Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps, but I still think he is entitled to it. Let him have it.

If opinions reflect on the integrity, competence or credibility of others, they ought not be voiced publicly without substantiation. Doing so is irresponsible and malicious. At the very least, such publicly expressed opinions deserve to be roundly discredited and dismissed. Which is what we have done here.

[Paul Ray]

If opinions reflect on the integrity, competence or credibility of others, they ought not be voiced publicly without substantiation. Doing so is irresponsible and malicious. At the very least, such publicly expressed opinions deserve to be rounding discredited and dismissed. Which is what we have done here.

I may have missed a post or two from John, but from what I recall he was simply saying he didn't think somebody in particular wrote a particular book all by himself, without the help of some people, because he didn't think that person was capable of writing that book all by himself.

If that's not the gist of what John was saying, feel free to clue me in on the major details.

If that is the gist of what John was saying, what is so bad about John saying what he said?

I don't see John as someone who is making a defamatory remark about that person who wrote that book.

Are you taking offense at the idea that John doesn't know the person who wrote that book as well as you believe you know that person?

Is that it?

And/Or are you taking offense that John has an opinion of that book or the person who wrote it that is different than your opinion?

Please shed some more light about what it is that you have a problem with.

It seems to me that even John doesn't even know why you are taking the position you are taking.

And btw, if I am understanding John correctly, I think I can understand how he might think what he thinks. After I read the Book of Mormon I was convinced that Joseph didn't write that book by himself. I didn't have any harsh feelings against Joseph, but I knew he didn't write that book by himself.

[gtaggart]

And btw, if I am understanding John correctly, I think I can understand how he might think what he thinks. After I read the Book of Mormon I was convinced that Joseph didn't write that book by himself. I didn't have any harsh feelings against Joseph, but I knew he didn't write that book by himself.

Interesting. And in spite of all the eyewitness testimony to the contrary.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Perhaps, but I still think he is entitled to it. Let him have it.

Who said I'm not "letting him have it"? I am letting him have it. In two ways.

I appreciate the fact that John seems to feel like he can share his opinion with us.

Same.

That's your opinion, LOaP, and the opinion of other people who for some reason agree with you.

Thanks?

You are also entitled to your own opinion.

Indeed.

That's fine. I'm not saying you are not entitled to share your opinion.

Excellent.

I also feel that John is entitled to share his opinion too, though.

He is. I'm free to disagree with it. And I did and do.

Do you plan to keep talking with John until you can convince him to agree with your opinion?

No, I'd prefer he own up to his comments.

And btw, I haven't read that book, so I don't have an opinion on that book, at this point, but I do have an opinion on having opinions.

Thanks for the opinion.

... and personally, I enjoy hearing from people so I can know how those people think.

I don't mind hearing from people. I do mind hearing distortions from people, and will try to correct said distortions.

[Paul Ray]

Interesting. And in spite of all the eyewitness testimony to the contrary.

Are you aware of the fact that not even Joseph claimed to have written that book by himself?

Joseph claimed to write that book through the power of God, and even then he was only translating what had already been written by the people who originally wrote it.

Think about that, and then think about how misunderstandings can cloud our judgment.

... which is why we all need help with knowing what is true, through the power of God.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I may have missed a post or two from John, but from what I recall he was simply saying he didn't think somebody in particular wrote a particular book all by himself, without the help of some people, because he didn't think that person was capable of writing that book all by himself.

He accused the Church Historian of publishing a fraudulent book.

If that's not the gist of what John was saying, feel free to clue me in on the major details.

Please re-read the last two pages or so.

If that is the gist of what John was saying, what is so bad about John saying what he said?

It isn't the gist.

I don't see John as someone who is making a defamatory remark about that person who wrote that book.

I do.

Are you taking offense at the idea that John doesn't know the person who wrote that book as well as you believe you know that person?

I have met Turley once. I have read the book and believe John's accusation is unfounded and wrong. Seeing him hedge on his former comments has been enlightening, my friend.

It seems to me that even John doesn't even know why you are taking the position you are taking.

