Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

guilty

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.

Most hand out tracts are not a source of good history.

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?

This is one reason I really like the growth of Internet usage. I believe that it will improve the opportunities for people like yourself to learn more about the Church in a constructive way.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Great. I'll listen to the opinions of fellow LDS on the subject of what I should and shouldn't read and class it in with their opinions on politics and favorite bands, or tv shows.

[Free Agent]

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?

You have to remember I was 16. This was an entirely new world to me, Mormonism. And when you say go out on my own to study, wasn't I doing that? I was breaking away from my Catholicism reading all sorts of material that I never new existed that touched me. Why, in heaven's name, would I think I needed to seek elsewhere? I read things from the missionaries, Church magazines, Deseret Book publications, the Church News. Was it wrong that I trusted that and didn't "go out on my own to study?" I guess I don't understand why that seems limiting to you, because at the time I felt my world was opening up and being broadened. I certainly, now in my 40's, have obviously matured and would handle the whole situation differently, partly because of my age, and more importantly, the ease of obtaining information in this era in which we live.

Free Agent

[Free Agent]

This is one reason I really like the growth of Internet usage. I believe that it will improve the opportunities for people like yourself to learn more about the Church in a constructive way.

Yes, I agree with you. If I'd had the Internet at the age of 16, when I was investigating, I believe I would have been able to learn much more and therefore ask more probing questions and I honestly can't say if I'd joined or not, once I'd learned about the issues that I find troubling now. That's the million dollar question, but I wish I'd had the chance.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes, I agree with you. If I'd had the Internet at the age of 16, when I was investigating, I believe I would have been able to learn much more and therefore ask more probing questions and I honestly can't say if I'd joined or not, once I'd learned about the issues that I find troubling now. That's the million dollar question, but I wish I'd had the chance.

Ultimately, I believe it ought not matter either way. You either gain and maintain a spiritual witness of the gospel or you don't.

[jwhitlock]

Since RDL has been so eager to accuse the Church and its members of fraud - since they didn't teach him the whole of Church history, in every detail, before he went on his mission - I would assume that he'd also want to sue the entire anti-Mormon industry for fraud. After all, he's certainly much more knowledgable now and should be able to see how they have deceived him and others into leaving the Church.

But for some reason, he and other ex-Mormons don't have the ability to look beyond their shallow rationalizations to justify their leaving. It shows in their acceptance of trashy anti-Mormon tripe as "true" history of the Church.

Then again, what can we expect from people who are upset that the first amendment allows the free practice of religion? I suspect that even if the Church had been able to meet every totally unrealistic expectation that they wanted to foist upon it, they would have found another absurd reason to leave - as demonstrated by the absurd reasons that have been given by them for leaving so far on this thread.

Opposition to the Church in the last days is certainly rearing its head in all of its ugliness.

[Luigi]

Great. I'll listen to the opinions of fellow LDS on the subject of what I should and shouldn't read and class it in with their opinions on politics and favorite bands, or tv shows.

Well that's good you've made that distinction. If a 14 year old is told repeatedly by Sunday School teachers, seminary teachers, or parents that they aren't supposed to read or listen to 'anti' material that will stick with them for years afterwards and the repitition will make them assume it is what they are supposed to do. I was 26 years old and had decided based on pro-Mormon sources that the Church probably wasn't true when I dared to read 'anti' material for the first time. It had been pounded into my brain that reading 'anti' material would cast out the Spirit and leave me wallowing in the spirit of apostacy where I would never be able to distinguish truth from error (and yes I'm sure you think that it has). From my perspective growing up the choice I had to read anti material was no better than the choice I had to go to hell, hardly a matter I would compare to the choice of what tv shows to watch. Did you get the impression growing up in the Church that reading anti material was simply a personal preference? Again, I reiterate that it isn't 'official' that anti material not be read but I do think it is very engrained culturally for the reasons I mentioned.

