Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[RDL]

As I've said before, one chooses, necessarily. And one chooses, it is to be hoped, with reference to a goal.

Whether or not those assertions are indeed "facts" is useful to know if one is considering the question of whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet.

And that's an entirely legitimate question in some contexts. I'm more than happy to address it, and do so regularly.

But should the curriculum of the Church treat that question as an open one on which the Church is neutral? I don't see any reason why it should.

Yes and no.

Again, do you think that the Church is obliged to treat the prophethood of Joseph Smith as an open question, and to assume a neutral stance toward the matter?

I don't.

I also see no reason for the Catholic Church to be neutral about its claims, for the Democratic Party to be neutral about whether voters should choose Democrats or Republicans, for Ford Motor Company to be indifferent as to whether buyers should prefer Toyotas, or for the Sierra Club to be neutral regarding the value of environmental protection.

But has it actually done that?

I see very little evidence for the idea -- particularly when compared to the fierceness of the dogmatic certainty with which certain critics and ex-Mormons assert that it has.

Did the Church really tell you that you should never ask whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet? If so, you grew up in a radically different Mormonism than I've ever known.

Did it really control your mind such that you were unable to think or read?

CFR, my own experience growing up in the church.

Here's an example, one of many. I thought growing up Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by reading from the plates, and deciphering reformed Egyptian. I was never told about the face-in-the-hat, I was never told that Smith used a rock he had previously used to find buried treasure. The Church uses depictions of Smith sitting studiously at a table, apparently reading the plates. That's how I thought it was actually done, and didn't learn how he really did some of it until years after I had left.

I don't see how anybody can deny that such pictures are misleading, a distortion (even if slight) of history. But what does it matter how he translated? He's a prophet after all, so the particular "truth" about translation method doesn't really matter, does it? Some members and investigators might think the actual method rather silly--certainly the depictions would look bizarre--, and conclude that maybe Smith wasn't really a prophet, but a hoaxster. So that truth--the face-in-the-hat--isn't a useful truth, and so it's not commonly taught.

[selek]

CFR, my own experience growing up in the church.

In otherwords, an unfalsifiable anecdote based upon your perceptions rather than a single assertion of fact.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

That's how I thought it was actually done, and didn't learn how he really did some of it until years after I had left.

Uh huh. Considering that all we have to work from are second- and third-hand testimonials, no one living knows precisely "how he did it" except for what the Church has stated- he did it by the grace and power of God.

Your binary mindset on this issue is actually rather telling.

I don't see how anybody can deny that such pictures are misleading, a distortion (even if slight) of history.

They are only a distortion or deception if the events depicted did not take place- something you cannot prove. Yes, the stone in the hat was one method, but not the only one.

But what does it matter how he translated?

Yes- and he translated by the power and grace of God. So long as that stricture is met, the precise size of quill he used is unimportant.

He's a prophet after all, so the particular "truth" about translation method doesn't really matter, does it?

No- it doesn't- but the Church allows us to determine whether or not he was a prophet for ourselves- all of your posturing to the contrary not withstanding.

Some members and investigators might think the actual method rather silly--certainly the depictions would look bizarre--, and conclude that maybe Smith wasn't really a prophet, but a hoaxster.

CFR, RDL- WHAT actual method? We don't have a single first-hand statement of how the translation was accomplished.

So that truth--the face-in-the-hat--isn't a useful truth, and so it's not commonly taught.

No, it is not- neither is it suppressed or denied- which renders your protests rather hollow.

You still haven't answered a single CFR tossed your way, today.

Why is that?

[Daniel Peterson]

I thought growing up Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by reading from the plates, and deciphering reformed Egyptian. I was never told about the face-in-the-hat, I was never told that Smith used a rock he had previously used to find buried treasure.

But you were probably told about the Urim and Thummim, right? That's a rock, too. Just not in a hat.

The Church uses depictions of Smith sitting studiously at a table, apparently reading the plates. That's how I thought it was actually done, and didn't learn how he really did some of it until years after I had left.

