Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[Calm]

maybe I set it down because I didn't like the title, or what was talked about.

And this is whose responsibility that you made this choice?

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? .

Maybe because many of us were never directed to these things, but still managed to come across them on our own because we saw the subject matter as important and interesting. Even in my family, I think I was the only one who read my parents' church related books as a child as my parents never urged them on me. I think others read them as adults though.

And I took advantage of what was at the public library as well.

I don't understand this attitude that there was some limit on knowledge that you thought was somehow met by what you had already been told. How could there not be some more information out there somewhere? How can any field of knowledge be completely known? How can anyone believe they know it all so that there isn't anything left worthwhile to study?

The biggest difference the Internet has made for me was to switch my study from the hit or miss, just try everything within reach and hope that I'll get lucky approach to having access to more experienced 'students' and teachers with a wide range of experience who could give me advice on where to spend my time on quality material....IOW, I tended to have a wider field of reading when I had no direction rather than when I got some so I don't really see how not being given directions got in the way of studying.

It seems to me the difference between someone like you and someone like me is while both of us didn't know that anything of worth was out there, I decided to go and look for myself to find out if this was true and you didn't bother to even think about it and possibly relied on what you thought others had told you.

I don't see how that decision of yours not to go exploring in any uncharted territory (not even trying from the faithful side of things) can be laid on the Church or any member of the Church besides yourself.

I am a bit unclear though about what you are complaining about---is it just that you weren't directed to a larger area of study prior to making your decision about baptism or does your complaint include all the years after it to some event (and if so, could you identify at what point if any you think the Church no longer held the responsibility for motivating you into personal research)?

add-on: another quick thought about why I don't "get it". I was 17 (only one year older than when you started investigating the church) when I went to college. I let my dad talk me into changing my major from my life long dream of physics and astronomy to electrical engineering because he told me it would be likely I couldn't get a job in the first field. I believed him and never bothered to check the reality of the situation which is with my background and academics and the fact I was female, I would have been practically guaranteed, not even when I came to the decision that I wasn't interested enough in EE to make it my career and so I switched majors. Do I blame him for misleading me? For not taking more time to make sure I was on the right road when he knew I was extremely shy and reluctant to engage with strangers, yet he left me completely on my own except for this one 'counsel'? Perpetuating a 'fraud' (though unknowingly) on me? Not hardly even though at the time I didn't know how to find this out and no one provided any direction to me on how to go about it. It was my decision not to make any effort to check to see if what he told me was accurate and complete, the only responsibility I see here is mine. It was my life, it was my responsibility to study and make my own informed choices rather than relying on someone else to do the thinking for me.

So I understand how easy it is to fall into this passiveness, I just don't understand why it's anyone else's responsibility but my own that I did.

[RDL]

You were answered quite some time ago:

Viva la snake oil!

[Calm]

Viva la snake oil!

Viva la libertad!

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, thats just condescending, which I've accused you of once before, and you seem to take pleasure in that characteristic.

Oh, I do. I'm a real piece of work, an incredibly loathesome human being. Not an ounce of human kindness in me, not a trace of civility or ordinary respect for other human beings. And far worse in person (if that can be believed) than on the internet!

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?"

No. And it would still be better if you trusted that.

I believed these good people. I believed the missionaries. I don't know why I was supposed to doubt their sincerity.

Who has suggested that you should have doubted their sincerity? Who has suggested that they weren't sincere?

I certainly haven't. I believe that they were not only sincere but right.

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've suggested the same thing several times, and RDL appears to be comfortable with the idea. So, yes, that does appear to be something like his position.

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 were under the impression that everybody outside the Church accepted the divine origin of the Pearl of Great Price???

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.

So the Catholic Church has to devote something on the order of equal time to teaching anti-Catholicism?

Sorry. I think that's absurd.

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?

That's a very, very different matter. In your hypothetical case, the Church of Scientology would have incontrovertible proof of the falsehood of its claims. You may think that such proof exists in the case of Mormonism, but I don't, and I'm quite confident that the leadership of the Church doesn't share your opinion, either. So we're not taking about revealing definitive evidence of fraud, but of turning Church curriculum and classroom instruction over to its critics.

