Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[selek]

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.

I believe Sleeper was referring to the missionaries affirmative duty to themselves as functioning, thoughtful Latter-day Saints, rather than as unthinking sheep to be led.

We have always been taught that we cannot be saved by the testimony of another- and contrary to RDLs assertions of indoctrination- that we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

They must work out their own salvation- but you are correct- they are called and commissioned to teach the Gospel and not history.

And certainly not anti-Mormon talking points that haven't evolved since Joseph first emerged from the Sacred Grove.

[thesometimesaint]

selek:

I don't know.

I would never ask anyone to be a Sheeple". On a missionary's personal level. They need to be informed as much as possible about the Gospel. There are other Mormon History organizations. There they could spend the rest of their lives studying the minutia of history. After their Mission.

All that said it is not a missionary's "Affirmative Duty" to do anything other than to preach the Gospel.

[Thinking]

Surely truths are valuable according to their relevance, and their relevance can only be determined against the standard of a selected goal.

This is why there is so much disagreement between apologists and critics. Their selected goals are opposite. The goal of the apologist is to defend the LDS Church so truths which might appear to break through that defense are likely to be labeled as irrelevant or unreliable. The critic, on the other hand, is trying to discredit the LDS Church so he might look for reliable truths which will do that, while ignoring others truths which could defend it. LOAP has just named this "quote mining."

There was a time in my life when I was TBM. After having some doubts, I was at a point where I didn't "know" if the LDS Church was true or false. So my selected goal was to find out IF the LDS Church was true. This is quite different from "knowing" the Church is true and finding evidence to support that "knowledge" OR from believing the LDS Church is false and looking for supportive "dirt."

As long as the goals of the critics and the apologists are polar opposites, they will never agree which truths are relevant, and which truths are not.

[Sleeper Cell]

I believe Sleeper was referring to the missionaries affirmative duty to themselves as functioning, thoughtful Latter-day Saints, rather than as unthinking sheep to be led.

That is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying my comment.

[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

If you have a substantive point instead of opinions of total stranger's motives which require mind-reading which doesn't exist in the real world, Pahoran, it would be appropriate to use it now.

But back to substantive points relevant to the topic, "Are All Truths Equally useful For Everything," a substantive point could be Joseph Smith's qualifications to receive the claimed revelations and restorations. I suggest that Pres. Smiths' relationships with women and his plural wives were extremely important in his life, and unquestionably played a major role in his untimely, tragic assassination. Omitting any mention of the women and wives would be like a biography of Albert Einstein which omits mention of his Theory of Relativity.

In reading posts in this forum from posters affirming belief in the LDS Church, I find that some write that they are troubled by Joseph Smith's unusual relationships with other mens' wives and some write that they are troubled by learning only now, after years of membership, that President Smith had plural wives, a situation of which they previously were not aware.

If Pres. Smith's unusual relationships with other mens' wives and his plural wives are so benign, innocent, and entirely understandable and explanable, why omit them from the website?

Theophilus07

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

Are you saying that you feel that when you were a 19 year old adult, you, yourself, had been so heavily â??indoctrinatedâ? that you were unable to inform yourself about contrary views or think critically? If so, who am I to disagree. What I find remarkable is that, without additional evidence, you would impute the same inability to others -- even to those who say that when they were 19, they could think critically and felt free to read whatever they wanted about religion.

Unfortunately, the 1st amendment insulates curches from being governed by the same laws that apply to other corporations and individuals.

Yes, that pesky first amendment. What were our founding fathers thinking?

If churches are not subject to the fraud laws (at least regarding the points you have raised), how could the LDS Church possibly be guilty of fraud? Why did you say that as an attorney and an experienced litigator:

There's no question in my mind that I could prove the church â?¦guilty of fraud

[mnn727]

perhaps I think that obligation is owed because I wish I had been told from the start.

So you would rather blame someone else for your folly? If this is as important as you claim (and I also believe it is) should you have checked it out completly, I did, I studied all side for almost a year before joining. In that time I saw the "anti" arguments for what they are - half truths designed to shock, but when you actually HONESTLY STUDY ALL the facts, you'll see that what the ANTIs claim have little to no substance.

[mnn727]

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.