And btw, if I am understanding John correctly, I think I can understand how he might think what he thinks. After I read the Book of Mormon I was convinced that Joseph didn't write that book by himself. I didn't have any harsh feelings against Joseph, but I knew he didn't write that book by himself.

this has very little to do with the conversation. Read the last few pages, bro.

[Paul Ray]

I don't mind hearing from people. I do mind hearing distortions from people, and will try to correct said distortions.

That's what I'm trying to do too... I think.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's what I'm trying to do too... I think.

We're trying to correct a false implication that Rick Turley's writing is not his own work.

What distortion are you trying to correct?

[S-ara]

Personally, I don't think a testimony can be real if it's not based on truth. If the truth of a thing is withheld, there is no real foundation for a testimony. It's setting that person up to flounder when the whole truth is discovered, and doubt the credibility of the entire issue.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Personally, I don't think a testimony can be real if it's not based on truth. If the truth of a thing is withheld, there is no real foundation for a testimony. It's setting that person up to flounder when the whole truth is discovered, and doubt the credibility of the entire issue.

And what is the "whole truth"?

[Pahoran]

And what is the "whole truth"?

That, indeed, is the question. The "whole truth" on any subject contains a great deal that you or I don't know. The "whole truth" on any matter of LDS doctrine or history contains a great deal that most members don't know, and even more that none of our critics know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[S-ara]

And what is the "whole truth"?

Which truths did Elder Packer think should be withheld?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Which truths did Elder Packer think should be withheld?

Withheld? He said all truths aren't useful. Do you disagree?

[Paul Ray]

He accused the Church Historian of publishing a fraudulent book.

You know, it would really help if you used quotes when you say things like that.

How do I know you are not misunderstanding what he said?

Please re-read the last two pages or so.

I went back and found this, on post #678:

I believe that the Church's actions a few years ago show their true colors. On his death, Arrington donated his papers to USU. The Church took aggressive legal action to keep the papers from becoming public. Their further intent is show in Turley himself. He was a lawyer not a historian when he took over the department. He has since then published some marginal pieces, but I would not be surprised if they were ghost written. The idea that the Church archives are more open and honest now is laughably and demonstrably false.

Arrington's body of work speaks for itself. His writings demonstrate a sensitivity to the material intermixed with his commitment to honest history. To attack such a man demonstrates much more about the character of the speaker than any perceived flaw in Arrington.

My response to this comment from John would be as follows:

I believe that the Church's actions a few years ago show their true colors. On his death, Arrington donated his papers to USU. The Church took aggressive legal action to keep the papers from becoming public. Their further intent is show in Turley himself. He was a lawyer not a historian when he took over the department. He has since then published some marginal pieces, but I would not be surprised if they were ghost written. The idea that the Church archives are more open and honest now is laughably and demonstrably false.

What are you referring to as "agressive legal action" taken by the Church to keep those papers from becoming public? More specifically, what were those legal actions and in what way were those papers kept from the public?

I'd also like to know what you mean by apparently saying the Church archives are not more open and honest? More open and honest than what? What standards are you using?

Arrington's body of work speaks for itself. His writings demonstrate a sensitivity to the material intermixed with his commitment to honest history.

That is your opinion. I can also say the same thing about the writings in the Book of Mormon, but you would probably not agree with me on that point.

History is always interpreted by people who read it, as well as by the people who wrote it, and make it.

The idea that facts speak for themselves doesn't mean people don't come up with their own interpretations of the facts which may or may not be correct interpretations.

To attack such a man demonstrates much more about the character of the speaker than any perceived flaw in Arrington.

What attack on the man are you referring to? I don't know what others have said about Arrington.

I will simply say he had his own opinions, as you do, and as I do, and as everyone else does. Everyone has an opinion.

It isn't the gist.

What other details am I missing. I still think John simply disagrees with your, and now my, opinion.

I have met Turley once. I have read the book and believe John's accusation is unfounded and wrong.

Much like how some people have their own opinions of Joseph Smith which disagree with ours, I think.

... but still, everyone is entitled to their own opinion... and frankly, I think that is enough punishment.

Seeing him hedge on his former comments has been enlightening, my friend.

I think I know what you mean, now.

At this point I've seen nothing but John's opinion without much to show how John arrived at his opinion.

this has very little to do with the conversation. Read the last few pages, bro.