I don't see how anybody can deny that such pictures are misleading, a distortion (even if slight) of history.

I think such pictures are misleading, a slight distortion of history.

So are most artists' renderings of the Madonna and Child, the Tower of Babel, the Flight of the Holy Family into Egypt, the Battle of Waterloo, and Washington's Crossing of the Delaware.

I've never believed that artists' renderings were necessarily historical evidence.

But what does it matter how he translated? He's a prophet after all, so the particular "truth" about translation method doesn't really matter, does it?

Not much.

Some members and investigators might think the actual method rather silly--certainly the depictions would look bizarre--, and conclude that maybe Smith wasn't really a prophet, but a hoaxster.

Some might. A rock in a hat is millions and millions of times weirder than a rock outside of a hat.

So that truth--the face-in-the-hat--isn't a useful truth, and so it's not commonly taught.

You're presuming that most Church leaders and illustrators and teachers know about the rock in the hat and consciously suppress the information, while the general membership of the Church, a totally distinct group, are fiendishly kept in the dark.

I suspect, however, that few people talk about the rock in the hat because they don't know about the rock in the hat, and that they aren't ignorant about the rock in the hat because the Church has forbidden them to think or to read, has cast invisibility cloaks around libraries, has burned books, and has falsified maps so that they can't attend academic conferences, but because they don't know or care much about Church history generally.

I've certainly written and spoken about the rock in the hat -- I mentioned it in the PBS special on The Mormons, for example (thereby hiding it from potentially huge audiences in the United States, Canada, Australia, and probably other places) -- and it's been mentioned in General Conference. Historians have been writing and publishing about it for decades, at a minimum.

[RDL]

CFR, RDL.

We see the spittle on the screen, we hear the foaming at the mouth, but you've offered NO evidence that any of the following is true:

1) The Church decides what truths are useful.

2) The Church determines what questions are worth asking.

3) The Church has decided that whether Smith was a prophet is not a legitimate question.

4) The Church has determined that any fact suggesting Smith was not a prophet is not useful, as it contradicts known "truth."

5) That the Church has decided for its members and investigators that Smith was a prophet.

6) That the Church has disavowed or distorted its true history,

7) That the Church determined for which questions you should bother asking.

As a corollary:

What fraud conviction?

What failed prophecies?

What incorrect "divine" translations?

There's a lot of assertion in your rant, but "facts" are few and far between.

Until then, wipe your chin, take your meds, and go play in the sunshine.

You're done here.

CFR as to question #1. This thread is about the Church considering certain truths not to be useful, so they shouldn't be taught. My reference is Dr. Peterson, and Boyd K. Packer.

#2 and 3 and 5: You can't say with a straight face that the Church doesn't try to convince its members and investigators that Smith was a prophet, and intentionally does not teach things that might damage a "testimony."

#4: Again, the point of this thread is that the Church instructs its educators not to teach "unuseful" truths.

And I suppose 6 and 7 can be debated, although I'd argue my CFR again is Boyd K. Packer--if educators are directed not to teach truths that might dissuade people from believing in it, it goes without saying that it's not telling the whole truth.

As for fraud conviction, incorrect translation, etc.... You must admit that many people who consider the evidence have concluded that Joseph Smith erred on a translation, Kinderhook. I would imagine that if 100 unbiased people reviewed all of the available evidence, the vast majority (if not all) would believe that Smith was caught in a lie, and invented the translation himself.

Why would the church not inform investigators about Kinderhook from the start? Obviously, because doing so might convince some people he was a fraud. Well, (presumably) he was not a fraud, he was a prophet, that question has been answered. So any information that might contradict that truth is hidden, or justified, or explained away--and so the Kinderhook affair is not taught, even though it would be highly relevant to whether Smith was a prophet to the unbiased.

I bore my testimony that the church is true before I had any idea what it meant. I sang the Primary songs, learned the lessons, etc... And you really think the Church left whether Joseph Smith was a prophet up to me, to answer on my own, objectively.