[Scott Lloyd]

Since RDL has been so eager to accuse the Church and its members of fraud - since they didn't teach him the whole of Church history, in every detail, before he went on his mission - I would assume that he'd also want to sue the entire anti-Mormon industry for fraud. After all, he's certainly much more knowledgable now and should be able to see how they have deceived him and others into leaving the Church.

But for some reason, he and other ex-Mormons don't have the ability to look beyond their shallow rationalizations to justify their leaving. It shows in their acceptance of trashy anti-Mormon tripe as "true" history of the Church.

Then again, what can we expect from people who are upset that the first amendment allows the free practice of religion? I suspect that even if the Church had been able to meet every totally unrealistic expectation that they wanted to foist upon it, they would have found another absurd reason to leave - as demonstrated by the absurd reasons that have been given by them for leaving so far on this thread.

Opposition to the Church in the last days is certainly rearing its head in all of its ugliness.

No group is guiltier of selective presentation of facts than anti-Mormons in general.

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, I reiterate that it isn't 'official' that anti material not be read but I do think it is very engrained culturally for the reasons I mentioned.

And, having been steeped in Mormonism "culturally" since birth, I can say that I did not encounter such stringent prohibition. So I guess one must weigh my anecdotal view against yours.

[Luigi]

And, having been steeped in Mormonism "culturally" since birth, I can say that I did not encounter such stringent prohibition. So I guess one must weigh my anecdotal view against yours.

So if you had brought home a copy of "No Man Knows My History" your parents would have reacted the same as if you had brought home "Oliver Twist" and let you read it? I guess we had very different experiences. My own father likened anti material to pornography. Beyond that I was terrified of the stories I had heard of people losing their testimonies after reading anti material and I thought that if I lost my testimony I would lose my salvation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well that's good you've made that distinction. If a 14 year old is told repeatedly by Sunday School teachers, seminary teachers, or parents that they aren't supposed to read or listen to 'anti' material that will stick with them for years afterwards and the repitition will make them assume it is what they are supposed to do.

Yes...kids always do what their leaders, teachers, parents instruct them to do...

I was 26 years old and had decided based on pro-Mormon sources that the Church probably wasn't true when I dared to read 'anti' material for the first time.

Was that recently?

It had been pounded into my brain that reading 'anti' material would cast out the Spirit and leave me wallowing in the spirit of apostacy where I would never be able to distinguish truth from error (and yes I'm sure you think that it has).

I pretty much define "anti material" as the stuff that does cast out the Spirit. As far as you wallowing and what not, well, that's not really for me to say, is it?

From my perspective growing up the choice I had to read anti material was no better than the choice I had to go to hell, hardly a matter I would compare to the choice of what tv shows to watch.

Did you ever tell a lie? Did you ever look at inappropriate things, or steady date or swear or break the Sabbath day? What was the difference? For most kids it's probably the fact that reading anti material involves reading, thus they don't do it.

Did you get the impression growing up in the Church that reading anti material was simply a personal preference?

Depends on the material, really.

Again, I reiterate that it isn't 'official' that anti material not be read but I do think it is very engrained culturally for the reasons I mentioned.

I think it's fine and good to discourage people from wasting their time and energy on works by the Tanners, or Ed Decker, of folks like that.

Another interesting thing: those who write "anti" material, from my experience of reading it, are extremely selective in what they present regarding their case. It seems like many critics of the Church feel they get a free pass to leave out information because they are presenting the "objective truth" and countering the "faith-promoting" history the Church produces. Interestingly, "New Mormon Historians" can be considered less "objective" than some "Old Mormon Historians." I suggest checking out Peter Novick's Sunstone talk on the subject.

[Calm]

For most kids it's probably the fact that reading anti material involves reading, thus they don't do it.

What a cynic!

The critics need to create a Harry Potter version of Mormon issues.