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".

And you were right.

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?

I point out, yet again, that serious historical and theological discussions are very different from "anti-Mormon" materials. D. Michael Quinn and Fawn Brodie, however grievous their faults, should never be mentioned in the same breath with "Dr." Walter Martin and the notorious mountebank and charlatan Ed Decker.

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.

Actually, I've said that I don't think that the Church, as such, ought to teach "C"-type history, even though I wish that members themselves would learn it to the extent that they're able.

A is sanitized,

I wouldn't call it "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.

And I repeat that, in my judgment, C is fundamentally the same as A.

Viva la snake oil!

I find the thought of government regulation of religion, or judicial judgments of religious issues, absolutely horrifying. M

[Free Agent]

Maybe because many of us were never directed to these things, but still managed to come across them on our own because we saw the subject matter as important and interesting. Even in my family, I think I was the only one who read my parents' church related books as a child as my parents never urged them on me.

And I took advantage of what was at the public library as well.

Calmoriah, I really do appreciate your responses and it seems like you are trying to understand me and are just befuddled. I can only genuinely tell you of my experience. Life is made up of so many little twists and turns and what I see is that we were both members of the same Church but with totally different backgrounds. You must have been very inquisitve to be theone child that read what was in your parents library. I think that's wonderful. Again, I think that goes to what Dr. Peterson says that you were exposed to the type "C" history, and so it never felt hidden to you. I know many people don't like the word hidden and I apologize if that offends. If we can come up with a better term, fine. It just seems to me that because I wasn't lucky enough to stumble upon this stuff sooner rather than later, its effected me differently than one learning about it gradually.

I don't understand this attitude that there was some limit on knowledge that you thought was somehow met by what you had already been told. How could there not be some more information out there somewhere? How can any field of knowledge be completely known? How can anyone believe they know it all so that there isn't anything left worthwhile to study?

During all my years from baptism onward, I certainly did read and learn, but always chose books to better myself, or help with scripture study, or with all they myriad categories offered at Deseret Book, but because I never had any reason to doubt history, I never delved in further. I really hope thats something you can understand and there is absolutely no way, I agree, that we could ever finish studying all the different aspects not only of Mormonism but Christianity, along with living our lives. I am a voracious reader but there is no way I could make a dent in all thats out there, and I guess I just chose different topics, but I stand by my assertion that if I had been directed by someone I trusted to delve into the type C history, or to even be made aware that it existed, I would have definitely studied it out. There were plenty of non member friends during my conversion process who tried to "warn" me and give me things, but I heeded what I'd been told by members. How can you fault me for that?

.

It seems to me the difference between someone like you and someone like me is while both of us didn't know that anything of worth was out there, I decided to go and look for myself to find out if this was true and you didn't bother to even think about it and possibly relied on what you thought others had told you.

I'm offended by that. You make the assumption that I didn't labor over this decision to join the Church. Why if what I read that was given to me by Church members told me it was true do you think I should have looked elsewhere. That's ridiculous. I trusted these people. I felt what they told me was true, and I believe to the best of their knowledge they believed it. They were products of the curriculum they were teaching or products of the "milk before meat" mentality. I thought about it for 3 years before I joined. You have no idea the study and prayer that went into my decision to leave the Catholic church at 19 and join a Church that my parents objected to.

I don't see how that decision of yours not to go exploring in any uncharted territory (not even trying from the faithful side of things) can be laid on the Church or any member of the Church besides yourself.

I'm sorry you don't see it that way. All I can say is that if during the course of my missionary discussions, that I went through 3 times, somewhere, in this great presentation someone would have said, "Hey, we would like you to really look into all we've told you and pray about it, in addition to some of the historical hiccups here." Why wouldn't I have done that? It may have been more grueling, the process, to decide if the Church were true or not, and I may have decided, at that time, it wasn't, but I may have worked ithrough like you have and been fine with it. I WASN'T GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY!!!!!!!! Obviously, I feel very strongly about that, as do you, from your persepective. I accept that your reality was extremely different from mine. I'm honestly glad for you and others like you that you are able to work it all out, and you have a strong testimony. I wish there were less blame and more understanding from the folks who seem to just want to blame us for something we really aren't at fault for.