And spittle, foaming, etc... I really have no idea where that's coming from.

[RDL]

I also see no reason for the Catholic Church to be neutral about its claims, for the Democratic Party to be neutral about whether voters should choose Democrats or Republicans, for Ford Motor Company to be indifferent as to whether buyers should prefer Toyotas, or for the Sierra Club to be neutral regarding the value of environmental protection.

Of course they wouldn't be neutral, but that's not the point. Not telling useful truths isn't about neutrality, it's about deception. Does the church (or any church) have an obligation to inform people as to "truths" that would cause unbiased, objective people not to believe? I think so.

[Daniel Peterson]

Of course they wouldn't be neutral, but that's not the point. Not telling useful truths isn't about neutrality, it's about deception.

But who determines what truths are "useful"? And whose standard for that determination must be employed? What's useful for one goal is useless, or essentially so, for another.

Elder Packer didn't tell Church Educational System employees not to teach "useful" truths. He told them that some truths aren't very useful, and to concentrate on those that are.

You plainly disagree with the standard he was using to distingush "useful" truths in Church curriculum from less useful truths. But it isn't obvious to me that your standard ought to trump his for the formulation of CES curriculum.

And no, I don't think that this is about "deception" at all.

Ford isn't being deceptive when it tries to persuade customers to buy its products. The Democrats aren't being deceptive merely because they attempt to induce voters to favor Democratic candidates. The Sierra Club isn't deceptive by the mere fact that it advocates its beliefs and not those of its opponents. The Catholic Church isn't deceptive when it teaches its interpretation of scripture and history while failing to give equal time in its catechism to non-Catholic positions.

Does the church (or any church) have an obligation to inform people as to "truths" that would cause unbiased, objective people not to believe? I think so.

What proportion of the Church's curricula and classes, in your opinion, ought to be devoted to advocating the positions of those who reject it?

[RDL]

But who determines what truths are "useful"? And whose standard for that determination must be employed? What's useful for one goal is useless, or essentially so, for another.

Elder Packer didn't tell Church Educational System employees not to teach "useful" truths. He told them that some truths aren't very useful, and to concentrate on those that are.

You plainly disagree with the standard he was using to distingush "useful" truths in Church curriculum from less useful truths. But it isn't obvious to me that your standard ought to trump his for the formulation of CES curriculum.

And no, I don't think that this is about "deception" at all.

Ford isn't being deceptive when it tries to persuade customers to buy its products. The Democrats aren't being deceptive merely because they attempt to induce voters to favor Democratic candidates. The Sierra Club isn't deceptive by the mere fact that it advocates its beliefs and not those of its opponents. The Catholic Church isn't deceptive when it teaches its interpretation of scripture and history while failing to give equal time in its catechism to non-Catholic positions.

What proportion of the Church's curricula and classes, in your opinion, ought to be devoted to advocating the positions of those who reject it?

But this isn't the act of buying a car, it's a decision that will affect every aspect of one's life, paying tithes, committing to abstain, feeling guilt for disobeying, etc... I think the church and every church and religion has an obligation to present the entirety of its history and doctrine from the outset, and let people decide if they want to commit the rest of their lives to it. I know it's not realistic, and perhaps I think that obligation is owed because I wish I had been told from the start.

[jwhitlock]

I certainly appreciate your answer and your perspective. I see that it makes sense to you and works for you. I agree there is only so much time to focus on good, uplifting things during our 3 hour block. However, if we choose to study on our own outside of Church, so many of the sources that we would automatically turn would be Church published, i.e. RS/Priesthood manual, Ensign, Church websites. Unless we branch out to include other sources, we might not find out about the so called "questionable" even though we are taking it upon ourselves to study. I was just very disheartened this year when the new manual came out studying Joseph Smith and the opportunity to share just a small bit of historical issues that many members are having trouble with was lost. I would have liked to see an acknowledgement that these are things members are grappling with, things investigators may question us on, and that the Church chose to devote 1 of the 40 odd lessons to it.

