Only part of the truth

[David T]

Can anyone (Z? Scottie?) Please list a Church doctrine that is presently required for one's salvation and exaltation that is not being currently taught in an official capacity? This really is the crux of the matter.

[selek]

Well selek, you have proven to contribute nothing of any value in this discussion in quite a number of posts.

Value, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

The same condemnation you levelled at me could easily apply to your last 735 posts.

That having been said, I at least am capable of original thought.

As noted, you're simply vomiting up the same tripe generated by others, and trying to pass it off as somehow new and exciting instead of trite and recycled.

What value has an echo? What forethought, what identity?

None. It is simply empty noise.

Really- have you discovered (in your spiritual journey) even one singularly unique criticism of the Church?

Have you discovered even one point of contention that hasn't been addressed by far better men (on either side) than you or I?

Have you found even one issue that you didn't lap from the bowl of another, disaffected apostate?

To quote Bogart, "I don't mind a parasite- but I object to a cut-rate one."

So far, you've been nothing but a mouthpiece for the complaints and agitation of others.

Have you even a single thought on the Church that is uniquely your own?

[Ahab]

Something in the back of my mind keeps saying "The full truth; nothing but the truth."

What that has to do with growing closer to Christ is.... well, I guess I need to think about this.

As far as my own personal disclosure of details to someone judging my worthiness? Maybe I need to consider a different approach than what church correlation does for my own personal reasons.

Try looking at it like this:

In the Church, there are certain people who do what your refer to as "judging your worthiness", and they do that by asking you certain questions and then telling you what they think of your answers.

But YOU are the one who gives them the information whereby they judge your worthiness, according to Church standards, and you are also the one who determines whether or not you approve of what they tell you as they judge whether or not you are living up to Church standards, so in effect, you are also judging them and their judgment of you based only upon what you tell them.

Savy?

All you have to do is be as honest with them as you expect them to be honest with you, which shouldn't offend anyone, because each of you would be as honest as each of you knows how to be.

[selek]

I thought MA&DB prided itself on being the nob hill of the Mormon boards? (as opposed to the GSTP??)

And nothing said here today in any way undermines the pride MADB rightfully takes in its level of discourse.

We remain a veritable Shangri-La compared to the eight ring of hell which is the Shady Rest.

I will match any one of my posts- no matter how vituperative- against anything Paul Osborne, Scratch, Shades, or several others have said.

That having been established, I weary of your attempt to derail this thread and to besmirch MADB in favor of your brethren at the Shady Rest.

The facts speak for themselves.

[USU78]

There's an old legal maxim: "De minimis non curat lex." "The law does not concern itself with trifles."

Seems to me the OP's argument here is in de minimis land.

[Scottie]

Can anyone (Z? Scottie?) Please list a Church doctrine that is presently required for one's salvation and exaltation that is not being currently taught in an official capacity? This really is the crux of the matter.

As I said... can you please point me to a "church doctrine"?? I have no idea what is or is not a doctrine?

Just because the apologists have determined that past teachings are "no long necessary for salvation" doesn't make it so. There are a LOT of past teaching that are no longer taught. Whose to say those aren't still needed?

Also, you are asking people to make eternal decision on the truthfulness of a religion without giving them all the information to make such an important decision. If God really cares about which religion you belong to (which, if there is a God, I SERIOUSLY doubt that He would), I would say it matters a great deal to your salvation and exaltation if you are in a false church, wouldn't you?

[Scottie]

That having been established, I weary of your attempt to derail this thread and to besmirch MADB in favor of your brethren at the Shady Rest.

Fair enough. I've said my peace and will speak no more of it.

[zeezrom]

Can anyone (Z? Scottie?) Please list a Church doctrine that is presently required for one's salvation and exaltation that is not being currently taught in an official capacity? This really is the crux of the matter.

I appreciate your calm and composed question. I will try my best to address it. Forgive my thoughts as they are not well organized, just coming off the top of my head.