I am a bit unclear though about what you are complaining about---is it just that you weren't directed to a larger area of study prior to making your decision about baptism or does your complaint include all the years after it to some event (and if so, could you identify at what point if any you think the Church no longer held the responsibility for motivating you into personal research)?

During my time of study when I was young it was a lot of comparison of Mormon vs. Catholocism, because that's what I knew. What got me to truly study the historical issues was when a close member of my family, my sister in law, a convert whom I was instrumental in fellowshipping, left because of things she was finding out. At first I found her accusations incredible and false, as did my husband, a life long member who had served a mission in the early 80's. The more I delved into the things that perhaps you knew from studying those books on your parents shelves, I just became dismayed, and find myself trying to work it out in this new mindset.

[Daniel Peterson]

Again, I think that those who are still believers in Jesus and the New Testament, yet who somehow imagine that conversion to Mormonism should come only after a kind of lengthy seminar in history, should contemplate the nature of conversion in the gospels.

Jesus says to Galilean fisherman who've barely met him "Come, follow me!" And the same virtually instant conversion occurs multiple times throughout Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Did they know everything about Jesus' teaching when they signed on (for what would, in many cases, ultimately prove their deaths)? Scarcely. Had they researched his biography? If so, there's no evidence for that in the New Testament.

[Calm]

Again, I think that goes to what Dr. Peterson says that you were exposed to the type "C" history, and so it never felt hidden to you.

You seem to miss my point that the only reason I was "exposed" to C history was because I went looking for something else when I didn't even know "C" history existed. I read because I was interested in learning, not because I thought there was some different level of history out there...heck, I hated church history at that time and would have dropped a book in a moment if I thought it was teaching that. It just happened that I picked up this stuff because I like to learn and read. I read the Brodie book and a few other biographies because I wanted to know more doctrine and thought they might have some information on perspectives and beliefs in the early church. I would have managed to do it even if it wasn't on my family's shelf because I used the public library as well as always checking out people's books when I accompanied my parents on any visits. And then there was always the ward library books.

I would seriously like to know how many of those at the "C" level as believers were led to this history by others instead of stumbling on the path on their own, at least at first (eventually they probably got to know enough to know what they were actually looking at and who to talk to about it, lol). Most of the people who I've heard describe their journey, it's been much like mine, realding everything around you to begin with and then slowly narrowing your choices as you become more familiar with the topic so you are more efficient at learning).

During all my years from baptism onward, I certainly did read and learn, but always chose books to better myself, or help with scripture study, or with all they myriad categories offered at Deseret Book, but because I never had any reason to doubt history, I never delved in further.

I never "delved" into history either, I just picked it up as a by product. What was apparently different between you and I is that I felt it was important to understand my own beliefs and positions and one of the ways I figured out doing this was to contrast them to others so I read outside the Church produced texts. No one directed me to this, it was something I figured out probably from doing comparative literature studies in school as well as being fascinated by mythology as a child which grew into an interest in other religions as I got older.

You make the assumption that I didn't labor over this decision to join the Church. Why if what I read that was given to me by Church members told me it was true do you think I should have looked elsewhere.

No, I don't make that assumption. I just make the assumption that you made the choice not to labour in the area that you are complaining about and blaming on someone else now....apparently because you made the bizarre--to me--assumption that there wasn't anything of value left to know in that particular topic just because people didn't direct you that there might be more to learn in that area. I'm not talking about studying to find out if it was true or not, I'm talking about studying to find more information. For some reason it seems you thought there was no more historical info out there that was worth your time, yet you claim that this was important enough for you at the time that additional information might have changed your decision to join the church. There's a disconnect here that I don't understand.

I'm sorry you don't see it that way. All I can say is that if during the course of my missionary discussions, that I went through 3 times, somewhere, in this great presentation someone would have said, "Hey, we would like you to really look into all we've told you and pray about it, in addition to some of the historical hiccups here." Why wouldn't I have done that?