There are plenty of LDS-friendly sources that address those issues - even if they are not inside of the standard Church curriculum. Members who want to find out more about those items can use those sources, if they desire.

We are taught, as members, that anti-Mormon sources are not reliable in addressing those issues. Once a member has become grounded enough, he / she can go and check them out. I have, and I have verified that their perspective and conclusions are simply wrong.

Again, there are so many things that people potentially could struggle with that I doubt the Church could devote enough time to address those issues even in the manner you suggest. If I become aware of members who have questions, I direct them to LDS-friendly sources.

As has been stated before, however, there are those who are simply looking for a way to rationalize their exit from the Church and the covenants they have made. In those cases, it does not matter what the Church does or does not teach. I suspect that these people are, most of the time, the ones that are most vocal and visible in their leaving - and perhaps also the ones most vocal in faulting the Church for not "teaching" them more about the issues.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think the church and every church and religion has an obligation to present the entirety of its history and doctrine from the outset

"The entirety of its history and doctrine?"

That's an impossibly unrealistic goal.

You seem to be suggesting, though, that if there's a single potential doctrinal problem or historical objection that could be conceived or raised by anybody, it's the duty of the church or religion to spoonfeed that problem or objection to every adherent and to all interested parties, or else it's being deceptive.

I know it's not realistic

Quite.

it's about deception.

From your point of view as an apostate and an unbeliever, that is, of course, how it looks.

From the point of view of a believer such as Elder Packer (or myself), however, that is not at all how it looks.

I repeat what I've said before, this time with special emphasis:

Many years ago, while a graduate student in California, I heard the late Stanley Kimball (an LDS historian -- he actually published on both Mormon and European history -- who taught at Southern Illinois University) speak to a small group about what he termed "the three levels of Mormon history."

He called the first level "Level A." This, he said, was the Junior Sunday School version of Church history, in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, and all is unambiguously clear.

"Level B," he said, was the anti-Mormon version of Church history -- a kind of mirror image of Level A. On Level B, everything that you thought was good and true is actually false and bad. The Mormons (or, at least, their leaders) always wear black hats, and, to the extent that everything is unambiguously clear, Mormonism is unambiguously fraudulent, bogus, deceptive, and evil.

The Church, he said, tends to teach Level A history. The trouble is that, like someone who has been kept in a germ-free environment and is then exposed to an infectious disease, a person on Level A who is exposed to any of the problems that are the fodder for Level B will have little resistance and will be likely to fall.

The only hope in such a case, he said, is to press on to what he termed "Level C," which is a version of Church history that remains affirmative but takes into account any legitimate points from Level B. Those on Level C are largely impervious to infection from Level B. Level B problems simply don't impress them.

He said that he and his fellow historians operate on Level C, and that, on the whole, that's where he (as a professional historian) would prefer members to be. He was deeply convinced, he said, that Level C is essentially like Level A except that it is more nuanced and somewhat more ambiguous. (He emphatically denied that Level A is "false," or that the Church was "lying" in teaching it.) He acknowledged, though, that, were he himself a high-ranking Church leader, he would be hesitant to take the membership as a whole to Level C by means of Church curriculum and instruction, for the obvious reason that getting people from Level A to Level C entails at least some exposure to some of the elements of Level B, and that such exposure will unavoidably lead some to lose their testimonies. Still, he felt that those who make it through to Level C are more stable and resilient in their faith than those who remain on Level A.

I agree with him. I thought it a wise and perceptive talk, even though, had I myself given it, I would have spoken in Hegelian terms (of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) rather than in terms of Levels A, B, and C.

[Mighty Curelom]

But this isn't the act of buying a car, it's a decision that will affect every aspect of one's life, paying tithes, committing to abstain, feeling guilt for disobeying, etc... I think the church and every church and religion has an obligation to present the entirety of its history and doctrine from the outset, and let people decide if they want to commit the rest of their lives to it. I know it's not realistic, and perhaps I think that obligation is owed because I wish I had been told from the start.