This is true of every Church, they are there to teach their doctrines and beleifs, I was raised Protestant (C&MA) and they did the same exact things. Substitue the word Heaven for CK in your above paragraph and you could be talking about any Church in the world - and if you think they taught anything that was the least bit suspect or bad about their history you're nuts. BTW I had enough brains to leave that Church at age 17 after understanding what they believed and comparing it to what the Bible actually said - thats 2 years earlier than your '19-year old indoctrinated missionaries' you talk about being so dumb.

Time to grow up and 'get over it' Get on with your life for gosh sakes!

[Tchild2]

So you would rather blame someone else for your folly? If this is as important as you claim (and I also believe it is) should you have checked it out completly, I did, I studied all side for almost a year before joining. In that time I saw the "anti" arguments for what they are - half truths designed to shock, but when you actually HONESTLY STUDY ALL the facts, you'll see that what the ANTIs claim have little to no substance.

Folly? You mean, like having your trusted family, friends and religious authorities from birth who provided and taught you their world view, and then you blame yourself for not seeing through the charade at a young and impressionable age?

This isn't RDL's problem, this is the LDS church's problem. If the LDS church wants to grow and maintain membership it has to decide what to do and how to change the process. RDL and others are just mirrors of the flaws in this supposed "truth" that is the LDS church and its doctrines.

I guess you can point the finger of blame at the thousands who keep bringing these issues up, or you can get to work to resolve it from within so that people don't leave the fold disillusioned. Or is that the "gospel"; confusion leading ultimately to loss of faith and disillusionment?

MNN is this how you reactivated and supported the less active while on your mission? Did it work for you then?

[Mighty Curelom]

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'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...

Yes, let's be specific. When you were at the impressionable age of 19, did you honestly believe that Noah gathered two of every animal and put them on a boat? And that soon after the earth was completely covered in water, killing every human and non-aquatic animal on the planet? Did you really believe that Adam was created out of dust about 6000 years ago, and that he lived in the garden of Eden, located in Missouri? And that previous to "the Fall," there was no death in the world?

You're a lawyer, so you must have been a pretty bright 19 year old. But even an average 19 year old with a public school education should be able to see the absurdity of these beliefs. You knew about dinosaurs and fossils at 19, right? Then you should have seen that Mormonism is false based on the contradiction between the existence of fossils from animals that lived--and died--millions of years before "the Fall" took place. And do I really need to point out the absurdity of the story of Noah's ark? Come on. An inquisitive 12 year old can spot the problems with that one.

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.

[RDL]

Are you saying that you feel that when you were a 19 year old adult, you, yourself, had been so heavily â??indoctrinatedâ? that you were unable to inform yourself about contrary views or think critically? If so, who am I to disagree. What I find remarkable is that, without additional evidence, you would impute the same inability to others -- even to those who say that when they were 19, they could think critically and felt free to read whatever they wanted about religion.

Yes, that pesky first amendment. What were our founding fathers thinking?

If churches are not subject to the fraud laws (at least regarding the points you have raised), how could the LDS Church possibly be guilty of fraud? Why did you say that as an attorney and an experienced litigator:

Part of being a good LDS kid was not reading "anti" literature, such as Fawn Brodie (which I've come to know isn't truly "anti." The church wants its members not to be aware of evidence contrary to its positions, hence "useful truths."

My family is strong in the church. The vast majority of my friends growing up were LDS. It wasn't couture to openly doubt, to ask hard questions. If I ever did openly question whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, I would have gone to my parents, who obviously would not have given me an honest and unbiased assessment. I was able to think critically when it came to Moby ****, but I did not think critically when it came to the church, because critical facts were intentionally kept from me.

And it really is sad that the 1st amendment bars government intrusion into specific matters of religious belief. That's what gives the "Miracle Spring Water" hoaxter the ability not to be sued by those who don't receive miracles, and not to be charged with fraud by prosecutors. The shysters can lie and distort and connive all they want, so long as they're ripping off their religious adherents.

[RDL]

Yes, let's be specific. When you were at the impressionable age of 19, did you honestly believe that Noah gathered two of every animal and put them on a boat? And that soon after the earth was completely covered in water, killing every human and non-aquatic animal on the planet? Did you really believe that Adam was created out of dust about 6000 years ago, and that he lived in the garden of Eden, located in Missouri? And that previous to "the Fall," there was no death in the world?

You're a lawyer, so you must have been a pretty bright 19 year old. But even an average 19 year old with a public school education should be able to see the absurdity of these beliefs. You knew about dinosaurs and fossils at 19, right? Then you should have seen that Mormonism is false based on the contradiction between the existence of fossils from animals that lived--and died--millions of years before "the Fall" took place. And do I really need to point out the absurdity of the story of Noah's ark? Come on. An inquisitive 12 year old can spot the problems with that one.