[RDL]

Since RDL has been so eager to accuse the Church and its members of fraud - since they didn't teach him the whole of Church history, in every detail, before he went on his mission - I would assume that he'd also want to sue the entire anti-Mormon industry for fraud. After all, he's certainly much more knowledgable now and should be able to see how they have deceived him and others into leaving the Church.

But for some reason, he and other ex-Mormons don't have the ability to look beyond their shallow rationalizations to justify their leaving. It shows in their acceptance of trashy anti-Mormon tripe as "true" history of the Church.

Then again, what can we expect from people who are upset that the first amendment allows the free practice of religion? I suspect that even if the Church had been able to meet every totally unrealistic expectation that they wanted to foist upon it, they would have found another absurd reason to leave - as demonstrated by the absurd reasons that have been given by them for leaving so far on this thread.

Opposition to the Church in the last days is certainly rearing its head in all of its ugliness.

Since what I wrote has been misconstrued to some extent, I'll respond to this.

I didn't say I was eager to or would sue the church, only that I'm certain I could prove it guilty of fraud based on my experience.

For example, the Book of Abraham. I assumed and was taught it was a direct translation from papyrus. Apologetics notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who reviewed the evidence on both sides would find that to be a lie, and the Book of Abraham not a translation.

If somebody is told something that's untrue, or intentionally not informed of a relevant fact by one who is aware of that fact, and then acts on that knowledge to his detriment, the person who failed to inform is guilty of fraud. My not even being told about the papyrus dispute before I promised two years to the church, let alone the evidence, would constitute fraud by any institution or person other than a church or pastor. If a used car salesman fails to inform a customer that the wheels will probably fall off a vehicle within a mile of it being driven off the lot, that is fraud.

I realize I'd lose that case in front of a Provo jury, but I'm pretty sure I'd win it most places, if religious institutions were held to the same standards as corporations, individuals, etc... Unfortunately, the law insulates religious institutions from any judicial inquiry into specific matters of faith. So, even though it's painfully obvious to the world at large that the Book of Abraham had nothing to do with the papyrus, my advisors and teachers and the church institutionally can obscure and conceal all they want with impunity.

I did notice nobody answered my question about whether a pastor should be able to sell $100 Miracle Water to his congregation, with the promise of great wealth if they do so.

[Luigi]

Yes...kids always do what their leaders, teachers, parents instruct them to do...

So?

Was that recently?

I pretty much define "anti material" as the stuff that does cast out the Spirit. As far as you wallowing and what not, well, that's not really for me to say, is it?

Did you ever tell a lie? Did you ever look at inappropriate things, or steady date or swear or break the Sabbath day? What was the difference? For most kids it's probably the fact that reading anti material involves reading, thus they don't do it.

You are comparing official sins of the Church to something that isn't a sin (unless you want to correct me on that one and tell me reading anti material is a sin). Yes kids aren't as 'enticed' by anti material as most official sins anyway (not because they hate reading as much as they want to maintain their worldview-at least I did), but making it seem like a 'sin' only reinforces that.

I think it's fine and good to discourage people from wasting their time and energy on works by the Tanners, or Ed Decker, of folks like that.

Ed Decker's stuff is of course complete trash, agreed.

Another interesting thing: those who write "anti" material, from my experience of reading it, are extremely selective in what they present regarding their case.

One could argue the same for Mormons, we all pick and choose the part of the story and/or the opinions which fit the conclusion we want others to make

It seems like many critics of the Church feel they get a free pass to leave out information because they are presenting the "objective truth" and countering the "faith-promoting" history the Church produces.

Well I see no reason anyone could object to encouraging those who read anti material to read the counter arguments of such material presented by FARMS, FAIR or other apologists.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Since what I wrote has been misconstrued to some extent, I'll respond to this.

I didn't say I was eager to or would sue the church, only that I'm certain I could prove it guilty of fraud based on my experience.