No, it's not buying a car, and yes, embracing a religion is much more significant. And that's why it's up to YOU to find out everything you can about a religion before you convert. It's YOU that has to pay tithes, abstain, or follow various rules. The information is all there if you take the time to look for it. And really--it doesn't take obscure historical trivia for an objective observer to realize that Mormonism is false. Tell any random guy off the street the basic Mormon story that every Sunday school kid hears every week, and you'll get nothing but looks of incredulity. It's just like the now-classic South Park episode, where the kid says "Wait a minute, you KNOW this stuff, and you're still Mormon???"

The problem is, people are afraid to find out their religion is false, so they don't look into issues that might jeopardize their worldview. Ex-Mormons like to talk about cognitive dissonance--well, this is a perfect example of it. The ex-Mormon has a conception of themselves as an intelligent, rational, inquisitive, skeptical person. This self-image collides with the fact that they engaged in non-intelligent, non-rational, non-inquisitive, non-skeptical behavior, ie being a Mormon. Rather than alter their self-image, they put the blame for their behavior on an external agent.

(Incidentally, Mormons who fancy themselves intellectuals display a similar version of cognitive dissonance, but they resolve the conflict between their self-conception as intelligent and rational persons by arguing that Mormonism is a rational belief system. )

[jwhitlock]

But this isn't the act of buying a car, it's a decision that will affect every aspect of one's life, paying tithes, committing to abstain, feeling guilt for disobeying, etc... I think the church and every church and religion has an obligation to present the entirety of its history and doctrine from the outset, and let people decide if they want to commit the rest of their lives to it. I know it's not realistic, and perhaps I think that obligation is owed because I wish I had been told from the start.

Considering that you've already claimed that the Church tells us which questions are worth asking (which is simply false), I'm not surprised that you stick to similar unrealistic expectations, such as presenting the entirety of its history to investigators.

I suggest that you go back and read the comments on this thread about why the Church does what it does. It would appear that you simply can't get around your own rationalizations on this - and from your comment above, it doesn't appear that what you are suggesting is even remotely reasonable.

[Daniel Peterson]

Tell any random guy off the street the basic Mormon story that every Sunday school kid hears every week, and you'll get nothing but looks of incredulity.

Of course, the random guy off the street rejects evolution, believes that Toronto is the capital of Canada, thinks that summer is warmer because the earth is closer to the Sun at that time, regards atheists like M. LeCurelom as noxious buffoons, and couldn't tell you what century saw the American Civil War.

Mighty Curelom would not defer to the knowledge and wisdom of the random guy off the street on virtually any issue. Regarding Mormonism, though, since it suits his agenda to do so, M. LeCurelom regards the random guy off the street as a repository of precious insight, deep knowledge, and unassailable wisdom.

[jwhitlock]

No, it's not buying a car, and yes, embracing a religion is much more significant. And that's why it's up to YOU to find out everything you can about a religion before you convert. It's YOU that has to pay tithes, abstain, or follow various rules. The information is all there if you take the time to look for it. And really--it doesn't take obscure historical trivia for an objective observer to realize that Mormonism is false. Tell any random guy off the street the basic Mormon story that every Sunday school kid hears every week, and you'll get nothing but looks of incredulity. It's just like the now-classic South Park episode, where the kid says "Wait a minute, you KNOW this stuff, and you're still Mormon???"

Most of the people in our society have been so molded by the idiot media and social corruptions that you're correct - the average person on the street would find LDS claims unbelievable.

And of course, they would be absolutely wrong.

The superficial average observer, as you describe above, who "realizes" that Mormonism is false also has no critical thinking skills and the attention span to detail of a gnat. Hence, after their short, misfounded astonishment at what we believe, they're back to the latest sitcom or Jerry Springer show for "real information for real life".

And of course, anti-Mormons love to see it this way. If you don't look in detail at the Church, you won't be caught by it. Because, in reality, those who look in detail at the Church with an open mind - and who put the spiritual witness to the test - usually find out that the Church is really what it claims to be.