I will repost something I added on to my post above: another quick thought about why I don't "get it". I was 17 (only one year older than when you started investigating the church) when I went to college. I let my dad talk me into changing my major from my life long dream of physics and astronomy to electrical engineering because he told me it would be likely I couldn't get a job in the first field. I believed him and never bothered to check the reality of the situation which is with my background and academics and the fact I was female, I would have been practically guaranteed, I never tried at all...not even when I came to the decision that I wasn't interested enough in EE to make it my career and so I switched majors. Do I blame him for misleading me? For not taking more time to make sure I was on the right road when he knew I was extremely shy and reluctant to engage with strangers so it was almost a guarantee that I would take the easy way out here and just assume he was right, yet he left me completely on my own except for this one 'counsel' and didn't even support me in this area after I made the choice either? Perpetuating a 'fraud' (though unknowingly) on me?

Not hardly even though at the time I didn't know how to find this out and no one provided any direction to me on how to go about it and I was too scared to do it on my own, it wasn't even just a lack of interest that was my obstacle but an emotional problem my father was well aware of, yet chose to do nothing about. While I wish we all had been smarter back then, I don't blame him one bit or hold him the least bit responsible for the dramatic change in my life that resulted. It was my decision not to make any effort to check to see if what he told me was accurate and complete, the only responsibility I see here is mine. It was my life, it was my responsibility to study and make my own informed choices rather than relying on someone else to do the thinking for me.

So I understand how easy it is to fall into this passiveness of not doing something because no one bothered to push you in the right direction, I just don't understand why it's anyone else's responsibility but my own that I did or your own that you did.

And I can guarantee that my choice to change my majors without checking for myself to see if the information I was given was accurate enough was almost as life changing as was your choice to join the LDS faith based on your own choice not to study the background of what you were learning more thoroughly than what was being given to you.

I wasn't "given the opportunity" either. I took the opportunity in the one case of studying about the Church and in other the other, I choose not to take it and I take full responsibility for both decisions.

I wish there were less blame and more understanding from the folks who seem to just want to blame us for something we really aren't at fault for.

And this from someone who is throwing blame on to others about her own personal decisions in her life?

I'm not blaming you for not looking. We all make those kinds of decisions in our life, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad. What I "blame" you for is trying to shift the responsibility to someone else, to the Church, to the missionaries, to the Bishop, to everyone but yourself who chose not to pick up that book, not to devote your time, not to study more in depth something that you say now was very important to you and yet you let others 'make' the decisions for you and now still seem to be wanting to shift the burden of responsibility for your life to others besides yourself.

[RDL]

I've suggested the same thing several times, and RDL appears to be comfortable with the idea. So, yes, that does appear to be something like his position.

So you were under the impression that everybody outside the Church accepted the divine origin of the Pearl of Great Price???

So the Catholic Church has to devote something on the order of equal time to teaching anti-Catholicism?

Sorry. I think that's absurd.

That's a very, very different matter. In your hypothetical case, the Church of Scientology would have incontrovertible proof of the falsehood of its claims. You may think that such proof exists in the case of Mormonism, but I don't, and I'm quite confident that the leadership of the Church doesn't share your opinion, either. So we're not taking about revealing definitive evidence of fraud, but of turning Church curriculum and classroom instruction over to its critics.

I never said the church has a duty to give equal time or any forum to those who disagree with it. And I never said it's fraud for the church not to teach every bit of history and doctrine. I only said that when the church has or discovers information that it knows or should know might be material for some deciding whether to be a Mormon, it should have a duty to disclose that information. In the example I gave, I think the church had an obligation to make me aware of the discovery of the papyrus, because obviously that could affect whether I believe the Pearl of Great Price is scripture.

And I do think the Abraham/papyrus issue by itself is more conclusive proof of the falsity of Smith as a prophet than the L. Ron Hubbard letter I offered would contravene Scientology.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

See, RDL, the trouble is you need to pay more attention. I specifically answered your hypothetical.

Viva la snake oil!

Is the use of viva to remind me of your prowess in several languages? Or is it just a tired cliche?

[LifeOnaPlate]

And I do think the Abraham/papyrus issue by itself is more conclusive proof of the falsity of Smith as a prophet than the L. Ron Hubbard letter I offered would contravene Scientology.

This has to be the 5th time I've mentioned that you have demonstrated absolutely zero knowledge on that subject.