I have come to appreciate the fact that Joseph Smith is just a man like any other with faults and strengths of his own. We all can agree on that, right? I have come to a conclusion that I don't need Joseph Smith to find salvation. I am currently on a search for God and salvation/peace through him/her/whatever. It makes sense to me that Christ may have truly provided a way for us to find salvation. Does more than one road exist for us to find our way? Was Joseph Smith correct? Is he important to me and why? I need to find out about this man because he proposes a path to salvation. But Christ is still what really matters in our path, isn't he? But if we are to conform to what Joseph Smith said to do, then it is important to see if he was telling us the truth. This is why I want the details. The message I taught as a missionary is not enough to tell me who Joseph Smith was. I need to see much more to get an idea of what the message was.

I need to scrutinize the messenger, though he was just a man. It shouldn't matter though, because what matters is that we strive for the basics, right?

[Ahab]

I have come to appreciate the fact that Joseph Smith is just a man like any other with faults and strengths of his own. We all can agree on that, right?

I agree with that, and he had many strengths that I would also like to have, regardless of what his faults were.

I have come to a conclusion that I don't need Joseph Smith to find salvation.

Try asking yourself if you need to know some of the truths he knew about the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Hint: the correct answer is: you do.

I am currently on a search for God and salvation/peace through him/her/whatever.

Good idea.

Try preparing yourself for God someday telling you that he speaks through prophets, including Joseph Smith.

It makes sense to me that Christ may have truly provided a way for us to find salvation. Does more than one road exist for us to find our way? Was Joseph Smith correct? Is he important to me and why? I need to find out about this man because he proposes a path to salvation.

Those are some very good questions, zeezrom.

I suggest you keep looking for the answers until the day when God finally answers them for you.

But Christ is still what really matters in our path, isn't he?

Yes, he is, but try to understand the fact that Jesus Christ also speaks to us through prophets, and that the way we find out when a man is a prophet is by God telling us that the man is a prophet of God while assuring us of the truths the man is preaching.

But if we are to conform to what Joseph Smith said to do, then it is important to see if he was telling us the truth.

Right.

This is why I want the details. The message I taught as a missionary is not enough to tell me who Joseph Smith was. I need to see much more to get an idea of what the message was.

Interesting.

A man who was once a missionary (you) is now an investigator who is now trying to discover if what the missionaries are preaching is true.

Oh, well. Even though you didn't know then, when you were a missionary, you can still find out now, if you want to. Just do what all missionaries are supposed to tell investigators to do to find out what the truth is.

I need to scrutinize the messenger, though he was just a man. It shouldn't matter though, because what matters is that we strive for the basics, right?

Wrong, zeezrom. Scrutinizing the messenger is not the way to find out if his message was true.

You're supposed to ask God to confirm the truth to you, personally.

You need faith from God, man.

Keep asking God to give you his assurance until he tells you what the truth is.

... OR, if God has already told you what the truth is, just put your trust in what God has told you.

[zeezrom]

...snip

You need faith from God, man.

Keep asking God to give you his assurance until he tells you what the truth is.

... OR, if God has already told you what the truth is, just put your trust in what God has told you.

To make sure I'm not accused of ignoring good answers, I will post a response.

Thank your for your thoughts. True, I was a missionary. You think I didn't "know" but I really did. Do you think I would have dedicated my life to the cause otherwise?

I have no choice but to scrutinize the messenger and his message (Joseph Smith). I can't let him go. Here are the items I can't let go of (in order of importance starting with most important), which hold me back (in case it matters to anyone, which may not be the case):

1. Nature of God: My problem understanding the preexistence and the role of humanity in it and the Mormon view of the Godhead within the context of an all knowing, all powerful God that created everything; My problem with the Mormon view of salvation for humanity and the afterlife.

2. Book of Abraham - mainly dealing with characters like Shulem and the black slave etc.

3. Book of Mormon evidence, anachronisms, mode of translation (peep stones freak me out)

4. Polygamy

5. Outward ordinances (like garments) being the indicator or worthiness

6. Tithing - paying for things I don't see as resonating with my view of goodness (not saying my view is best but is is mine)

[Ahab]

You think I didn't "know" but I really did. Do you think I would have dedicated my life to the cause otherwise?