The problem is, people are afraid to find out their religion is false, so they don't look into issues that might jeopardize their worldview. Ex-Mormons like to talk about cognitive dissonance--well, this is a perfect example of it. The ex-Mormon has a conception of themselves as an intelligent, rational, inquisitive, skeptical person. This self-image collides with the fact that they engaged in non-intelligent, non-rational, non-inquisitive, non-skeptical behavior, ie being a Mormon. Rather than alter their self-image, they put the blame for their behavior on an external agent.

Funny, quite the opposite has been demonstrated to a great degree in real life. Your caricatures of both ex-Mormons and faithful members of the Church couldn't be more mistaken.

And of course, the presence of faithful Mormons on this very board - which looks into all kinds of issues in the Church - is hard evidence of how wrong your first sentence above is. You really don't appear to have a good handle on what members of the Church are really like.

[Mighty Curelom]

Of course, the random guy off the street rejects evolution, believes that Toronto is the capital of Canada, thinks that summer is warmer because the earth is closer to the Sun at that time, regards atheists like M. LeCurelom as noxious buffoons, and couldn't tell you what century saw the American Civil War.

Mighty Curelom would not defer to the knowledge and wisdom of the random guy off the street on virtually any issue. Regarding Mormonism, though, since it suits his agenda to do so, M. LeCurelom regards the random guy off the street as a repository of precious insight, deep knowledge, and unassailable wisdom.

True, the masses are asses. Alright, rather than pick a random guy, you can pick from any class of individuals you want, except one: Mormons. Find a geologist, a dentist, a biologist, or a podiatrist. Pick a doctor, a lawyer, or a professor. Pick the smartest guy in a room full of smart guys. Do you really think this person is any more likely to buy into Mormonism?

[Daniel Peterson]

True, the masses are asses. Alright, rather than pick a random guy, you can pick from any class of individuals you want, except one: Mormons. Find a geologist, a dentist, a biologist, or a podiatrist. Pick a doctor, a lawyer, or a professor. Pick the smartest guy in a room full of smart guys. Do you really think this person is any more likely to buy into Mormonism?

I don't remember any scriptural passage suggesting that the majority of people would accept the gospel, I can't remember ever expecting any such thing, and I don't believe that religious truth is based on polls.

But, if I did, I would probably conclude that theism decisively whips atheism, both currently and historically.

Even if I were to pick the smartest guy in a room full of smart guys, the odds are good that I would find him a theist. According to surveys taken at the beginning and the end of the twentieth century, the odds run consistently very close to 50/50 that, even if the guys surveyed were scientists, they would be believers in a personal God who answers prayers.

Does that convince you to kneel and accept God? Of course it doesn't. But I should be impressed by polls?

[Bond...James Bond]

Of course, the random guy off the street rejects evolution, believes that Toronto is the capital of Canada, thinks that summer is warmer because the earth is closer to the Sun at that time, regards atheists like M. LeCurelom as noxious buffoons, and couldn't tell you what century saw the American Civil War.

Completely true....and that really depresses me about human (well American anyway) society.

[Mighty Curelom]

I don't remember any scriptural passage suggesting that the majority of people would accept the gospel, I can't remember ever expecting any such thing, and I don't believe that religious truth is based on polls.

But, if I did, I would probably conclude that theism decisively whips atheism, both currently and historically.

Even if I were to pick the smartest guy in a room full of smart guys, the odds are good that I would find him a theist. According to surveys taken at the beginning and the end of the twentieth century, the odds run consistently very close to 50/50 that, even if the guys surveyed were scientists, they would be believers in a personal God who answers prayers.

Does that convince you to kneel and accept God? Of course it doesn't. But I should be impressed by polls?

The point I was making in the first place was that there is enough information in the church approved, Sunday school edition of Mormon history/doctrine to make, shall we say, an informed decision. Every Mormon learns the story of the missing 116 pages, and Joseph's explanation for not re-translating them. Every Mormon learns the story of Noah's ark. Every Mormon learns that there was no death before the fall. This is enough.