For example, the Book of Abraham. I assumed and was taught it was a direct translation from papyrus. Apologetics notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who reviewed the evidence on both sides would find that to be a lie, and the Book of Abraham not a translation.

Geez, some things never change. While you were in the Church you didn't read the relevant literature, you say because you were pressured not to do so. Now that you are free as a bird you still haven't read the relevant literature, as evidenced by this and many other comments you've made here.

If somebody is told something that's untrue, or intentionally not informed of a relevant fact by one who is aware of that fact, and then acts on that knowledge to his detriment, the person who failed to inform is guilty of fraud.

Looks like everyone everywhere at all times is guilty of fraud. It's impossible to tell everything about everything.

My not even being told about the papyrus dispute before I promised two years to the church, let alone the evidence, would constitute fraud by any institution or person other than a church or pastor.

Not likely.

If a used car salesman fails to inform a customer that the wheels will probably fall off a vehicle within a mile of it being driven off the lot, that is fraud.

That depends on the contract, the salesman's knowledge, and many other variables none of which really apply here.

I realize I'd lose that case in front of a Provo jury, but I'm pretty sure I'd win it most places, if religious institutions were held to the same standards as corporations, individuals, etc...

How old are you? I don't mean this as an insult, I'm just trying to gauge some of your thoughts with an age. I am 26 if you're wondering in return.

Unfortunately, the law insulates religious institutions from any judicial inquiry into specific matters of faith. So, even though it's painfully obvious to the world at large that the Book of Abraham had nothing to do with the papyrus, my advisors and teachers and the church institutionally can obscure and conceal all they want with impunity.

there's that whole "I haven't read the relevant literature" sticker again, prominently displayed on your forehead.

I did notice nobody answered my question about whether a pastor should be able to sell $100 Miracle Water to his congregation, with the promise of great wealth if they do so.

Sure. They can do it if they want, and people can buy it if they want.

[selek]

Since what I wrote has been misconstrued to some extent, I'll respond to this.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Sucks when the shoe's on the other foot, don't it?

I didn't say I was eager to or would sue the church, only that I'm certain I could prove it guilty of fraud based on my experience.

You repeatedly lamented that the First Amendment prevents you from doing so. To an unbiased mind, that indicates an eagerness to engage in the prohibited behavior.

For example, the Book of Abraham. I assumed and was taught it was a direct translation from papyrus. Apologetics notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who reviewed the evidence on both sides would find that to be a lie, and the Book of Abraham not a translation.

Supposition, based upon evidence not in fact. Your hunch is highly arbitrary and not admissible as evidence.

If somebody is told something that's untrue, or intentionally not informed of a relevant fact by one who is aware of that fact, and then acts on that knowledge to his detriment, the person who failed to inform is guilty of fraud.

I note that you don't hold your fellow travellers in the anti-Mormon industry to the same standard. What's that word again.....hypocratic, hypochondriac,.....ah, yes- hypocrite

My not even being told about the papyrus dispute before I promised two years to the church, let alone the evidence, would constitute fraud by any institution or person other than a church or pastor.

This assumes, of course, that: 1) you are completely innocent in assessing the claims made by the Church, and 2) that the dispute was settled on the side of the translation being false.

As the issue of the translation has by no means been settled, this demonstrates: 1) that you are begging the question, and 2) are once again engaging in falsehoods in pursuit of your agenda.

If a used car salesman fails to inform a customer that the wheels will probably fall off a vehicle within a mile of it being driven off the lot, that is fraud.

I agree. You have yet to demonstrate that the Church knew "the wheels would fall off".

I realize I'd lose that case in front of a Provo jury, but I'm pretty sure I'd win it most places, if religious institutions were held to the same standards as corporations, individuals, etc...

I smell a lot of "if" coming off this plan. Again your claim is supposition, based upon evidence not in fact. It is also a fairly cheap rhetorical trick in attempting to poison the well.

Unfortunately, the law insulates religious institutions from any judicial inquiry into specific matters of faith.