[Daniel Peterson]

I only said that when the church has or discovers information that it knows or should know might be material for some deciding whether to be a Mormon, it should have a duty to disclose that information.

This might be plausible if the Church alone possessed the information.

In the historical disputes to which you primarily refer, however, the information is and has long been in the public domain.

In the example I gave, I think the church had an obligation to make me aware of the discovery of the papyrus, because obviously that could affect whether I believe the Pearl of Great Price is scripture.

Do you seriously believe that the Church hid the news of the discovery of the papyri?

That is, just to give you a hint, flatly untrue.

And I do think the Abraham/papyrus issue by itself is more conclusive proof of the falsity of Smith as a prophet than the L. Ron Hubbard letter I offered would contravene Scientology.

I suspect you really mean that.

[Calm]

Another similar situation...

My parents invited into their house an LDS family that they thought would be great companions as leasers, my parents moving into a converted garage on the same property. Ever see Pacific Heights with Michael Keaton at the psycho? Well, not quite so bad...there were no attempts on their lives, but the house was getting destroyed in front of their eyes and they were treated...well, let's just say they didn't move out only because they would have risked losing all their investment (which was likely most of their savings) if they had. It was a horrible, horrible time.

Well, after this had gone on for awhile, they reported it to someone at church as rumours were being spread about them by this family and they felt the need to set the record straight. Turned out that this family had caused some other similar problems elsewhere in the past and the local leadership were well aware of it BEFORE they had moved into my parents' house, yet they had not warned my parents off...apparently in hopes that times had changed things and that the family would live up to the commitments they made and everything would work out for the best.

Did my parents blame the leadership for not informing them of the possibility that they would be defrauded by these people? They had a long time acquaintance with the family in the ward some time back and assumed that what they appeared to be was what they really were. And no one gave them reason to doubt this. IOW, there was no direction from anyone that there was any history out there that might be beneficial for them to study before taking this major step even though there was no doubt looking back that the information was there and known beforehand. In this case, there were others who knew there had been problems and chose to ignore them on my parents' behalf. It wasn't even that they weren't aware of them themselves, though perhaps they should have been.

What was my parents' reaction? They blamed themselves for not doing a background check and just relying on this family's say-so. They chalked it up to one of life's learning moments and moved on and I don't believe I've ever heard a word about it since except when I ask my mom where is something that I remember from my childhood and she has to reply it was lost, stolen or destroyed by this family...and the only emotion that is present in her eyes and voice is one of regret that it wasn't the dream she had hoped it would be, but there is no blame in her or my dad for anyone else's part in it.

I guess with examples like this in my life (and there are many), it's naturally hard for me to understand the justification of putting the responsibility of one's choices on others, even when their actions or lack of it made a significant difference in the direction one's life takes.

[Calm]

In the example I gave, I think the church had an obligation to make me aware of the discovery of the papyrus, because obviously that could affect whether I believe the Pearl of Great Price is scripture.

What do you think the Church should do in this case? Perhaps publish the information in a church magazine? Would that be a good idea?

[RDL]

What do you think the Church should do in this case? Perhaps publish the information in a church magazine? Would that be a good idea?

I am aware that the church did not attempt to hide the discovery of the papyrus. I suspect the church didn't have the ability to hide it, or it would have tried, a la Hoffman. But in 19 years of full activity in the church and 3 weeks at the MTC and at least some time in the mission field, I never heard a thing about it.

And as to the response some might give that the church doesn't have an obligation to put the Ensign article right in front of my face, let's just say I disagree. The duty to disclose (under the law, if the church was bound by it) obligates one to impart information, not to publish information in a magazine and hope I happen to get my hands on it.

And Life On A Plate, this thread isn't really about whether the Book of Abraham is scripture. The various arguments for and against, I'm sure, have been argued to death on these boards, and rehashing it would serve no purpose.

[jerryp48]

The duty to disclose (under the law, if the church was bound by it) obligates one to impart information, not to publish information in a magazine and hope I happen to get my hands on it.

Sorry I couldn't help myself. I just had to cite my favorite DCP quote.

