Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[jwhitlock]

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.

Your examples have absolutely no relevance to the subject at hand.

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 so you want to sue someone for fraud because they told you not to read it. And you want to sue the Church for fraud, because you're going to claim it was Church policy to tell members to tell you not to read it.

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.

And you continue to mischaracterize, misquote, and deceive with your responses. Like a good lawyer, you're only interested in characterizing things according to the way you want them to be - and facts are totally irrelevant in your scheme of things.

The spirit of Zeezrom certainly lives on today.

[Daniel Peterson]

No Man Knows My History was listed specifically as a book I should never read.

Can you please provide a link to this list? Is it on the official Church website?

I've already expressed my surprise at the existence of a Mormon Index Librorum Prohibitorum. In all my years of activity in the Church, I had never before realized that such a thing had been compiled. Is it continually updated?

[Free Agent]

Or perhaps your recollections are colored by your present bias.

Selek

I don't believe this to be the case. As I was investigating and participating in the Church in my teen years, I can tell you what my reality was. I spent many a summer in Nauvoo, in the pageant, seeing the pageant and going on tours. In subsequent years raising my family and still attending the pageant, every year, without fail, there are people standing outside of the pageant ground handing out what I was always told were anti tracts. I was also always cautioned to not take them, so I never did, nor did anyone in my family. Now, here I am, viewing a pageant, listening to history given on tours, and without looking at some of the stuff in those tracts, never had my interest or curiousity provoked to delve into something deeper. During those years without computers or Internet, it was not easy to find information about the Church and I really did heed what friends and leaders helping me along in the Gospel suggested, to not read anti literature.

Just because you never experienced that counsel doesn't mean it wasn't and still isn't common.

Free Agent

[Free Agent]

Can you please provide a link to this list? Is it on the official Church website?

I've already expressed my surprise at the existence of a Mormon Index Librorum Prohibitorum. In all my years of activity in the Church, I had never before realized that such a thing had been compiled. Is it continually updated?

How sad, truly, that you want to joke about this. See my post above about how I too was counseled by well meaning friends and leaders back in the early 80's to stay away from "anti" material, again, nobody ever defining what anti is. Was I supposed to doubt these lovely people and their counsel? Was I supposed to get myself to the library in my hometown and try to find some "anti" literature? There was no official website back then.

Free Agent

[LifeOnaPlate]

How sad, truly, that you want to joke about this. See my post above about how I too was counseled by well meaning friends and leaders back in the early 80's to stay away from "anti" material, again, nobody ever defining what anti is. Was I supposed to doubt these lovely people and their counsel? Was I supposed to get myself to the library in my hometown and try to find some "anti" literature? There was no official website back then.

Free Agent

My suggestion is, if you were told by certain individuals to avoid "anti-Mormon material" and you were unsure of a definition, ask.

[Deborah]

How sad, truly, that you want to joke about this. See my post above about how I too was counseled by well meaning friends and leaders back in the early 80's to stay away from "anti" material, again, nobody ever defining what anti is.

So are you equating Anti literature with proper information on church history, etc? Why would you want to read the anti-stuff to get your information? If you wanted to know about the history why didn't you research legitimate resources?

My friends and I btw loved to get hold of the anti pamphlets because they were so ridiculously out there and we would laugh about it. But we would never have considered these as sources of information about the church.

[Daniel Peterson]

How sad, truly, that you want to joke about this.

It wasn't a joke.

There is no "list" of books that Mormons are forbidden to read.

Throughout my entire life, I've felt entirely free to read anything at all that I chose to read, and to consider any issue that seemed worth considering.

Within just a few feet of where I'm sitting right now, I have books by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Ed Decker, "Dr." "Dr." John Weldon and "Dr." John Ankerberg, D. Michael Quinn, Fawn Brodie, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, Sigmund Freud, Jean-Paul Sartre, Christopher Hitchens, Lucretius, Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Nietzsche, and etc. and etc. and etc.

