Only part of the truth

[Scottie]

I tire of this strawman that critics are asking the church to tell EVERYTHING about it's history.

It's quite obvious that there are some significant parts which are quite purposely left out of the curriculum.

Again, back to my MLM example. Would you REALLY expect the MLM salesman to tell you EVERYTHING about himself? Or just the pertinent parts that would influence you decision to get involved with the company? If he left out significant details, might you be a bit upset? Would it make sense for this salesman then to come back to you and angrily say, "Oh, FINE!! Here, let me write down my entire life history for you!!!"

[Obiwan]

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

Boy, you need help if you still don't understand what constitutes "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?

Again, clealy because you don't understand what makes doctrine, you make false assumptions from such, such as this statement.

1. Not everything ever said by some Church leader has ever made such "doctrine". LDS leaders were often more "liberal" in sharing their opinions, so they sometimes said things that was only their opinions.

2. Many of the things you claim as doctrine are simply your perversion of their words or the history.

3. Why don't you tell us these "past teachings"??? I'm quite sure I know the ones you might list, but they never were doctrine, OR you simply don't know what actually was being taught, such as the supposed Adam/God and sex with Mary ideas. These ideas are of your own creation, not actually what was being taught.

4. Everything that was actually doctrine is still taught as doctrine. There are maybe a couple other "deeper" issues that we don't know a lot about, so they aren't "emphasised" anymore, but, they aren't emphasised not because they aren't doctrine, simply not emphasised because they aren't currently relevant, or as I said, little info on said subject.

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?

The problem with your statement is you are falsely assuming the Church or other LDS sources ARE NOT giving people all the "necessary" information to make a well enough informed decision. I'm not promoting this extreme, but do you even realize that if people simply READ THE SCRIPTURES more perfectly, they would fully understand every "controversy" related to the Church, without having to read a single piece of LDS scholarship or anti-mormonism??? Nearly every anti claim against us, the full facts can be found in the scriptures, be it Polygamy, what makes a Prophet, Priesthood issues, on and on.

Further, the problem is not the access to information. You simply want people to see "your" negative viewpoint of the Church, as if THAT viewpoint is really the "whole truth". Hate to tell you, but as someone who's been on all sides of the religious and believing non-believing spectrum, your current view IS NOT the "actual truth". It's a little more truth to make you dangerous (to yourself and others), but not enough to make you actually "truthful".

[Scottie]

Boy, you need help if you still don't understand what constitutes "doctrine".

Again, clealy because you don't understand what makes doctrine, you make false assumptions from such, such as this statement.

Yeah... because there is SO much consensus among believing LDS as to what doctrine is.

1. Not everything ever said by some Church leader has ever made such "doctrine". LDS leaders were often more "liberal" in sharing their opinions, so they sometimes said things that was only their opinions.

2. Many of the things you claim as doctrine are simply your perversion of their words or the history.

3. Why don't you tell us these "past teachings"??? I'm quite sure I know the ones you might list, but they never were doctrine, OR you simply don't know what actually was being taught, such as the supposed Adam/God and sex with Mary ideas. These ideas are of your own creation, not actually what was being taught.

4. Everything that was actually doctrine is still taught as doctrine. There are maybe a couple other "deeper" issues that we don't know a lot about, so they aren't "emphasised" anymore, but, they aren't emphasised not because they aren't doctrine, simply not emphasised because they aren't currently relevant, or as I said, little info on said subject.

Again, just because the apologists have taken it upon themselves to determine when a past prophet was speaking as a man or speaking as a prophet doesn't make it so. You have no authority to tell me which is which.

You don't know the context of Adam/God or sex with Mary any more than I do. For you to claim that I'm interpreting it wrong is, well, wrong.

The problem with your statement is you are falsely assuming the Church or other LDS sources ARE NOT giving people all the "necessary" information to make a well enough informed decision.

I suppose this is subjective from person to person. Some may feel they got all they needed from the missionaries. It would appear that most believe important information was withheld. Even LDS admit that they give "milk before meat", except they forget to ever give the meat.

I'm not promoting this extreme, but do you even realize that if people simply READ THE SCRIPTURES more perfectly, they would fully understand every "controversy" related to the Church, without having to read a single piece of LDS scholarship or anti-mormonism??? Nearly every anti claim against us, the full facts can be found in the scriptures, be it Polygamy, what makes a Prophet, Priesthood issues, on and on.

Oh BS. Just because the LDS skewed interpretations of the Bible "support" LDS beliefs doesn't mean that your interpretations are correct. Not only that, but LDS love to conveniently ignore the parts of the scriptures which blatantly go against LDS beliefs.