Again, to an unbiased mind, your lamentation indicates an eagerness to engage in the prohibited behavior.

So, even though it's painfully obvious to the world at large that the Book of Abraham had nothing to do with the papyrus, my advisors and teachers and the church institutionally can obscure and conceal all they want with impunity.

You have not demonstrated that the translation was false. You're still begging the question.

You have not demonstrated that the Church institutionally obscures or conceals. You've made the slander, but you've backed it up with nothing but fraud and $100 Miracle Water.

You make all kinds of accusations, but have consistently refused to offer any evidence.

To quote you above:

If somebody is told something that's untrue, or intentionally not informed of a relevant fact by one who is aware of that fact, and then acts on that knowledge to his detriment, the person who failed to inform is guilty of fraud.

You have intentionally not informed readers of the relevant fact that the papyrus issue is still debated. You are, by your own mouth, damned for fraud.

You have deliberately told readers something untrue- that the Church has an institutional policy of supressing its history- and are again, by your own mouth, damned for fraud.

It is in this sort of vitriolic behavior that I justify accusing you of foaming at the mouth and getting spittle on your computer screen.

I note you still haven't answered the earlier CFR's except for a plea of your own anecdotes- and given the fraud outlined above- you are hardly a credible witness.

I did notice nobody answered my question about whether a pastor should be able to sell $100 Miracle Water to his congregation, with the promise of great wealth if they do so.

You have yet to demonstrate that the Church's behavior is in any way comparable to the snake oil (miracle water) salesman in your example.

When you stop trying to sell it, you will have license to condemn it. Until then, deal with the mote in your own eye.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You are comparing official sins of the Church to something that isn't a sin (unless you want to correct me on that one and tell me reading anti material is a sin). Yes kids aren't as 'enticed' by anti material as most official sins anyway (not because they hate reading as much as they want to maintain their worldview-at least I did), but making it seem like a 'sin' only reinforces that.

It seems like you have a very confined view on what "sin" is.

One could argue the same for Mormons, we all pick and choose the part of the story and/or the opinions which fit the conclusion we want others to make.

I strongly recommend listening to that Sunstone presentation I mentioned. It can be downloaded for free on their website. Additionally, Church history is written with the agenda to promote the cause of the gospel, not to provide a sterile approach to the dots and dashes of every aspect of history. There's a good reason for all this. It has been a subject of discussion for a while now. You might be interested in this article:

Advocacy and Inquiry in the Writing of Latter-day Saint History

David B. Honey and Daniel C. Peterson

Our epigraphs suggest that knowledge and spirituality are not mutually exclusive, but rather are essential concomitants in understanding the significance of life and living it fully. Recent debate in Latter-day Saint circles, however, seems most often to stress the incompatibility of spiritual faith and historical knowledge, whether the emphasis be on the supposed lack of faith in Latter-day Saint historiography or on the purported lack of history in Latter-day Saint apologetics. However, the debaters often seem to rely on different underlying assumptions, to utilize different historical forms, to address different audiences, and to argue along intellectual lines which lie in different dimensions. In short, each faction seems to defend a different definition of history and of its function. The situation is manifestly unproductive, and more than a few onlookers have expressed impatience with it. Thomas G. Alexander, a leading practitioner of the so-called New Mormon History and one of the central figures in the ongoing debate between professional historians and apologists, has recently declared it to be â??imperative that we begin building bridgesâ? between spiritual faith and historical knowledge. The present article attempts to assist in the work of construction.

[mnn727]

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?

Worked for me at age 17 when I left the Church my family and freinds and teh only ministers I had ever known - Guess I was smarter at 17 than RDL was at 19 (according to your logic)

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

I was an adult convert - no mission HOWEVER RDL is not looking to be re-activated (nor are you). Personally I see it as sour grapes and have no sympathy for anyone blaming others for what is their responsibility.

