Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

It may seem that way, but again, apparently you and I have different meanings when we talk about "sin." Your interpretation seems very "act" drawn whereas mine seems more "state of being in addition to things we do" drawn.

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

Not to my knowledge. I listened to the mp3.

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.

A cultural prohibition is a very vague assertion.

If you mean that random bishops, parents or teachers tell people it isn't a good idea to read anti-Mormon garbage I would largely agree. I see no problem with it, either. I wish more people would be interested in history and theology, but alas, we all have choices to make for ourselves. And we all ought to take responsibility for those choices, as well.

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.

That's when they discover the "truth". And they often find exactly what "truth" they are looking for, as well.

[RDL]

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

Like I said, I'd probably lose the case in Provo.

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?

No, it's not responsible for teaching me how others view Mormonism. But if it asks me to preach the divinity of the Pearl of Great Price (as it did), and it is aware that there is a genuine dispute as to that divinity (as it was), I think it should be obligated to tell me and its other members of that dispute.

This is not like a church merely teaching a religious "truth", such as the Virgin Birth. Religions are free to determine whatever doctrine they wish, and feed it to the masses. But if that church comes into the possession of material that casts doubt on whether the Virgin Birth occurred, and it knows that people who view that evidence may be inclined to leave the church, I think it absolutely has a duty to tell its members. And even moreso, if it compels a missionary to spend two years preaching the Virgin Birth.

Consider a religion apart from Mormonism. Take Scientology. Suppose Scientology came into the possession of a letter from L. Ron Hubbard that spoke of "all the suckers who buy into the silly tale I'm telling." Is the Church of Scientology not committing fraud by withholding that letter from Scientologists, who might be inclined to leave if they saw that letter?

[LifeOnaPlate]

It really seems like you know next to nothing about the Book of Abraham debate which you feel is so vital.

Take Scientology. Suppose Scientology came into the possession of a letter from L. Ron Hubbard that spoke of "all the suckers who buy into the silly tale I'm telling." Is the Church of Scientology not committing fraud by withholding that letter from Scientologists, who might be inclined to leave if they saw that letter?

No such letter has been discovered for Scientologists or LDS.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, it's not responsible for teaching me how others view Mormonism. But if it asks me to preach the divinity of the Pearl of Great Price (as it did), and it is aware that there is a genuine dispute as to that divinity (as it was), I think it should be obligated to tell me and its other members of that dispute.

So you would, through the force of law, compel a religious group to provide a forum for its enemies; nay, actually make the enemies' case for them.

I find that notion deeply frightening -- and alien to any concept I have ever had about liberty and First Amendment guarantees.

Please don't ever run for office.

[Luigi]

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.

I'm trying to remember where I blamed the Church, care to refresh my memory?

I think the perceived prohibition exists and given the number of times it is alleged by those that leave the Church I hardly think my experience is an isolated one. I think the biggest reason for the perception is simply that people are told that losing their testimonies will lead them to spiritual destruction and their anecdoctal experience leads them to believe that anti material or even in depth study of history can lead to a loss of testimony.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm trying to remember where I blamed the Church, care to refresh my memory?

Maybe it's all this talk about "cultural prohibition." What I have learned through my "cultural" exposure to Mormonism is to "seek wisdom by study, and also by faith."

[mnn727]

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?

Because you wanted to know what you were getting yourself into?

In the years before I had the internet - I was able to research both sides, the public library has(had) a number of books I consider Anti - and I read every one of them.

My gosh folks, do you care so little about your own salvation that you didn't research both sides before joining?

[mnn727]

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.

The blame your father - not 'the Church'

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm trying to remember where I blamed the Church, care to refresh my memory?

I didn't mean to say you blamed the church outright. I just meant a "cultural blaming" which the "apostates" propagate.

[mnn727]

No, it's not responsible for teaching me how others view Mormonism. But if it asks me to preach the divinity of the Pearl of Great Price (as it did), and it is aware that there is a genuine dispute as to that divinity (as it was), I think it should be obligated to tell me and its other members of that dispute.

But you are doing the exact same thing yourself here, you are claiming a valid dispute, if you bothered to do honest research you would see that there is no possible dispute.

Unfortunatly you are not willing to research both sides even now.

[Free Agent]

Because you wanted to know what you were getting yourself into?

In the years before I had the internet - I was able to research both sides, the public library has(had) a number of books I consider Anti - and I read every one of them.