Do you disagree with that assessment? Do you think that the standard historical and doctrinal teachings of the church are not enough for an investigator to make a decision about the veracity of Mormonism?

[Tchild2]

"The entirety of its history and doctrine?"

Many years ago, while a graduate student in California, I heard the late Stanley Kimball (an LDS historian -- he actually published on both Mormon and European history -- who taught at Southern Illinois University) speak to a small group about what he termed "the three levels of Mormon history."

He called the first level "Level A." This, he said, was the Junior Sunday School version of Church history, in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, and all is unambiguously clear.

You know, that is the first time I have read this idea of "levels", and it actually makes a lot of sense to me. As a member born into the church I was definitely a level A through and through.

In retrospect, I can see how this can be problematic for those at level A, and for the church leadership trying to maintain the members and activity. Looking back, I realize that I wasn't able to get to level C of my own accord and probably never would have by the mere virtue of my indoctrination (for lack of a better term). My own upbringing from child to adult within Mormonism left me seeing the church and its claims with almost a child like innocence and naivety with no mechanism to sift throught the nuances of interpretating the truth claims to reconcile the ideal as taught by other level A members, against the reality of everyday human behavior as seen within the ranks of the membership.

A most thought provoking post.

[Theophilus07]

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

I deny this.

Even if Mocnarf's implicit interpretation of an old talk by one member of the Twelve were correct, though, Elder Packer's speech would not go very far toward bearing out Mocnarf's insinuation.

Possibly.

A far better way of bearing out the insinuation might be for thoughtful non-LDS people to visit the official LDS website dedicated to Joseph Smith at

http://josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index...0001f5e340aRCRD

which makes absolutely no mention of any of Joseph Smith's plural wives. And then discover on the Internet that Joseph Smith DID have plural wives. Or worse, know already that Joseph Smith had plural wives, but find no mention whatsoever.

To at least some of those thoughtful people, Mocnarf's insinuation might well seem plausible.

Theophilus07

[Pahoran]

Possibly.

A far better way of bearing out the insinuation might be for thoughtful non-LDS people to visit the official LDS website dedicated to Joseph Smith at

http://josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index...0001f5e340aRCRD

which makes absolutely no mention of any of Joseph Smith's plural wives. And then discover on the Internet that Joseph Smith DID have plural wives. Or worse, know already that Joseph Smith had plural wives, but find no mention whatsoever.

To at least some of those thoughtful people, Mocnarf's insinuation might well seem plausible.

Theophilus07

Not to thoughtful people, no.

Only to people who have made up their minds in advance that anything the Church of Jesus Christ does or does not do is to be viewed in the worst possible light.

We do not call such people "thoughtful."

The correct term for them is far less self-congratulatory.

Thoughtful people would realise that the website in question is entirely consistent with the principles Dan has described.

Is there a Calvinist website where I can find out about Michael Servetus?

Regards,

Pahoran

[RDL]

Considering that you've already claimed that the Church tells us which questions are worth asking (which is simply false), I'm not surprised that you stick to similar unrealistic expectations, such as presenting the entirety of its history to investigators.

I suggest that you go back and read the comments on this thread about why the Church does what it does. It would appear that you simply can't get around your own rationalizations on this - and from your comment above, it doesn't appear that what you are suggesting is even remotely reasonable.

Ok, how about a specific example. I thought, when I left on my mission, that the Book of Abraham was a direct "translation" of the papyrus. That is certainly how the church portrays it, and I never had any reason to doubt it.

I found out later--after I had been preaching that the Church is true, and the Pearl of Great Price is scripture--that there is evidence that it was not a direct translation, and that's putting it mildly. Give 100 objective, unbiased people the best evidence on both sides, and I'd imagine all 100 would believe that it was not a translation of the papyrus.