The notion that anybody is or should be entirely dependent on Sunday School for the entirety of his or her intellectual life, or for the totality of what he or she knows about history, is simply ridiculous to me, and completely foreign to my experience in the Church. I can't possibly express this any more strongly.

See my post above about how I too was counseled by well meaning friends and leaders back in the early 80's to stay away from "anti" material, again, nobody ever defining what anti is.

The fact that this counsel came from "well meaning friends" and that they never defined "'anti' material" makes my point, again that there wasn't, isn't, and never has been anything remotely resembling a Mormon Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Was I supposed to doubt these lovely people and their counsel? Was I supposed to get myself to the library in my hometown and try to find some "anti" literature?

You were supposed to think.

Anti-Mormon writing is an intellectual wasteland and an offense against trees. Was Fawn Brodie an "anti-Mormon," though? I would never have labeled her such. Is Michael Quinn an "anti-Mormon"? I have never labeled him such, and presumably never will.

Conflating anti-Mormon propaganda with serious historical writing is an illegitimate exercise in obfuscation, whether intentional or not.

[selek]

Just because you never experienced that counsel doesn't mean it wasn't and still isn't common.

Free Agent

This is a very subtle shifting of the goalposts, Shackled, but it won't fly.

You and RDL are attempting to impute that what is often very good advice- to avoid anti-Mormon propoganda- is an official policy of the Church, and that by extension, the Church hides or surpresses its history.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and your inability to provide the list of materials banned by the Church is ample proof.

How sad, truly, that you want to joke about this. See my post above about how I too was counseled by well meaning friends and leaders back in the early 80's to stay away from "anti" material, again, nobody ever defining what anti is. Was I supposed to doubt these lovely people and their counsel? Was I supposed to get myself to the library in my hometown and try to find some "anti" literature? There was no official website back then.

I believe, Shackled, that you're offended primarily because you know the joke is on you.

You keep referring to "well-meaning friends and leaders" who told you to avoid the propoganda, but cannot provide anything substantive incriminating the CHURCH.

That's rather telling.

And yes- you are responsible for your own testimony and salvation (poor thing though it be). You and you alone must work out your salvation with fear and trembling- that's been the teaching of the Church from the very beginning.

You also contradict yourself. On the one hand, you are complaining about the sparsity of anti-Mormon material to feed your intellectual furnace, and yet on the other, waxing rhapsodic about how it was so prevalent during your summers- precisely when you could research it without being distracted by school work.

[RDL]

Whatever my parents and advisors told me, after having graduated from high school Seminary, and probably not missed a single Sunday at church before my mission (when I wasn't sick), and having read numerous church books such Jesus the Christ, and having gone to multiple CES seminars, and after having obeyed the admonition I was given to stay away from anti-Mormon literature, after 19 years I had no idea about the following:

That there was such a thing called Kinderhook;

That whether the Book of Abraham was an actual translation of the papyrus was in dispute;

That Joseph Smith was a polygamist;

That Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in secret;

That Joseph Smith was sealed to other men's wives;

That many early prophets and apostles were as racist as much of the rest of society;

That Joseph Smith gave different accounts of the first vision;

That the temple ceremony and garments had changed;

That Joseph Smith was a mason;

That masonry was manifest to at least some extent in church rites;

and etc...

I may be and probably should be criticized for not putting two and two together in some respects (such as Smith being a polygamist). And many here probably think those circumstances above are easily explained, or not important in the grand scheme of things, or side issues that detract from what the church is really about.

I would ask people here whether a missionary, before he or she goes into the field, should know of the issues I listed above. And I'm not asking whether a missionary should be taught that Joseph Smith was exposed as a fraud by Kinderhook (for example), but whether a missionary should at least know of the basic facts involved.

[Calm]

Whatever my parents and advisors told me, after having graduated from high school Seminary, and probably not missed a single Sunday at church before my mission (when I wasn't sick), and having read numerous church books such Jesus the Christ, and having gone to multiple CES seminars

And after your mission, did you encounter these things through Church avenues?