My gosh folks, do you care so little about your own salvation that you didn't research both sides before joining?

I thought what I was getting myself into was "the true Church", and the feelings and impressions I had when I read The Book of Mormon, Church magazines, Church books, etc witnessed to me that this was "true". So, you're saying I should have questioned that feeling and still gone and read material that I thought would affect my salvation? I listened to the counsel of my local Church leaders, whether a Bishop of Home Teacher, who felt anti material could be detrimental. Where is the crime in that?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I thought what I was getting myself into was "the true Church", and the feelings and impressions I had when I read The Book of Mormon, Church magazines, Church books, etc witnessed to me that this was "true". So, you're saying I should have questioned that feeling and still gone and read material that I thought would affect my salvation? I listened to the counsel of my local Church leaders, whether a Bishop of Home Teacher, who felt anti material could be detrimental. Where is the crime in that?

Apparently, for you, reading it was detrimental. Though I am very unconvinced that you've done anything more than a periphery study of even "anti-Mormon" issues.

[Luigi]

Maybe it's all this talk about "cultural prohibition." What I have learned through my "cultural" exposure to Mormonism is to "seek wisdom by study, and also by faith."

Where I have learend though my cultural exposure to Mormonism to seek study only as long as it confirms your faith.

[Free Agent]

Apparently, for you, reading it was detrimental. Though I am very unconvinced that you've done anything more than a periphery study of even "anti-Mormon" issues.

It depends what your definition of detrimental is. I assume you think because I left the Church, although I haven't. I"m trying to figure out how to make it work. And there is no way you could know whether or not I've done more than a periphery study, which I have, by the way. I've spent almost two years reading and studying and have come to a different conclusion about the Church although I still have tremendous respect and love for it.

[selek]

Where I have learend though my cultural exposure to Mormonism to seek study only as long as it confirms your faith.

Yet every faithful poster on this board is a living contradiction to your "cultural exposure".

Time to take off the blinders, methinks.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It depends what your definition of detrimental is. I assume you think because I left the Church, although I haven't. I"m trying to figure out how to make it work. And there is no way you could know whether or not I've done more than a periphery study, which I have, by the way. I've spent almost two years reading and studying and have come to a different conclusion about the Church although I still have tremendous respect and love for it.

Well, Churchill once said something about never giving up. I say the same!

[Scott Lloyd]

Yet every faithful poster on this board is a living contradiction to your "cultural exposure".

Time to take off the blinders, methinks.

Indeed. If I subscribed to that sort of thinking ("seek study only as long as it confirms your faith") I certainly wouldn't view a message board such as this, where Mormonism is under constant attack and disparagement from all angles, day after day. Yet I find the arguments of the critics, weighed in the balance, to be deficient. My faith is thus strengthened.

[Calm]

I think the perceived prohibition exists and given the number of times it is alleged by those that leave the Church I hardly think my experience is an isolated one.

It is the unbalanced claims that I find problematic. The percentage of those who've left the Church that claim this is dramatically higher in my experience than the percentage that is currently active.

Now this could be for a number of reasons. One, perhaps the more repressive local (family or local wards/stakes as opposed to the global church) environment these exmembers encountered as members compared to the current members' environment is at least in part what motivated them to leave.

Or it could be that the experience of leaving colours the perception of past events.

Or something else.

Do I believe it happens? Yes.

Do I believe it happens as much as exmembers often claim it happens? I just don't see the evidence for it myself.

I especially have a hard time completely believing them when they make the claims they went through all the years of Institute and still didn't have a clue about some of these controversies when I know there is at least some material in the Institute manuals. Also the claims of keeping up on all the other Church produced material such as the Ensigns. To me, that means there must be some sort of revision going on...exactly what I don't know.

[Calm]

Because you wanted to know what you were getting yourself into?

In the years before I had the internet - I was able to research both sides, the public library has(had) a number of books I consider Anti - and I read every one of them.

My gosh folks, do you care so little about your own salvation that you didn't research both sides before joining?

Every public library save those in Utah that I've been in have had more anti-books and 'neutral' books than those from the faithful stance. And every Utah public library I've been in (at least four) have had substantial amounts of critical and neutral books, at least as many as nonUtah libraries and often more....they just have a huge amount of LDS books compared to most other libraries.

And certainly no one ever gave me a list of titles that they considered anti so the only way to determine which ones in those libraries were in fact anti was to pick them up and at least read the book covers.