I know that apologists dispute that, or downplay its significance. But apologists and the Church certainly should recognize that if people are informed of the dispute, many would decide it is not scripture, and Joseph Smith not a prophet.

I think the church has an affirmative duty to inform its members and investigators of the dispute, especially impressionable 19 year olds who commit two years to preaching it.

I'm a lawyer. I litigate commercial torts. There's no question in my mind that I could prove the church (and my parents, for that matter) guilty of fraud, at least in my own experience, how I was raised. I was given certain information that the vast majority of objective observers would find false, the church wanted me to rely on the information and I did, to my detriment, etc... etc...

[Deborah]

Do you think that the standard historical and doctrinal teachings of the church are not enough for an investigator to make a decision about the veracity of Mormonism?

The answer is yes if the conversion is by the Spirit. It certainly was in my case and as I early on became aware of other information it was the spiritual conversion which carried me through the questions and doubts until I could study and learn more and put it in context and understand.

The church's basic teachings are on the doctrines of Salvation and Exaltation. Anything more than that is meat and should be given as one is ready and desiring greater understanding. I think some people are really not interested in more and so may avoid any further study. Others may hear it from some not so desirable sources but if their testimonies are founded on rock and not sand they will be able to grow beyond their basic understanding; if not they will fall to the hateful spin put on these things. And still others actively seek out these things from their proper source and in the proper spirit as a desire to continually learn.

I believe that we do have an obligation to do the latter and to always study and learn more, not so that we can come to places such as this to defend or argue, but for our own growth and understanding. We cannot use the excuse 'No one ever told me" in the end.

[Sleeper Cell]

I think the church has an affirmative duty to inform its members and investigators of the dispute, especially impressionable 19 year olds who commit two years to preaching it.

These â??impressionableâ? 19 year olds are adults. I think that adults have an â??affirmative dutyâ? to inform themselves. When I was that age, I and most of my peers tended to be rather cynical, and were quite disdainful of traditional authority.

I'm a lawyer. I litigate commercial torts. There's no question in my mind that I could prove the church (and my parents, for that matter) guilty of fraud, at least in my own experience, how I was raised. I was given certain information that the vast majority of objective observers would find false, the church wanted me to rely on the information and I did, to my detriment, etc... etc...

Then prove it. Take it to court. From your perspective, wouldnâ??t this be a great public service (and certainly a much more effective use of your time than merely posting your opinion on a message board)? Surely the potential damages would make it well worth your while, especially if you file a class action suit.

[RDL]

These â??impressionableâ? 19 year olds are adults. I think that adults have an â??affirmative dutyâ? to inform themselves. When I was that age, I and most of my peers tended to be rather cynical, and were quite disdainful of traditional authority.

This is one common response on this board that I find remarkable. It's up to 19 year olds--who have been bearing testimonies before they knew what they were, or what they meant, who sing I Hope They Call Me On A Mission ad nauseam--it's up to those who have been indoctrinated to doubt that doctrine, when we're told that doubting that doctrine could lead us away from the Celestial Kingdom. Right.

Then prove it. Take it to court. From your perspective, wouldnâ??t this be a great public service (and certainly a much more effective use of your time than merely posting your opinion on a message board)? Surely the potential damages would make it well worth your while, especially if you file a class action suit.

Unfortunately, the 1st amendment insulates curches from being governed by the same laws that apply to other corporations and individuals. I can't cite a case or specific language because I haven't thought about this in several years, but I'm sure Google would provide a citation. I thought about it in reference to a televangelist I saw hawking "Miracle Spring Water."

[thesometimesaint]

Sleeper Cell:

Missionaries have no such "Affirmative Duty". Their duty is to preach the Gospel of faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving of the Holy Ghost.

Though unlikely I'll grow a foot or two. I hope they'll call me on a mission. Missionary couples are great.

My goal is the Celestial Kingdom. I have no doubts about the Doctrine of the Church.

First Amendments rights apply to all individuals. As long as Slander and Libel laws are not breached, believe, preach, say, pretty much anything you want.