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.

Regarding Biblical allegories, I knew they didn't make sense scientifically, but it didn't matter, because the church was true (I had been told, and wanted desperately to believe), and whether Noah's Ark really existed didn't matter to me all that much. And I suppose that's why I didn't seek out information casting doubt on the Church's claims, as some here suggest I was obligated to do. I did what I was told, assumed the church was true despite my lack of spiritual witness because that's what I had always been taught, stayed away from anything that might jeopardize my "testimony," just like I was supposed to.

I do regret not acting on my own doubts before my mission, when I had read and prayed for hours and hours as a teenager and never received an answer, and when going through the temple was an extraordinarily disturbing experience for me. I could have refused to go, and devastated my parents, become an object of gossip and ridicule, and considered an apostate. That's not much of an alternative to a 19 year old whose entire life and circle of friends revolve around the church.

As I think back now, I do remember saying at my missionary farewell that I hoped my mission would cause my own true conversion (or something to that effect). I probably should have had the courage to confront those who expected me to go on a mission back then.

[Daniel Peterson]

Part of being a good LDS kid was not reading "anti" literature, such as Fawn Brodie (which I've come to know isn't truly "anti."

I don't consider Fawn Brodie's historical novel "anti-Mormon," either.

I read it years and years ago -- possibly when I was a teenager, certainly by my early twenties. I have a copy sitting about five feet from me right now.

I guess I'd never realized that the Church has an Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Does anybody have a link to it?

The church wants its members not to be aware of evidence contrary to its positions, hence "useful truths."

Maybe. Maybe not. (If it wants to keep its membership in a protected cocoon, though, sending scores of thousands of them out every year or two for a couple of years of religious discussions seems rather foolhardy.) But you can't cite Elder Packer's speech in support of your claim, since he wasn't setting limits on what the members ought to know but was reflecting on what CES educators ought to teach as part of the Church's curriculum. Those are, of course, two entirely separate things . . . unless we're talking about people whose knowledge is entirely limited to what is told them in Sunday school, seminary, and institute classrooms.

I did not think critically when it came to the church, because critical facts were intentionally kept from me.

Candidly, I find your account of your experience exceedingly strange. I've never felt limited in what I could read, or in what issues I could consider.

And it really is sad that the 1st amendment bars government intrusion into specific matters of religious belief.

Dang that pesky First Amendment!

In a better world, the government would be run by atheists, and the government would regulate religions. Nicht wahr, mein Kamerad?

[RDL]

But you can't cite Elder Packer's speech in support of your claim, since he wasn't setting limits on what the members ought to know but was reflecting on what CES educators ought to teach as part of the Church's curriculum. Those are, of course, two entirely separate things . . . unless we're talking about people whose knowledge is entirely limited to what is told them in Sunday school, seminary, and institute classrooms.

Candidly, I find your account of your experience exceedingly strange. I've never felt limited in what I could read, or in what issues I could consider.

So the church tells its educators not to discuss certain things, but that doesn't mean the church doesn't want you to know about those things? That's funny.

I was often cautioned as a youth not to read anti-Mormon literature (though it was never really defined). Maybe I was in the only wards that gave that caution.

[jwhitlock]

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.

We've already addressed, on this thread, the fact that one comes to know what is scripture through a spiritual witness - not through fallible, intellectual discussion.

You are correct that apologists and critics disagree concerning origins of the Book of Abraham. What you have demonstrated is that you have decided that the critics are right and that the Church is wrong. In doing so, you continue to decline to address the spiritual witness aspect of understanding the truth of the claims of the Church - instead inferring that the fallable interpretations and rationalizations of man are always superior.

They are not.

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 see absolutely no reason why this is the Church's duty.

It's amazing how many of those impressionable 19 year olds come away from their missions deeper in their convictions that the Church is what it claims to be. Of course, there are those that don't; however, their hearts appear to be often set elsewhere.

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...

I find this attitude on the part of a lawyer troublesome, to say the least. To characterize a belief system as deceptive and worthy of a lawsuit would require significant evidence of fraud - evidence that has not been supplied by you on this thread.

You seem to think that since we don't teach investigators the entire history of the Church before baptism, that we are guilty of fraud. I find such a claim absolutely unreasonable.

