saint and I think a fairly committed on as well.

All of us have doubts from time to time, and I can empathize too - but only to a point. I suspect that many of those who leave the Church with claims of being "deceived" are not telling us the real reasons for leaving. When I explore those reasons for claimed "deception", it never adds up. Hence, my comments on "qualifying" the witnesses we receive, which is what I suspect most ex-Mormons tend to do in order to explain them away.

Given that the scriptures themselves expect members of the Church to fall away for various reasons (see the parable of the sower), I don't automatically accept the claim that the Church should have done more to retain its members, or that it's the Church's fault that people fall away. While, as has been said, the Church can do better, the major part of responsibility anyone has for their own salvation belongs to the individual.

But this is a huge issue. It has become more because more people are able to get info on their own and as they do some choose the path of jettisoning what they once were extremely committed to and loved as much as you or I. They had strong testimonies as well. They were not some weak kneed faithless simpletons. They did not leave because they wanted to go off and sin. Many still live decent and moral lives.

But they make the decision to leave - and very often on false information. They tested the Church spiritually and received the witness that it was true. Then they accepted anti-Mormon information without spiritually testing it and accepted it as true, letting it override their real spiritual witnesses. Why? I find such a course of action to be irrational.

And guess what? I predict this will continue on an even greater scale if the Church does no figure out how to do what I suggest here. You all can argue that it not the Church's job, the people need to do this on their own or that there in not time to do this in a Church setting or seminary or whatever. But you will watch the Church continue to bleed people even more than it is now as well as see the numbers of converts stay at a low level at least in the US where the information can be found.

I think we need to try to fix this.

Well, give some concrete ideas for what the Church should do to fix it, instead of speaking in generalities.

However, I suspect that all of this is far less of a situation where the Church needs to "fix it", and far more of a situation where the lies of the opposition are simply affecting more people. Whether the Church's current method is right or wrong is mostly irrelevant; what methods can we use to combat the new attacks enemies of the Church are making on it?

T: I am as active and faithful as any of you here and I respectfully disagree with much of your positions on this for reasons outlined above.

See my responses. You're entitled to disagree, of course, but it would be far more productive if valid, specific solutions could be suggested that address all of the logistical and practical problems that have been raised.

[Teancum]

Jwhitlock

Two points. First my experience has been that people actually do leave because of the shock, disillusionment or what have you. There is typically not some underlying sin or other reason. Many of these people are profoundly sad when this happens.

Second, I have made concrete suggestions. At least three or four times. I will repeat. I would take a book like RSR or perhaps a parred down version, add to it post JS issues that seem to cause the most problems for people and then use it as a historical text for a course in seminary at the senior level in high school. I would also design a similar course for SS and let it be an optional course to attend instead of gospel doctrine. Additionally I would add a set of six discussions to he missionary lessons to deal with difficult issues and again select the most prominent ones that seem to cause the most concern. Personally I think all investigators should have to read the BoM, D&C, P of GP and a book like RSR before they are allowed to be baptized.

Oh and a third point. I would rather use methods to keep members strong the positing that these issues are weeding out the tares.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Given your stance I am not surprised the nondisclosure seems to strong for your taste. Fine. Use selectivity. It seems the Church selectively leaves things out that may persuade people that maybe the LDS Church is not the path to Christ for them. It still seems problematic and puts the Church squarely in the camp of selecting to leave things out.

But what about leaving out things that would persuade people that the Church is true? This occurs, as well. If the church paid more attention to "x", certain people who hold "x" to be vital to their faith might wonder if the Church is the right place for them given that "x" is not spoken of much more often.

It's as though you believe the Church is only leaving out details about "bad" things that aren't "faith-promoting." This is false.

[LifeOnaPlate]

[...]Further I am not asking or expecting the Church to give an exhaustive phd level history course or deal with every facet of every criticism. If you have time go back to page 25 of this thread and read my post there. I make I think some reasonable suggestions and ask some reasonable questions. Interestingly rather than discuss ideas that might be useful and maybe work and search ofr a happy medium more seem interested in justifying at least past approaches to this. As noted even Elder Oaks admits this has been problematic. . It would really be quite easy to develop a curriculum say about JS using a book like RSR as the basis.