Did you attend Institute? If so, around what years (curious about what manuals you would have used).

Did you read the Ensign?

I have to admit that it's hard for me to understand how anyone after reading Section 132 of the D&C would not know that JS had practiced plural marriage, but apparently it happens.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Within just a few feet of where I'm sitting right now, I have books by ...Karl Marx, ...

I knew you were a commie.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm one of those who would like Latter-day Saints to know far more history than they do, and LDS missionaries to be far better prepared and more knowledgeable than they are. And I've devoted a serious proportion of my time and labors to trying to further that, entirely on my own and without having been directed to do so by anybody.

It pains me that most of us know so little.

That said, however, I do not believe that a legitimate case can be made that the Church suppresses its history, as a general rule, or that the Church somehow prevents its members from reading and thinking.

[selek]

Whatever my parents and advisors told me, after having graduated from high school Seminary, and probably not missed a single Sunday at church before my mission (when I wasn't sick), and having read numerous church books such Jesus the Christ, and having gone to multiple CES seminars, and after having obeyed the admonition I was given to stay away from anti-Mormon literature, after 19 years I had no idea about the following:

That there was such a thing called Kinderhook;

That whether the Book of Abraham was an actual translation was in dispute;

That Joseph Smith was a polygamist;

That Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in secret;

That Joseph Smith was sealed to other men's wives;

That many early prophets and apostles were as racist as much of the rest of society;

That Joseph Smith gave different accounts of the first vision;

That the temple ceremony and garments had changed;

That Joseph Smith was a mason;

That masonry was manifest to at least some extent in church rites;

and etc...

I may be and probably should be criticized for not putting two and two together in some respects (such as Smith being a polygamist). And many here probably think those circumstances above are easily explained, or not important in the grand scheme of things, or side issues that detract from what the church is really about.

I would ask people here whether a missionary, before he or she goes into the field, should know of the issues I listed above. And I'm not asking whether a missionary should be taught that Joseph Smith was exposed as a fraud by Kinderhook (for example), but whether a missionary should at least know of the basic facts involved.

As usual, RDL, you are making assertions not evident in fact.

Your ignorance about each of these matters is primarily your responsibility. Deal with it. Whining won't change it.

At least you can admit that none of these issues is quite as damning as you are want to pretend. Honest people can honestly disagree about how devastating these issues are.

Yes, I believe Mormon missionaries should be better grounded before they go out (though I flatly reject your Kinderhook assertions), but I do not support your insinuation that it is the Church's responsibility to teach them all of the wisdom of the world while standing upon one foot.

Missionaries are called to preach the Gospel, not "RDL's Guide to Apostate Talking Points ."

The bottom line is this:

In the talk to the CES employees, President Packer was reminding them to stay on task- teaching the approved curriculum in accordance with their employment guidelines.

This is no different than you telling your paralegal to stick to researching your cases instead of surfing the net for news of Brittany Spears.

Packer telling these employees to do their jobs is no different than you doing the same.

Attempting to conflate his counsel into some sort of McCarthy-esque thought control is both intellectually dishonest and spiritually corrosive.

I knew you were a commie.

The Politics folder was closed for a reason, LOAP.

Don't make me out you as a Democrat.

Doh!

[LifeOnaPlate]

A few thoughts from Hugh B. Brown, by the way. They are from addresses that are not referenced enough, imo, but express my own thoughts:

â?¦ while I believe all that God has revealed, I am not quite sure that I understand what he has revealed. The fact that he has promised further revelation is to me a challenge to keep an open mind and to be prepared to follow wherever my search for truth may leadâ?¦

We have been blessed with much knowledge by revelation from God which, in some part, the world lacks. But there is an incomprehensibly greater part of truth which we must yet discover. Our revealed truth should leave us stricken with the knowledge of how little we really know. It should never lead to an emotional arrogance based upon a false assumption that we somehow have all the answers--that we in fact have a corner on truth, for we do notâ?¦ continue your search for truth. And maintain humility sufficient to be able to revise your hypotheses as new truth comes to you by means of the spirit or the mind. Salvation, like education, is an ongoing processâ?¦

I think the expression "Keep it cool" is peculiar to your age, but it means in reality: "Do not be impatient." Too many young people are so impatient that when they press an electric button, they can't wait for the answer...