It just seems very strange to me that no effort would be made to do any personal research beyond reading what was placed in one's hands...if that (and lack of knowledge of certain comments in lesson manuals make me often doubt if some people ever read anything but expect it to be forcefed to them---this unfortunately goes for some active LDS as well).

[Calm]

I thought what I was getting myself into was "the true Church", and the feelings and impressions I had when I read The Book of Mormon, Church magazines, Church books, etc witnessed to me that this was "true". So, you're saying I should have questioned that feeling and still gone and read material that I thought would affect my salvation? I listened to the counsel of my local Church leaders, whether a Bishop of Home Teacher, who felt anti material could be detrimental. Where is the crime in that?

There is a difference between anti and other forms of texts. What was stopping you from reading the nonanti stuff?

Or did you somehow decide that any book that wasn't produced by the Church Distribution center must have been anti, even the LDS supportive books and magazines where you would have learned about the controversies at least from the faithful POV.

When someone claims to have no knowledge of controversies, it means to me that they did not only not attempt to read antibooks, but there were a whole lot of LDS books they neglected to read as well.

[jwhitlock]

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.

We misconstrued what? That you claimed the Church was guilty of fraud? That you bemoan the fact that Mormons have first amendment rights? That you misquoted DCP in an attempt to claim something he never did? That you made the absurd claim that the Church should be required to teach everything in its history to investigators before baptizing them?

From your further comments, it does appear that you would have no problem trying to stick it to the Church for fraud - if the law allowed it, which it doesn't.

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.

Now who's being fraudulent? You're only presenting one side of the debate on the book of Abraham. By your own standards, you're withholding pertinent information in order to support your claim the book is a "lie". We've already addressed this "vast majority of people" issue on this thread, and you're not acknowledging that side of the debate either.

By your own standard, you are as guilty of fraud as anyone. But some lawyers never stop to consider that, don't they.

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.

You seem, as a lawyer, unable to differentiate between matters of belief and the legalistic corporate cesspool that you claim you normally deal with. As I noted earlier, even if your totally unrealistic demand for being taught everything possible about the Church and its history before your mission could have been accomplished, I think you would still have found some spurious method of rationalizing your departure from the Church. If wheels falling off a car is the closest example you can come up with for what you claim the Church, its members, and your family have done to you, then your "case" is pretty shallow indeed.

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, for one, am glad that the Church and religion in general are held to a far higher standard than than the corporations you so willingly serve as a lawyer. Again, it's apparent that the ugly cesspool of American corporate life has influenced you to the point that you have no real concept of how belief and faith fit into the real world.

And again, you commit fraud by your own standard in that you mischaracterize the Book of Abraham as a lie. You intentionally deceive in this thread by ignoring the repeated explanations that Church CES and other instructors do not obscure and conceal, but instead teach and emphasize according to their missions. That you continue to simply ignore this repeatedly stated fact, and instead blindly continue to trumpet your one note claim indicates that you have absolutely no interest in all the facts - only in "facts" that you can use to rationalize your claims against the Church.

Why such a double standard? You claim the Church needs to teach all sides concerning its history, and yet you refuse in this discussion to do the same. Instead you simply ignore anything contrary to your falsely held beliefs. Claims of fraud often need to look in the mirror first.

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.

It was answered. Your example of it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

But of course you would ignore that.

[jwhitlock]

Yet every faithful poster on this board is a living contradiction to your "cultural exposure".

Time to take off the blinders, methinks.

Every time I think I've gotten a little bit of a handle on how unrealistic many people are who leave the Church, someone else comes along and posts to new lows on this board.

The narrow perspectives many of these people use to justify their departures from the Church are absolutely amazing to me. When you present evidence that contradicts their narrow justifications, it is simply ignored.

Many people claim to be "free" when they leave the Church. I suspect that subconsciously, at least, for many of them, they understand that their rationalizations for leaving are built on a swaying house of cards - and they simply ignore any evidence that might cause that house to tumble. Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

Consider claims made by dissenters on this board:

- It's too bad that Mormons have first amendment rights. Shades of Ed Decker.

- The Church is fraudulent for not teaching its entire history and all doctrinal disputes to people before they are baptized and go on missions.

- American corporations are held to higher standards than the Church. (My personal favorite).

and so on. And these people expect us to take them seriously? That's what is truly amazing.