The problem here is, Bushman advances opinions and views just like any other book advances opinions and views. Using RSR in a Church class as an official book can be just as problematic as using any other text. Why? Because further research and details can show where Bushman advanced his own opinion, or missed certain historical evidence, or leaned to far to the right or left, etc. In short, the problem would remain the same, and we'd have those saying "the Church lied to us! Page 234 of Rough Stone Rolling says such-and-such, but later I found out that was false!" I enjoyed RSR a lot, I think everyone who is interested in Joseph Smith ought to read it, but the book is not flawless.

Secondly RSR is about Joseph Smith specifically, not about Joseph and Christ or about Joseph and the Church. It is about Joseph the person. This is a great study subject, but as we do not worship Joseph Smith, and as there are contemporary issues that must be discussed, a RSR class would not be appropriate for a Sunday course.

Is this an admission that the difficult issued may lead people to NOT receive a witness by the Holy Spirit?

Stumbling blocks exist, if that's what you're asking.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Jwhitlock

Two points. First my experience has been that people actually do leave because of the shock, disillusionment or what have you. There is typically not some underlying sin or other reason. Many of these people are profoundly sad when this happens.

I don't doubt that there are people who go through something akin to this. I believe they will be judged according to what they really knew, and how they based their decisions on that knowledge.

Second, I have made concrete suggestions. At least three or four times. I will repeat. I would take a book like RSR or perhaps a parred down version, add to it post JS issues that seem to cause the most problems for people and then use it as a historical text for a course in seminary at the senior level in high school.

I pointed out some potential problems with such a move.

I would also design a similar course for SS and let it be an optional course to attend instead of gospel doctrine.

Again, there are positives and negatives to such a move. Fragmentation isn't something I'd encourage, but a good way to get it going is to offer a "smart" and a "dumb" class; and regardless of what it actually is, that is how it will be seen by many, imo. We have a basic class and a Sunday school class already, and I believe there are reasons for this. I'm not a huge fan of many of the SS lessons I sit through, but if I try I almost always get something important out of a lesson.

Additionally I would add a set of six discussions to he missionary lessons to deal with difficult issues and again select the most prominent ones that seem to cause the most concern.

What's difficult for you may not be difficult for someone else.

Personally I think all investigators should have to read the BoM, D&C, P of GP and a book like RSR before they are allowed to be baptized.

I believe that is a ridiculous requirement.

[Teancum]

But what about leaving out things that would persuade people that the Church is true? This occurs, as well. If the church paid more attention to "x", certain people who hold "x" to be vital to their faith might wonder if the Church is the right place for them given that "x" is not spoken of much more often.

It's as though you believe the Church is only leaving out details about "bad" things that aren't "faith-promoting." This is false.

I think things are almost totally in the positive and no of very little that could be construed as negative that is presented in Seminary, Institute, SS, PR and RS or the missionary discussions. Can you give me some examples?

[Teancum]

The problem here is, Bushman advances opinions and views just like any other book advances opinions and views. Using RSR in a Church class as an official book can be just as problematic as using any other text. Why? Because further research and details can show where Bushman advanced his own opinion, or missed certain historical evidence, or leaned to far to the right or left, etc. In short, the problem would remain the same, and we'd have those saying "the Church lied to us! Page 234 of Rough Stone Rolling says such-and-such, but later I found out that was false!" I enjoyed RSR a lot, I think everyone who is interested in Joseph Smith ought to read it, but the book is not flawless.

Secondly RSR is about Joseph Smith specifically, not about Joseph and Christ or about Joseph and the Church. It is about Joseph the person. This is a great study subject, but as we do not worship Joseph Smith, and as there are contemporary issues that must be discussed, a RSR class would not be appropriate for a Sunday course.

Stumbling blocks exist, if that's what you're asking.