Again, I find this attitude particularly troubling on your part. We have enough problems in our society that opening this particular legal can of worms would prove to be particularly destructive - if the courts were idiotic enough to allow such a suit to stand.

[jwhitlock]

So the church tells its educators not to discuss certain things, but that doesn't mean the church doesn't want you to know about those things? That's funny.

Why don't you quote DCP accurately?

He said "what CES educators ought to teach as part of the Church's curriculum".

You claimed he said "the church tells its educators not to discuss certain things".

Why are you being deceptive in your post?

[jwhitlock]

And it really is sad that the 1st amendment bars government intrusion into specific matters of religious belief.

Dallin Oaks, who was a lawyer, spoke in our stake conference a number of years ago. He mentioned that he was proud of his profession, although there were an increasing number of people in it whose actions made him absolutely nauseous.

I'm beginning to understand what he was referring to.

A statement like the one quoted above is absolutely obscene, especially coming from someone in the legal profession.

[Theophilus07]

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.

CFR please. The studies I have seen indicate a lopsided number of scientists are not theists.

Theophilus07.

[Calm]

I read it years and years ago -- possibly when I was a teenager, certainly by my early twenties. I have a copy sitting about five feet from me right now.

It's been in my parents' library since way, way back...when they moved into a small condo and left their library pretty much boxed up, I scavenged it out along with quite a few other books and it now sits in my library easily accessible to my kids, friends and neighbours, family members who know they have an open invitation to borrow any of my books.

It's even on the shelf at the little local town library, lol.

[thesometimesaint]

I read it many years ago. Wasn't impressed enough to even keep a copy.

[Daniel Peterson]

So the church tells its educators not to discuss certain things, but that doesn't mean the church doesn't want you to know about those things? That's funny.

The Church tells its paid educators that, in the limited classroom time that they have, they should concentrate their teaching on what it deems most important and useful, and you think that's funny?

Should the Church simply hire people as seminary and institute instructors and give them a blank check to teach anything at all that they choose? Would an economics department at any college be satisfied with a faculty member who, in Economics 101, chose to concentrate on his passion for fly-fishing at the expense of his coverage of business cycles and monetary policy?

In my course on Islamic Humanities, I try to choose the most important, salient, representative specimens of Islamic art, literature, music, and philosophy. I show them photographs of the Mosque of Ibn Tulun, the Mausoleum of Sultan Hasan, the Alhambra, the Grand Umayyad Mosque, and the minaret at Samarra, but I don't show them slides of the Madrasa and Mausoleum of Sultan Qalaâ??un or of the Mausoleum of the Emperor Akbar. Does that mean that I somehow don't want them to know about those two buildings? (Qalaâ??un's madrasa/mausoleum is one of my favorite places in Egypt; I took some friends to see it just last January.)

A high school course on American history has a great deal to cover. World War Two typically gets only a few pages and, at most, a few days. Pearl Harbor is mentioned, and probably D-Day as well. But it's pretty well guaranteed that there will be no coverage of the Battle for Remagen Bridge or of the concentration camp at Mauthausen. Is it because those topics are secret? Would the high school object if students decided to read more about the Second World War than the textbook covers?

I was often cautioned as a youth not to read anti-Mormon literature (though it was never really defined). Maybe I was in the only wards that gave that caution.

Anti-Mormon literature is a very low type of writing, and there isn't much value in it. The works of Ed Decker and of the late "Dr." Walter Martin represent a crime against trees.

But there is no hard and fast rule about what a Mormon can read and what she can't, and there was certainly never any prohibition against reading Fawn Brodie's historical novel about Joseph Smith.

*****

CFR please. The studies I have seen indicate a lopsided number of scientists are not theists

A study of religious belief among American scientists undertaken in 1914 indicated that 41.8 percent believed in a personal and responsive God. Only 16.7 percent claimed that they had no definite belief about deity. A deliberately similar study conducted in 1997 found virtually identical results. Of the scientists surveyed, 39.3 percent affirmed their belief in a personal, responsive deity, while 14.5 percent said that they had no definite belief in God.

Those who believe in a personal deity who responds to prayers, etc., were at roughly 40-42% of the American scientific population at both the beginning of the twentieth-century and at its conclusion. Those without a definite belief in God ranged between roughly 15-17%. This means that something on the order of 83-85% of American scientists, rather consistently throughout the twentieth century, appear to have affirmed some sort of theism.