[RDL]

We misconstrued what? That you claimed the Church was guilty of fraud? That you bemoan the fact that Mormons have first amendment rights? That you misquoted DCP in an attempt to claim something he never did? That you made the absurd claim that the Church should be required to teach everything in its history to investigators before baptizing them?

From your further comments, it does appear that you would have no problem trying to stick it to the Church for fraud - if the law allowed it, which it doesn't.

Now who's being fraudulent? You're only presenting one side of the debate on the book of Abraham. By your own standards, you're withholding pertinent information in order to support your claim the book is a "lie". We've already addressed this "vast majority of people" issue on this thread, and you're not acknowledging that side of the debate either.

By your own standard, you are as guilty of fraud as anyone. But some lawyers never stop to consider that, don't they.

You seem, as a lawyer, unable to differentiate between matters of belief and the legalistic corporate cesspool that you claim you normally deal with. As I noted earlier, even if your totally unrealistic demand for being taught everything possible about the Church and its history before your mission could have been accomplished, I think you would still have found some spurious method of rationalizing your departure from the Church. If wheels falling off a car is the closest example you can come up with for what you claim the Church, its members, and your family have done to you, then your "case" is pretty shallow indeed.

I, for one, am glad that the Church and religion in general are held to a far higher standard than than the corporations you so willingly serve as a lawyer. Again, it's apparent that the ugly cesspool of American corporate life has influenced you to the point that you have no real concept of how belief and faith fit into the real world.

And again, you commit fraud by your own standard in that you mischaracterize the Book of Abraham as a lie. You intentionally deceive in this thread by ignoring the repeated explanations that Church CES and other instructors do not obscure and conceal, but instead teach and emphasize according to their missions. That you continue to simply ignore this repeatedly stated fact, and instead blindly continue to trumpet your one note claim indicates that you have absolutely no interest in all the facts - only in "facts" that you can use to rationalize your claims against the Church.

Why such a double standard? You claim the Church needs to teach all sides concerning its history, and yet you refuse in this discussion to do the same. Instead you simply ignore anything contrary to your falsely held beliefs. Claims of fraud often need to look in the mirror first.

It was answered. Your example of it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

But of course you would ignore that.

I don't want to get into Commercial Torts 101, but there's more to it than intentionally omitting a material fact, as I already wrote twice. One has to rely on the omission, the actor must have acted on that reliance, that action must be to his detriment, etc... I wouldn't point it out, but I think you're the third person that for whatever reason either stopped reading my post halfway through, or didn't understand what seemed to me to be pretty plain English.

If you really think what I've written has anything to do with the first amendment rights of individual Mormons, you ought to read it over again. My point is that the first amendment (through the establishment clause) gives churches and pastors the absolute right to sell whatever doctrine or promise they wish, so long as they do so in the context of religious faith.

And on the bolded portion, churches in fact have no duty under the law to inform their adherents as to information that some members may consider material to the church's claims. It's breaching that duty that gets corporations in trouble, and it's a duty I wish was applied to religions.

I assume nobody's willing to answer the $100 Miracle Spring Water hypothetical, because either you defend the pastor's right to swindle the gullible, or you admit that there are certain matters of religious faith that courts should be able to adjudicate.

[Free Agent]

There is a difference between anti and other forms of texts. What was stopping you from reading the nonanti stuff?

Or did you somehow decide that any book that wasn't produced by the Church Distribution center must have been anti, even the LDS supportive books and magazines where you would have learned about the controversies at least from the faithful POV.

When someone claims to have no knowledge of controversies, it means to me that they did not only not attempt to read antibooks, but there were a whole lot of LDS books they neglected to read as well.

What was stopping me is the same argument that Dr Peterson makes for the reason he would like to see the Church teach a "C" type history. A is sanitized, B is anti, C is the version I wish I'd been taught. I'm still trying to make the point and get across to you all that I really believed it was A or B that only existed. Whose to say I didn't pick up a book or two, that perhaps could have been useful, but maybe I set it down because I didn't like the title, or what was talked about. Seriously, we're going back almost 30 years here. I of course had access to libraries and members' personal libraries, but I wasn't looking for the C type history book because I had no inkling there was anything like that out there. Now, had I been directed to something like that by a Bishop or a missionary, I certainly would have. Why is that so hard for people to get? .

[Calm]

I assume nobody's willing to answer the $100 Miracle Spring Water hypothetical, because either you defend the pastor's right to swindle the gullible, or you admit that there are certain matters of religious faith that courts should be able to adjudicate.

You were answered quite some time ago:

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