I propose a book like RSR not RSR per say thought I did suggest investigators read it. I also suggest that the test like RSR cover not just JS but issues that seem to cause difficulties as well. It could be carefully prepared and supervised by church writers and GAs and it would then be as official as any instruction manaul book produced by the church is considered

[Teancum]

I believe that is a ridiculous requirement.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am not sure where you live. But where I do the convert rate is dismal, many who join are very poor and often have major social and emotional issues and we lose about 60% or more of them. Now I am all for the gospel going to the poor and needy so do not mistake me. But so many are ill prepared and so hard to keep. I would like to think there is a better way or some way to do this better. My suggestion may be all wet. But at least it is a suggestion and I see little offered here.

Maybe ya all are just fine with the status quo, but the status quo seems pretty dismal at times.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think things are almost totally in the positive and no of very little that could be construed as negative that is presented in Seminary, Institute, SS, PR and RS or the missionary discussions. Can you give me some examples?

I learned about the Kirtland Anti-Banking Society, polygamy, Mountain Meadows, and the apostasy of witnesses to the Book of Mormon in seminary and Church lessons, for example.

I propose a book like RSR not RSR per say thought I did suggest investigators read it. I also suggest that the test like RSR cover not just JS but issues that seem to cause difficulties as well. It could be carefully prepared and supervised by church writers and GAs and it would then be as official as any instruction manaul book produced by the church is considered

Even then, the book will be criticized for what it includes and leaves out.

[Teancum]

Even then, the book will be criticized for what it includes and leaves out.

The fact that such an approach will not please everyone is not reason enough to not do it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You are entitled to your opinion. I am not sure where you live. But where I do the convert rate is dismal, many who join are very poor and often have major social and emotional issues and we lose about 60% or more of them. Now I am all for the gospel going to the poor and needy so do not mistake me. But so many are ill prepared and so hard to keep. I would like to think there is a better way or some way to do this better. My suggestion may be all wet. But at least it is a suggestion and I see little offered here.

Maybe ya all are just fine with the status quo, but the status quo seems pretty dismal at times.

There are changes I'd like to see in the missionary approach. However, I had success with the old 6 discussions on my mission, they served the purpose. the new Preach My Gospel is a wonderful step forward, and I believe, inspired. Seems we are definitely headed in the right direction.

The fact that such an approach will not please everyone is not reason enough to not do it.

It does shoot some holes in your reasons for change, however. You're not satisfied, thus you want a change.

[Daniel Peterson]

Even then, the book will be criticized for what it includes and leaves out.

Will Bagley, who hasn't seen it any more than I have, has already leveled fierce criticism at the forthcoming two-volume treatment of the Mountain Meadows Massacre by Leonard, Turley, and Walker.

The huge Joseph Smith Papers project that is underway has already been attacked on various message boards as dishonest, manipulative, and the like. Actually seeing it when it appears would only cloud the judgment of such critics.

Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling has been maligned as dishonest "apologetics" by quite a number of hostile critics, and even by several (in my opinion rather incompetent) academic reviews. Richard himself has concluded that his academic critics -- he pays no attention to self-anointed message board "authorities" -- will never find a biography of Joseph Smith acceptable if it doesn't toe the naturalistic line and treat Joseph as a complete fraud.

The Church could not possibly construct a curriculum for its history that would satisfy its enemies or even secularizing historians.

[Scott Lloyd]

I propose a book like RSR not RSR per say thought I did suggest investigators read it. I also suggest that the test like RSR cover not just JS but issues that seem to cause difficulties as well. It could be carefully prepared and supervised by church writers and GAs and it would then be as official as any instruction manaul book produced by the church is considered

I see such a prospect as being rife with the potential for ill. It would become an occasion for hard-edged, potentially acrimonious argument, for undetected wolves to practice their sophistry, for fragile testimonies to be harmed or destroyed.

There is plenty of opportunity right now for "inoculation," especially in this age of the Internet and easy access to information. Not everyone needs it; that people who do are not availing themselves of it is perhaps a problem that needs to be addressed. But people have the right to expect that their Sunday meetings will be a haven where they can come to be edified, strengthened, admonished, assured, nurtured. It is not a time or setting for the challenging of testimonies.