Here is a possible rewrite of an early Christian missionary approach, providing a more full account of the controversies surrounding the apostolic witness:

"Hi folks. My name is Peter. I am an eyewitness of the resurrection of Jesus. I saw him alive, after I had seen him killed. However, as mandated by the rules of full disclosure and in accordance with best historiographical practices, I need to point out that my credibility as a witness has been questioned. I may be entirely insane. (Who am I to say?) Worse, I have serious character issues. I assaulted a young temple servant in the Garden of Gethsemane, for instance, intending to kill him with my sword. I lied about knowing Jesus in order to protect myself from possible harm. (Even friendly sources admit these things.) I was really, really upset by the death of Jesus and the disappointment of our messianic hopes -- we had given up our lucrative fish business in Capernaum and devoted three full years to following Jesus around as vagrant religious fanatics without productive jobs (Jesus promised me and my brothers a rich pay-off if we did, so you shouldn't forget the self-interest angle here), and you can imagine the psychic shock we experienced when he was suddenly killed -- so it's possible that I merely imagined Jesus' postmortem appearances. Wish-fulfillment, and all that. (I've read my Freud!) And, to cap it all, I'm a primitive ancient person, absolutely awash in pre-scientific superstitions, from a provincial backwater town in a provincial backwater country, with virtually no education. Would you buy a used car from me? Anyway, though, as I was saying: I'm an eyewitness. I saw, or claim I saw, or think I saw, Jesus, in some form, alive, in some sense, after he was possibly dead. (What am I? A doctor? [You and my Jewish mother!] You think we maybe had electroencephalographs or even scientifically rigorous definitions of death in 33 AD?) If you believe what I'm telling you, the Roman authorities aren't gonna like it. Well, that's all for now, folks. It's hard to talk, upside down on a cross like this. Fortunately, some rabbinic anti-Christian tracts have fallen out of my pockets. Feel free to read them. And if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask them: I've probably only got an hour or two of consciousness left."

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am aware that the church did not attempt to hide the discovery of the papyrus. I suspect the church didn't have the ability to hide it, or it would have tried, a la Hoffman. But in 19 years of full activity in the church and 3 weeks at the MTC and at least some time in the mission field, I never heard a thing about it.

CFR on your implication regarding "Hoffman." Thanks.

And as to the response some might give that the church doesn't have an obligation to put the Ensign article right in front of my face, let's just say I disagree. The duty to disclose (under the law, if the church was bound by it) obligates one to impart information, not to publish information in a magazine and hope I happen to get my hands on it.

You're right. That is the critical issue. By law the Church ought to go to each member in every nation and ensure they are familiar with a few opinions regarding the Book of Abraham. Good call.

And Life On A Plate, this thread isn't really about whether the Book of Abraham is scripture. The various arguments for and against, I'm sure, have been argued to death on these boards, and rehashing it would serve no purpose.

And you wouldn't be prepared to do so, anyway.

[mnn727]

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?

The crime does not come in until later when you first read anti-material and then believed it and not those feelings and impressions. When you first read something that threw you for a loop, why didn't you comptely research both sides?

Let me give you a real life example from my life. The first time I went to the Temple I was not prepared for what happened there, but since I knew everything else I had learned prior to that was true, that the problems I was facing with the Temple ceremony was because I didn't know enough about it. I then set out to research everything I could on the Temple (this is before the days of the internet) and while it took me a while but I eventually found my answers (the answer was that the ceremony is symbolic and its the Covenants made that are important - and mankinds symbols change over time to reflect their; beliefs, worldview and customs).

See, I trusted my past experiences to see me through a troubling problem and then did honest research to solve my issues

[mnn727]

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.

As has been said by many people in many different posts, your $100 bottle of Miracle water is irrelavent to your discussion, but since you really want someone to answer Personally IMHO 'let the buyer beware' applies- or as another saying goes, 'fool me once -shame on you, fool me twice - shame on me.' Or in other words- check both sides of the claims before you 'jump in', I did - but then from what you and others posted I must be much much smarter than the average Ex-Mormon who claims they were deceived by the Church, since I was smart enough to do my own research, both pro and anti, before being baptised.

[mnn727]

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? .