Remember, there is a power greater than yourselves upon which you may call..â?

Brown was great.

"Preserve, then, the freedom of your mind in education and in religion, and be unafraid to express your thoughts and to insist upon your right to examine every proposition. We are not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything. In this age of speed, there seems to be little time for meditation...

"Dissatisfaction with what is around us is not a bad thing if it prompts us to seek betterment, but the best sort of dissatisfaction in the long run is self-dissatisfaction, which leads us to improve ourselves....

"Our reactions to the ever-changing impacts of life will depend upon our goals, our ideals. 'The vision that you glorify in your mind, the ideal that you enthrone in your heart, this you will build your life by, this you will become.' Every life coheres around certain fundamental core ideas, whether we realize it or not, and herein lies the chief value of revealed religion. But while I believe all that God has revealed, I am not quite sure that I understand what he has revealed. The fact that he has promised further revelation is to me a challenge to keep an open mind and to be prepared to follow wherever my search for truth may lead..."

"We have been blessed with much knowledge by revelation from God which, in some part, the world lacks. But there is an incomprehensibly greater part of truth which we must yet discover. Our revealed truth should leave us stricken with the knowledge of how little we really know. It should never lead to an emotional arrogance based upon a false assumption that we somehow have all the answers--that we in fact have a corner on truth, for we do notâ?¦ continue your search for truth. And maintain humility sufficient to be able to revise your hypotheses as new truth comes to you by means of the spirit or the mind. Salvation, like education, is an ongoing process...."

He closed with this:

"As you go forward in your search for truth and as you espouse principles and establish ideals toward which to work, pray for courage to be true to your loyalties, to your ideals, and to yourself. It has been said that those who know the precepts and neglect to obey them are like those who light a candle in the darkness and then close their eyes. Remember, there is a power greater than yourselves upon which you may call."

(see Hugh B. Brown, An Eternal Quest--Freedom of the Mind, speech given to the BYU student body on May 13, 1969.)

[RDL]

And after your mission, did you encounter these things through Church avenues?

Did you attend Institute? If so, around what years (curious about what manuals you would have used).

Did you read the Ensign?

I have to admit that it's hard for me to understand how anyone after reading Section 132 of the D&C would not know that JS had practiced plural marriage, but apparently it happens.

I effectively left the church mid-mission so I never went to institute (I went to BYU for a year before my mission, but I honestly don't know if religion classes there are considered institute). When I left, I still didn't know half of the things I listed, and didn't learn until I start perusing message boards a few years ago. And I really don't remember the extent to which I read the Ensign--but I'm sure I read some.

[Calm]

I effectively left the church mid-mission so I never went to institute (I went to BYU for a year before my mission, but I honestly don't know if religion classes there are considered institute). When I left, I still didn't know half of the things I listed, and didn't learn until I start perusing message boards a few years ago. And I really don't remember the extent to which I read the Ensign--but I'm sure I read some.

Yep, religion classes at BYU are the same as Institute classes. I assume you took Book of Mormon as most freshmen did.

Too bad you didn't stick around long enough for D&C and Church history. Most of your list is dealt with in those classes.

The Ensign has had a lot of good articles over the years as well, on Kinderhook, variations of the Vision accounts, etc.

[LifeOnaPlate]

...after 19 years I had no idea about the following:

That there was such a thing called Kinderhook;

totally understandable, since nothing came from the Kinderhook plates.

That whether the Book of Abraham was an actual translation of the papyrus was in dispute;

Discussed in the Improvement Era, BYU Studies, in books published by Deseret Book, in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1993), and in various FARMS works, etc.

That Joseph Smith was a polygamist;

Frankly, this is quite shocking. It's discussed in D&C and I've heard it mentioned in Church meetings, seminary, and Institute.

That Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in secret;

Same.

That Joseph Smith was sealed to other men's wives;

Didn't hear about it until mission, as far as I can remember.

That many early prophets and apostles were as racist as much of the rest of society;

This is quite a subjective argument to begin with.

That Joseph Smith gave different accounts of the first vision;

This has been discussed in the Ensign, and various other places. (Even Truman Madsen talked about it in his famous lectures on JS.)

That the temple ceremony and garments had changed;

I knew about this thanks to some anti-Mormons on the internet. The garment thing, however, I knew about because my parents were endowed. I don't even know why that would bother anyone.

That Joseph Smith was a mason;

Learned about it in seminary.

That masonry was manifest to at least some extent in church rites;

Learned about it in seminary.

I would ask people here whether a missionary, before he or she goes into the field, should know of the issues I listed above.

I believe paramount to all of those issues is a testimony of the truthfulness of the Church, the Book of Mormon, the calling and authority of the prophet Joseph Smith, and the continuing of that authority in the LDS Church, as well as a desire to spread that message.

And I'm not asking whether a missionary should be taught that Joseph Smith was exposed as a fraud by Kinderhook (for example),

Fortunately, JS was not "exposed as a fraud" regarding anything about "Kinderhook."

but whether a missionary should at least know of the basic facts involved.

Basic facts, like faith, repentance, baptism...

Don't make me out you as a Democrat.

Doh!

If I were a Democrat your task would be much simpler.

[selek]

If I were a Democrat your task would be much simpler.

Wait- we're not using RDL's rules (where accusation is synonymous with guilt)?

[Free Agent]

My suggestion is, if you were told by certain individuals to avoid "anti-Mormon material" and you were unsure of a definition, ask.

Its not that I was unsure, I was just trusting of people fellowshipping me. These were wonderful caring people, so if they told me that the information people was handing out was "anti" I believed them. Maybe the anti material wasn't really "anti", just some of the more troubling true history, but since I never looked at the tracts, how was I to know. Again, you are insinuating its my fault that I didn't dig further, but that would have meant I wasn't trusting of those teaching me and I was.

[Free Agent]

So are you equating Anti literature with proper information on church history, etc? Why would you want to read the anti-stuff to get your information? If you wanted to know about the history why didn't you research legitimate resources?

My friends and I btw loved to get hold of the anti pamphlets because they were so ridiculously out there and we would laugh about it. But we would never have considered these as sources of information about the church.

Deborah, because I didn't grow up in the Church, things that were commonplace for you and that you had a frame of reference for, I did not. I am not equating anti material with proper information on Church history, althouth I'm not sure what your definition of proper would be. Now I would define it as the "C" history that Dr. Peterson likes to call it. So, when well intentioned members who have been teaching me and fellowshipping me tell me, "Oh, you don't want to look at that. It's full of lies, or distortions, etc", I believed them. And again, you ask why I didn't look at legitimate resources, however, why was I to doubt the resources that members were giving me as less than legitimate. You guys make it sound like we should have gone elsewhere to find our information besides trusting what those fellowshipping us were giving to us. Why would I have done that?

[Calm]

Deborah, because I didn't grow up in the Church, things that were commonplace for you and that you had a frame of reference for, I did not. I am not equating anti material with proper information on Church history, althouth I'm not sure what your definition of proper would be. Now I would define it as the "C" history that Dr. Peterson likes to call it. So, when well intentioned members who have been teaching me and fellowshipping me tell me, "Oh, you don't want to look at that. It's full of lies, or distortions, etc", I believed them. And again, you ask why I didn't look at legitimate resources, however, why was I to doubt the resources that members were giving me as less than legitimate. You guys make it sound like we should have gone elsewhere to find our information besides trusting what those fellowshipping us were giving to us. Why would I have done that?

It's not about trusting what you have received, it's about not just relying on others to give you want you need, but to go out on your own for more study.