For a discussion of the two surveys, with references, see Rodney Stark, â??Secularization, R.I.P.,â? Sociology of Religion 60/3 (1999): 26.

[selek]

I was often cautioned as a youth not to read anti-Mormon literature (though it was never really defined). Maybe I was in the only wards that gave that caution.

Or perhaps your recollections are colored by your present bias.

I find this attitude on the part of a lawyer troublesome, to say the least. To characterize a belief system as deceptive and worthy of a lawsuit would require significant evidence of fraud - evidence that has not been supplied by you on this thread.

RDL has succumbed to the zealousness of the true convert. It is no different than the crusade of the militant ex-smoker, or the steadfast puritanism of the recovering alcholic.

To quote from The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean:

There is nothing worse than a harlot turned respectable. A reformed anything is bad enough, but a reformed harlot is the direct wrath of the Devil. Seems that those who have spent time giving pleasure for profit are all the more zealous when it comes to dealing out misery.

Much the same can be said of apostates.

You seem to think that since we don't teach investigators the entire history of the Church before baptism, that we are guilty of fraud. I find such a claim absolutely unreasonable.

Reason has little appeal in the face of earnest zealotry. Which is why so many disputes were settled with ropes rather than rhetoric- at least, that is, until the public courts became the provence of the lynch mob.

Again, I find this attitude particularly troubling on your part. We have enough problems in our society that opening this particular legal can of worms would prove to be particularly destructive - if the courts were idiotic enough to allow such a suit to stand.

The zealous reformers of the Inquisition at least had the courage to look their victims in the eye. Now, while torture is passe, it is much more fashionable to destroy people's lives in court.

It might be the "death of a thousand cuts", but it is death nonetheless.

Why don't you quote DCP accurately?

Why are you being deceptive in your post?

That's an easy one- RDL distorts and defames because nothing less than deception and distortion will suit the agenda.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It can be difficult to get people involved in deep history. From my experience, many people just don't care.

[selek]

It can be difficult to get people involved in deep history. From my experience, many people just don't care.

Most people aren't interested in shallow history, either.

Witness the interest in the latest "Dancing With the Stars" versus the presidential debates.

Then again, I'm not convinced the attacks against the Church are based upon history at all.

History, in context, supports the Church.

What the apostates, fools, and ankle-biters offer instead is the American Idol version of history- salacious innuendo over factual substance.

By and large, what I've read of anti-Mormon "writing" has more to do with the tabloid journalism of today and the muck-raking of a hundred and fifty years ago than it does with a sober, scholarly review.

As with the lurid and factually challenged "tell-alls" of the late eighteen hundreds, the only appeal of the threnody of the apostate is base titillation.

[RDL]

Most people aren't interested in shallow history, either.

Witness the interest in the latest "Dancing With the Stars" versus the presidential debates.

Then again, I'm not convinced the attacks against the Church are based upon history at all.

History, in context, supports the Church.

What the apostates, fools, and ankle-biters offer instead is the American Idol version of history- salacious innuendo over factual substance.

By and large, what I've read of anti-Mormon "writing" has more to do with the tabloid journalism of today and the muck-raking of a hundred and fifty years ago than it does with a sober, scholarly review.

As with the lurid and factually challenged "tell-alls" of the late eighteen hundreds, the only appeal of the threnody of the apostate is base titillation.

Suppose I'm a stockbroker, and I tell a potential client that I'll increase his wealth 10 times over if he lets me assume control over his portfolio. I'd be violating federal law, aimed at preventing brokers from taking advantage of the gullible.

Suppose I'm a preacher, and I promise that if you buy a "Prayer Cloth" for $100, your net worth will increase 10 times over. Even though I may be engaging in virtually identical conduct, because I'm appealing to religious sensibilities, I can't be prosecuted, because courts can't be arbiters of particular matters of religious faith.

I wonder whether you think the Prayer Cloth preacher should be subject to prosecution, or a tort claim.

No Man Knows My History was listed specifically as a book I should never read. I know that because when I finally read it (not long ago), I was surprised at how tame it was.

And this is the thread that keeps on giving. The topic centers around a directive that educators avoid discussing troublesome history to their students, and first an assertion that the church doesn't care if its members learn things its educators shouldn't teach, and now a suggestion that the church engages its members in "deep" history (unuseful truths notwithstanding). Amazing.