I think it has a lot to do with it, in principle.

Even with God to help us know what is really true, all we have is strife of words and a contest of opinions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Which truths did Elder Packer think should be withheld?

With held? Ok. What do you think he was talking about?

What was the context and setting and the group of people he was talking too?

Actually what you have just done is called a deflection. What is the whole truth?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Paul: On a different board John said Turley probably had a ghostwriter write Victims, and that the book basically was unethical in purposefully leaving out evidence that would damn the Church. He accused Turley of putting his name to a very flawed book. I completely disagree. I responded kindly, asking for his source and further info on how he reached his conclusions. He never responded. Scott found the thread and reminded me where it was. I asked John about it. john basically backed away from all his former accusations and tried to downplay it best he could. Read the last few pages again. I hope this helps you understand what is going on here. Thanks for your concern.

[Paul Ray]

We're trying to correct a false implication that Rick Turley's writing is not his own work.

What distortion are you trying to correct?

That Rick Turley's writings were his own work, in the sense that he wrote them all by himself.

I believe he had the help of everyone who worked with him and inspired him in his work.

... including God, our Father, through his Mediator, Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

... insofar that what he wrote was true.

By my count, that's at least 3 other persons besides Rick, and I haven't even read his book yet.

[Paul Ray]

Paul: On a different board John said Turley probably had a ghostwriter write Victims,...

Ooo ooo ooo.

Cue the theme music.

Newsflash: We all have "ghosts" helping us write things. Think about that.

...and that the book basically was unethical in purposefully leaving out evidence that would damn the Church.

Well, I disagree, of course, but my point has been that John is simply giving us his opinion.

... and that he is entitled to it.

Let him have it, again.

He accused Turley of putting his name to a very flawed book.

Okay. That is now noted for the record. Thank you.

Someday we'll go to Court. Please bring all your notes with you.

... and in the meantime, let John think what he wants.

I completely disagree.

Me too, and I now agree with you. Please keep that in mind.

I responded kindly, asking for his source and further info on how he reached his conclusions. He never responded. Scott found the thread and reminded me where it was. I asked John about it. john basically backed away from all his former accusations and tried to downplay it best he could. Read the last few pages again. I hope this helps you understand what is going on here. Thanks for your concern.

You're welcome. I hope I helped a little bit, even if I did nothing but rehash the situation.

[MormonMason]

I believe that the Church's actions a few years ago show their true colors. On his death, Arrington donated his papers to USU. The Church took aggressive legal action to keep the papers from becoming public.

I know specifics in this case. What you have said is a misrepresentation of the facts in the case. There were only a specific selection of the papers which Arrington had no right to donate as they were not his to give away. He was supposed to return these certain papers to the Church but died before he remembered to do so. All the rest were no problem whatsoever and were not part of the situation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That, indeed, is the question. The "whole truth" on any subject contains a great deal that you or I don't know. The "whole truth" on any matter of LDS doctrine or history contains a great deal that most members don't know, and even more that none of our critics know.

Regards,

Pahoran

As to the question I now here the sound of weta chirping amoungst the silience. Lol.

( I dont really know if weta make a chirping like a cricket, but I wanted to make a funny. I probably failed.Lol.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

John Larson's silence in this thread is as loud and substantive as anything he could have possible typed here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

John Larson's silence in this thread is as loud and substantive as anything he could have possible typed here.

Now that is funny. Im glad you at least made me laugh.

[richardb]

Mocnarf's current signature reads

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.

After reading through this, and seeing all the debates, one has to ask: "If it is so obviously false, why did Packer have to give such a monumental speech to those who would have already had a grasp for the obvious"? Perhaps it was not really that "obvious" after all?

[LifeOnaPlate]

After reading through this, and seeing all the debates, one has to ask: "If it is so obviously false, why did Packer have to give such a monumental speech to those who would have already had a grasp for the obvious"? Perhaps it was not really that "obvious" after all?

Apparently not for some folks, as the length of this thread demonstrates.

[richardb]

Apparently not for some folks, as the length of this thread demonstrates.

I think we both argee, it is not as "obvious" as the OP starts with.