The attitude that one only reads what is handed to one seems so limiting, in my view. It would never occur to me to just rely on what others supply me with whether it's in books, music, food, relationships, jobs, whatever. There is so much more out there, why wouldn't you venture out on your own to look at it on occasion?

[Luigi]

It wasn't a joke.

There is no "list" of books that Mormons are forbidden to read.

Throughout my entire life, I've felt entirely free to read anything at all that I chose to read, and to consider any issue that seemed worth considering.

Within just a few feet of where I'm sitting right now, I have books by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Ed Decker, "Dr." "Dr." John Weldon and "Dr." John Ankerberg, D. Michael Quinn, Fawn Brodie, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, Sigmund Freud, Jean-Paul Sartre, Christopher Hitchens, Lucretius, Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Nietzsche, and etc. and etc. and etc.

I think that you are right that the Church makes no formal prohibition of 'anti' material but that there are cultural reasons that such a prohibition is perceived and even preached on a local level. I was among those that was told by my parents to never look at 'anti' material and I have since heard such urgings repeated. I think this informal cultural prohibition comes from a few sources:

1. Members assuming it is prohibited based on the end results. A member hears of friends or relatives leaving the Church after reading anti material and since leaving the Church IS an act clearly taught as leading to the loss of one's salvation members quickly begin to conclude that reading anti material will in a large number of cases lead to loss of testimony and it therefore should be avoided. They consequently instruct their children or other young people that they are charged with instructing to avoid such material.

2. Church leaders have on various occasions criticized intellectual analysis of Gospel topics, suggesting that religious topics should chiefly be approached spiritually. While these statements do not prohibit intellectual inquiry into Gospel topics they do suggest that the final say on such subjects should be left to spiritual interpretation. I believe that these statements lead many members to conclude that intellectual inquiry into religious topics is at best a waste of time and therefore should be avoided.

3. Cognitive dissonance. All of us have built within us a natural fear and dislike toward information which contradicts (or appears to contradict) our wordview and Mormons are certainly no exception.

Again, I agree that there is no formal prohibtion by the Church of anti material (and in fact I've read some material from Church magazines which clearly indicate there is no such prohibition) but I do believe that these factors have led to an informal prohibition which many members both self-impose or impose upon family and youth under their direction.

[Free Agent]

It wasn't a joke.

I know it wasn't a joke.

There is no "list" of books that Mormons are forbidden to read.

Yes, thank you for making that clear again. I got you the first time.

Throughout my entire life, I've felt entirely free to read anything at all that I chose to read, and to consider any issue that seemed worth considering.

Well thats just great for you. I also felt free to read anything, but isn't what members counseled me to do in avoiding certain material, whether anti or not, exactly the milk before meat mentality? I know you don't necessarily agree with that but you would have to agree its practiced by many well meaning members and couldn't those have been the folks who were teaching and fellowshipping me?

Within just a few feet of where I'm sitting right now, I have books by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Ed Decker, "Dr." "Dr." John Weldon and "Dr." John Ankerberg, D. Michael Quinn, Fawn Brodie, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, Sigmund Freud, Jean-Paul Sartre, Christopher Hitchens, Lucretius, Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Nietzsche, and etc. and etc. and etc.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I started investigating in the 80's at the age of 16. Not many teenagers have an interest at that point in their lives to pick up the books you reference. And, I did go to members' homes and was a voracious reader, but I guess I never happened across any of the books that may have caused me to pause a moment and really question the decision I was about to make.

The notion that anybody is or should be entirely dependent on Sunday School for the entirety of his or her intellectual life, or for the totality of what he or she knows about history, is simply ridiculous to me, and completely foreign to my experience in the Church. I can't possibly express this any more strongly.

I don't believe I said that. The issue is from what should I choose to study, and because the majority of people I associated with as members of the Church and extended family, who had been lifelong members, never even alluded to the type "C" history you speak of, I never went searching for that. How can I make it clearer?