[selek]

I was an adult convert - no mission HOWEVER RDL is not looking to be re-activated (nor are you). Personally I see it as sour grapes and have no sympathy for anyone blaming others for what is their responsibility.

Amen!

Note that Christ himself accepts only the penitent, and not the antagonist.

[Amulek]

If somebody is told something that's untrue, or intentionally not informed of a relevant fact by one who is aware of that fact, and then acts on that knowledge to his detriment, the person who failed to inform is guilty of fraud. My not even being told about the papyrus dispute before I promised two years to the church, let alone the evidence, would constitute fraud by any institution or person other than a church or pastor. If a used car salesman fails to inform a customer that the wheels will probably fall off a vehicle within a mile of it being driven off the lot, that is fraud.

So your position is that the Church intentionally withheld information about criticsâ?? objections to the Book of Abraham in an effort to defraud you into providing two years of missionary service? Do you expect that, in addition to teaching members of the church what we believe, we ought to be legally required to teach the members of our own church what other people believe about our beliefs?

[Scott Lloyd]

So if you had brought home a copy of "No Man Knows My History" your parents would have reacted the same as if you had brought home "Oliver Twist" and let you read it?

My parents knew I had been well taught and trusted me enough to know that my interest in such stuff would have been attributable to intellectual curiosity, nothing more.

I'm sorry that your home environment was more repressive than mine, but I don't buy it that the Church is to blame for that.

[Deborah]

And, having been steeped in Mormonism "culturally" since birth, I can say that I did not encounter such stringent prohibition. So I guess one must weigh my anecdotal view against yours.

And as a convert at 14 neither did I. I really have no sympathy for those whose curiosity never went beyond the basic information that we get in our lesson manuals. I was so hungry for knowledge that when I finally had the opportunity to go to BYU I spent two hours a day of valuable study time poring through books in the church section of the library. Now granted not everyone has an opportunity to go to BYU, but even regular libraries carry some church books and there is always someone in the ward who has a very complete library of church related books.

But I still contend and state with no equivocation I think when people come upon things they question they have a tendency to jump too quickly to feeding their doubts by seeking out the anti bent rather than patiently waiting for the Lord to direct them to the sources which will answer their questions and increase their faith.

[Luigi]

It seems like you have a very confined view on what "sin" is.

You seem to want to call reading 'anti' material a sin. Is that the case? If so why?

I strongly recommend listening to that Sunstone presentation I mentioned. It can be downloaded for free on their website. .

I'll look into it, though I hope they have transcripts.

Additionally, Church history is written with the agenda to promote the cause of the gospel, not to provide a sterile approach to the dots and dashes of every aspect of history. There's a good reason for all this. It has been a subject of discussion for a while now. You might be interested in this article:

My point with what I've written on this thread has not been to say what the Church ought to teach with it's history lessons but to explain that there has been a very strong cultural prohibition within the Church towards material which expresses an opposing point of view.

[Scott Lloyd]

And as a convert at 14 neither did I. I really have no sympathy for those whose curiosity never went beyond the basic information that we get in our lesson manuals. I was so hungry for knowledge that when I finally had the opportunity to go to BYU I spent two hours a day of valuable study time poring through books in the church section of the library. Now granted not everyone has an opportunity to go to BYU, but even regular libraries carry some church books and there is always someone in the ward who has a very complete library of church related books.

My perception is that those who complain they were misled in the Church never even bothered to look at a standard Institute text.

Funny how they suddenly become passionately interested in anything anti-Mormon they can find once their apostasy kicks in.

[Scott Lloyd]

So your position is that the Church intentionally withheld information about criticsâ?? objections to the Book of Abraham in an effort to defraud you into providing two years of missionary service? Do you expect that, in addition to teaching members of the church what we believe, we ought to be legally required to teach the members of our own church what other people believe about our beliefs?

I am so tempted to do a Godwin's Law infraction here.