If you knew the truth then, then you still know the truth now, unless for some reason you have forgotten.

I'm here to remind you, zeezrom. The truth doesn't change. What you knew was true then is still true.

I have no choice but to scrutinize the messenger and his message (Joseph Smith). I can't let him go.

Hogwash.

You should choose to believe what God told you is true, because that's what really matters, even if other people don't agree with what God has told you.

Here are the items I can't let go of (in order of importance starting with most important), which hold me back (in case it matters to anyone, which may not be the case):

Hogwash, again.

Whatever your questions are concerning the things you don't know, there are still some things you know that you can continue to rely on, with God as your witness.

1. Nature of God: My problem understanding the preexistence and the role of humanity in it and the Mormon view of the Godhead within the context of an all knowing, all powerful God that created everything; My problem with the Mormon view of salvation for humanity and the afterlife.

2. Book of Abraham - mainly dealing with characters like Shulem and the black slave etc.

3. Book of Mormon evidence, anachronisms, mode of translation (peep stones freak me out)

4. Polygamy

5. Outward ordinances (like garments) being the indicator or worthiness

6. Tithing - paying for things I don't see as resonating with my view of goodness (not saying my view is best but is is mine)

Get over it, zeezrom, and stick to what really matters.

There will always be things you don't know, while in mortality, but along with those are the things that you do know if God has told you what the truth is, so if God has told you some things which are true as you seem to be claiming he has, then just rely on what God has told you.

Try making a list of what God has told you, rather than making a list of what you don't know (yet).

[Nemesis]

Zeezrom is an apostate with only two goals in mind:

1) to justify his apostacy in his own mind,

and

2) to spread his disaffection among those not inoculated against his poison.

No reasonable person would hold any other to the arbitrary and impossibly high standard of disclosure.

If, by some miracle of God, it WERE possible for the Church to prise open his skull with a can-opener and pour in every minor factoid of the last two thousand years, Zeezrom and the other sons of perdition would be leading the charge accusing the Church of brainwashing and indoctrination....

....oh....wait. He already DOES.

According to the gotcha arguments Zeezrom and his ilk champion, the Church is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

Zeezrom, on the other hand, is simply damned.

Having a discussion does not include attacking the poster. Knock it off.

Nemesis

[Obiwan]

On the Gospel Principles of www.lds.org, there is a page that covers the subject of honesty.

It says, (Bold is mine)

Upon learning some of the history of the church, I felt as if the church only ever intended to give me a portion of the truth and nothing more. I'm certain I could live my whole life without ever finding all the truth unless I veered off the beaten path of correlation and put in the effort to search in locations that I was told I should not go. I have close relatives (who are much older than me) who know nothing about much of church historic events.

Are you telling us the Church tells you NOT to read LDS Scholarship???

You are "encoraged" to avoid "anti-mormonism", not banned. But LDS scholarship addresses all the issues. The Church certainly doesn't tell you to avoid those. You seem to be under the false impression that "the truth" can only be found in anti-mormonism. You are wrong.

You should learn to not confuse the "elementary" level of scholarship that is shared on a Sunday, when the Church doesn't even have time to get into the Gospel as much as it should, with somehow "not" trying to be "honest" with you.

Is the church being honest? If so, how?

The "basic" story the Church tells does not conflict with the FULL FACTS, thus, of course the Church is being honest.

Why does the church not incorporate apologia into their website www.lds.org for people that have questions? Why does correlation distance itself from the apologists? Are there apologists out there who wish the church would be more inclusive of your work?

Thank you.

1. If the Church actually was in the "apologist" game, LDS would be even "more" accused of being "brainwashed" and blinded by the Church as to "what to think". I find the separation between Church and State (figuratively speaking) actually a good thing.

2. The Church being concerned with it's 3 fold mission is where it should be concerned with.

3. The Church does sometimes answer some things usually by referencing LDS Scholars and Apologists, if there is a major issue at play, such as DNA and the BOM etc.