The fact that this counsel came from "well meaning friends" and that they never defined "'anti' material" makes my point, again that there wasn't, isn't, and never has been anything remotely resembling a Mormon Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

No, they didn't define "anti"material, but it was pretty clear that if material was being promoted as anti, even though there was no list, I would stay away from it.

You were supposed to think.

Well, thats just condescending, which I've accused you of once before, and you seem to take pleasure in that characteristic. Do you really think I didn't THINK? My gosh, I was raised Catholic, came across Mormonism still attending an all girls' high school, and it took me 3 years of praying and studying to make the leap of faith. Now I guess you'll accuse me that I didn't think correctly.

Anti-Mormon writing is an intellectual wasteland and an offense against trees. Was Fawn Brodie an "anti-Mormon," though? I would never have labeled her such. Is Michael Quinn an "anti-Mormon"? I have never labeled him such, and presumably never will.

Just because you don't label someone as "anti" doesn't mean that others don't, which you would agree with, I'm sure.

[Free Agent]

This is a very subtle shifting of the goalposts, Shackled, but it won't fly.

Uhh, my name is Free Agent, not Shackled???

You and RDL are attempting to impute that what is often very good advice- to avoid anti-Mormon propoganda- is an official policy of the Church, and that by extension, the Church hides or surpresses its history.

The thread is too long for me to go back and look at what RDL has said, though I agree with a lot of it, however, I haven't said its official policy of the Church to avoid "anti' material. As members fellowship investigators, I believe you would agree that most of those investigators don't call Salt Lake to verify whats being told them. Although, maybe you think I should have. Remember, there was no internet, computers, etc. I believed these good people. I believed the missionaries. I don't know why I was supposed to doubt their sincerity.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and your inability to provide the list of materials banned by the Church is ample proof.

I never said there was a list of materials. You just can't seem to equate that the "very good advice to avoid anti mormon propaganda" is something I actually took to heart, that's why I didn't take my summer to study in that direction, but believe me I was reading the book of Mormon, Ensigns, church books, etc.

I believe, Shackled, that you're offended primarily because you know the joke is on you.

Rude, insensitive, not true.

You keep referring to "well-meaning friends and leaders" who told you to avoid the propoganda, but cannot provide anything substantive incriminating the CHURCH.

I made my point regarding this above. The CHURCH is the people. If you are suggesting that all new members verify all that is being told them by missionaries, ward missionaries, investigator classes, etc with the CHURCH, then thats going to really bog things down.That's rather telling.

And yes- you are responsible for your own testimony and salvation (poor thing though it be). You and you alone must work out your salvation with fear and trembling- that's been the teaching of the Church from the very beginning.

I absolutely take full responsibility for that and have a great relationship with Christ, no fear and trembling, just peace.

You also contradict yourself. On the one hand, you are complaining about the sparsity of anti-Mormon material to feed your intellectual furnace, and yet on the other, waxing rhapsodic about how it was so prevalent during your summers- precisely when you could research it without being distracted by school work.

Not complaining about the sparsity of anti mormon material. I would like to have had the opportunity to be innoculated as Dr. Peterson seems to agree this is a good method to keep people like myself and RDL from being in the situation we are in now.

[Deborah]

Deborah, because I didn't grow up in the Church, things that were commonplace for you and that you had a frame of reference for, I did not.

I did not grow up in the church as such. I was a convert at age 14 with no other family in the church at that time, so what I learned I learned on my own or from Seminary or talking to older members. What I heard from members didn't always satisfy and so I would shelve the topic until I was able to access the BYU library and read about all these things I had questions on. However, I was never told to avoid anti literature. In fact as I said we used to read it and joke about it.

As a convert at a young age and with no family support I just find it really hard to accept that someone else did not have access to what I was able to find, if not at the time at some later date. The key to me was in not getting over-excited about the "questionable" things like polygamy or Priesthood but knowing that if I had received confirmation that the church was true then there had to be some explanation which I didn't understand and would someday know. Too many times people will come across this "new" and to them shocking information and over-react in the moment instead of depending on the spirit they once felt to guide them to the answers. I think that is sad.