Because we all found the 'C' type material on our own (in most cases told here we found it in the days before the internet)

[mnn727]

And I do think the Abraham/papyrus issue by itself is more conclusive proof of the falsity of Smith as a prophet than the L. Ron Hubbard letter I offered would contravene Scientology.

Obviously then you have only research the Anti-side of the argument - why do you think it is that others (smart - coleege educated people) who also have heard of the Abraham/papyrus issue have not issues with it. Do you think they are stupid? blind? -- perhaps its merely that they have done honest research on the subject and not believed what the first anti-mormon told them.

[Free Agent]

What do you think the Church should do in this case? Perhaps publish the information in a church magazine? Would that be a good idea?

I think a good start would be to include some of these things in the Preach My Gospel handbook given to the missionaries, and that every member is suggested to have. Granted, members may not read it but the missionaries would.

[Free Agent]

The crime does not come in until later when you first read anti-material and then believed it and not those feelings and impressions. When you first read something that threw you for a loop, why didn't you comptely research both sides?

As far as researching both sides, my goodness, I have already been over this. I researched for 3 years before I left Catholocism and never came across this stuff. That is the issue. It should be more accessible. People should talk about it. When I came across this stuff it was, quite frankly, shocking. It all goes to the innoculation theory that's been talked about. I am still researching this, just like you did the temple, which you said took you awhile. The point of this whole thread is about all truth, and I still maintain, as a few others do here, that we should have heard or at least been directed to these truths that we are now having to grapple with.

[Free Agent]

Because we all found the 'C' type material on our own (in most cases told here we found it in the days before the internet)

And I understand that some people do find that on their own, but their are plenty of people who are posting all over the place who have had the same experience that I did. I've already said this, my own husband, his siblings. They didn't know this stuff and grew up in an incredibly active family. So I do acknowledge that some people happen upon it, or its a result of their inquisitveness, or the books in their parent's home, etc, etc.

The problem for me is that you are holding the same standard for yourself to me. Just because I didn't find it on my own doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked to know about it and once aware of it I would have then started studying it.

[Greg Smith]

I am aware that the church did not attempt to hide the discovery of the papyrus. I suspect the church didn't have the ability to hide it, or it would have tried, a la Hoffman. But in 19 years of full activity in the church and 3 weeks at the MTC and at least some time in the mission field, I never heard a thing about it.

And as to the response some might give that the church doesn't have an obligation to put the Ensign article right in front of my face, let's just say I disagree. The duty to disclose (under the law, if the church was bound by it) obligates one to impart information, not to publish information in a magazine and hope I happen to get my hands on it.

The Ensign didn't exist when the papyri were discovered. But, the Improvement Era did.

You can see a timeline of the discovery of the papyri and its analysis by a Church publication here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Search_for_the_Tr...Book_of_Abraham

You can also see a scan of the IE.

Those who can't read it, can see the full-size scan here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Search_for_the_Tr...ll_size_zoom%29

The attentive reader will note the large, bold-faced type for those not so inclined to read the whole text. Nibley's work was, of course, reprinted and remains in print via FARMS, as well in on-line databases like Deseret Book's http://gospelink.com.

Since the papyri was admitted to have nothing to do with the English Book of Abraham (save Facs #1), I'm not sure why the Church would have continued to push the issue. To argue this was hidden, though, is just silly.

Greg

[jwhitlock]

Free Agent:

As far as researching both sides, my goodness, I have already been over this. I researched for 3 years before I left Catholocism and never came across this stuff. That is the issue. It should be more accessible. People should talk about it. When I came across this stuff it was, quite frankly, shocking. It all goes to the innoculation theory that's been talked about. I am still researching this, just like you did the temple, which you said took you awhile. The point of this whole thread is about all truth, and I still maintain, as a few others do here, that we should have heard or at least been directed to these truths that we are now having to grapple with.

The LDS posters on this board continue to note that much of this is available and very accessible, even from Church sources such as the Ensign, and yet we continue to have people come and complain that they couldn't find things in their research.

One gets the impression that either their research methods are shockingly sloppy, or that what they are saying in effect is that the Church should have been required to wave all of this stuff under their nose, individually, based on individual preferences.

It's absolutely ridiculous.