4. "Scholarly" pursuits is not where everyone's interests reside. The "basics" are more often than not enough for most people. The Church is concerned with trying to get us united and perfected with the basics of the Gospel and otherwise. Those, who need more, certainly have the avenues they can pursue.

A possible "improvement" by the Church might be to have a policy in place to actually "refer" members to books, scholarship, apologetics, etc. so as to "help" with those members who need "more", rather than on their reading some anti-mormon junk with no "preparation" or counter with what the actual facts are.

We and the Church are always trying to "improve". Nothing wrong with that. But, the Church has no need to get into the "minutia" of irrelevant subjects.

[wenglund]

Zeezrom,

Before looking into your complaint about the portion of the "truth" the Church supposedly hasn't disclosed, could you please let us know how many of the stacks and stacks of books and other material published by the Church that you have read cover-to-cover? In other words, could you tell us what proportion you have read of the truths the Church has disclosed?

I ask because it seems that if you are going to stand in judgement of the Church and question its honesty for what it supposedly hasn't disclosed, it's only fair that you be judged by what you haven't read of what the Church has disclosed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[handys003]

On the Gospel Principles of www.lds.org, there is a page that covers the subject of honesty.

It says, (Bold is mine)

Quote

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel:

[MorningStar]

I still don't see anything being withheld. I take a crap at least once or twice a day. They're not pretty, but it's a part of life. If when giving a review of my day I leave out the defecation, does that mean I'm being dishonest and withholding information? Does that mean I'm misleading people by teaching that I've never taken a dump?

Sorry to be crass, but seriously.

I'm disappointed in you. By not mentioning it previously, you led me to believe that you have problems getting enough fiber in your diet.

[volgadon]

Well, I know that other religions require a serious study of their religion before they will let you join!

Which religions require a serious study of their history and of every single controversial or misunderstood statement by leaders of the past before they will let you join?

[LinuxGal]

Just because the apologists have determined that past teachings are "no long necessary for salvation" doesn't make it so.

Do they really say that? Because it would fly in the face of the concept of a deposit of faith "which was once delivered unto the saints" as Jude puts it. Or "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away" as Jesus puts it.

[USU78]

Do they really say that? Because it would fly in the face of the concept of a deposit of faith "which was once delivered unto the saints" as Jude puts it. Or "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away" as Jesus puts it.

We Mormons may be guilty of many sins, individually and corporately. Bibliolotry is not one of them.

Don't see why what the Master may say at one moment in time, "Practice polygyny till I tell you stop"; should be deemed to "pass away" when He later says, "Your sacrifice is acceptable to me. Time to stop."

[volgadon]

You are severely misrepresenting Jude's words on the moral behaviour the saints are supposed to be faithful to.

[Hamba Tuhan]

ALL communication is '[o]nly part of the truth.' In order to communicate everything knowable about Church history would require a longer timespan than that which the actual history itself occupied. I'm a historian, and this is a basic principle of writing history. As the philosopher Jos

[MDalby]

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church

shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon

, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

(D&C 42:12)

[Deborah]

it is that your personal but equally narrow list of what matters--based upon your individual agenda and, at least in part, containing 'facts' which are highly contested--be taught or else the Church is guilty of dishonesty--a position which is inherently dishonest.

And I think this is why so much of our learning is our responsibility. Most people really are not interested in history, either of their country or the church, which is sad because I think both have a lot to teach us. Those who are interested can find the information and the lesson is much more valuable if they do the seeking themselves.

I wonder when Zeezrom actually became interested in the history of the church. Was it when he started becoming disaffected and was looking for reasons to leave the church? I find that many apostates aren't serious about looking at these things until after they decide the church isn't what they want.

[zeezrom]

I wonder when Zeezrom actually became interested in the history of the church. Was it when he started becoming disaffected and was looking for reasons to leave the church? I find that many apostates aren't serious about looking at these things until after they decide the church isn't what they want.

You are right. I did not even know the book ISL, mormon enigma, nauvoo polygamy, rough stone rolling, etc existed until after I found out about Fanny Alger.

[thesometimesaint]

zeezrom:

Tell me EVERYTHING you know. I have a minute.