Further, the problem is not the access to information. You simply want people to see "your" negative viewpoint of the Church, as if THAT viewpoint is really the "whole truth". Hate to tell you, but as someone who's been on all sides of the religious and believing non-believing spectrum, your current view IS NOT the "actual truth". It's a little more truth to make you dangerous (to yourself and others), but not enough to make you actually "truthful".

What have I said that is a lie? It appears to me that LDS lie and take things out of context FAR more than most critics do. Granted, there are the Ed Deckers of the world which grandize to the extreme, but I would say they are in the minority.

[David T]

Even LDS admit that they give "milk before meat", except they forget to ever give the meat.

I'll repeat what I said to you above when you brought up your strange interpretation of milk before meat:

You consider difficult historical details meat? I don't think you understand those milk and meat scriptures.

The meat is taught in the temple. And it has nothing to do with mysterious translation methods, failed banking endeavors, or a Prophet attempting to defend himself when being murdered.

[Kevin Christensen]

You make some good points. I try to look at the church as a flawed organization with people in it who are trying to do what is right. That helps.

Maybe more trust can be given to the membership so we can see more put into the manuals.

One can hope. Which hope can go a long way.

Back when I lived in California, a lapsed member who had been done in by exposure to Tanner books, and who knew that I had read all of that material asked me, "How can you know what you know, and believe what you believe?"

Clearly it was not a matter of information speaking for itself, but of the perspective one has one it, especially including the rigidity or flexibility of background expectations. As Thomas Kuhn says, "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation." So whenever I find out anything I didn't expect, I not only look for more information to broaden my perspective, but I also re-examine my own background expectations, checking my own eye for motes.

To me "church" means what the original greek Ekklesia means. Assembly. That is, a bunch of people. I don't think of the institutional organizations, let alone a few people with titles, and who got jobs to write a manual or two, as "the church." Whether a manual was produced by a small committee or B. H. Roberts or Nibley, or J.F. Smith, no single manual encompasses the entire assembly. A manual is a pedagogical resource, written in a particular time and place to fill a particular need as perceived under specific conditions, which condition is NOT unlimited knowledge and resources. Not an official pronouncement for all time, let alone an omniscience pill to take once as directed. Keeping perspective on who said what and why, under what conditions, and why suppose that every manual is written by someone out to hide things, rather than someone with a finite perspective doing the best they can? That the institutional church is doing something like the Joseph Smith Paper's Project, and supported the Mountain Meadows book, among other things.

There was a very good article on the Institutional Church and the Individual in Sunstone that I found helpful. And subsequently, I've benefited from considering things like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in looking at divergent personalities in the church, and the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, which helps me see that different people are at different levels of development.

When I was a teenager, the Improvement Era spent years running a 29 part Nibley series on Book of Abraham issues. At the time, I didn't read a single one. Who is to blame for that? I remember walking through Deseret Book store on occasion, and seeing a shelf with The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanita Brooks. It was years before I got round to buying my own copy, but that is where I bought it. Just across the street from the temple. If I am honest with myself, I realize that the "church" never kept anything from me. Rather, as soon as I got some initiative and interest, I could find resources within the LDS community, eager and willing to share whatever information and opinions that had on a variety of subjects. For instance, left to myself, would I have ever thought to compare Process Theology with the ideas of Joseph Smith? Left to myself, could I have even imagined Nibley's An Egyptian Endowment, or Peterson's Nephi and his Asherah or Kevin Barney's take on the Documentary Hypothesis? Or much else that I treasure to this day. I'm more than a little in awe at how much LDS scholars have found to share, and notice their awe and wonder in looking back at Joseph Smith, whose brief life generates so much fruitful inquiry.

And I look at my own studies. Somethings, when I read, I realized that I had come across new information that helped me with open questions, and I have been eager to share. Suppose I'd bailed at the first shock. I would never have even known what I was missing. No NDE research and the Book of Mormon. No comparing Kuhn and Alma 32. No breathless encounter with Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. I'd have just been a third rate skeptic who had imagined that I had taken the measure of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, when in reality, I'd not even penetrated the surface of the first outer wall, let alone passed to the inner court, and through the concealing veils.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ERayR]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!

My sentiments exactly.

[ERayR]

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.

Is the church being honest? If so, how?

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.

If you want history go to school. Church instructional time is for spiritual edification.

[ERayR]

I assume you believe the mall downtown is part of the spiritual ministry?

If it bothers you don't shop there.

[ERayR]

I just saw the first quote that mentions the silver bows.

Now I'm confused. By what method did Joseph use according to Nelson? Hat or bows or do we just not know?

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Yes I am yelling, sorry.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I tire of this strawman that critics are asking the church to tell EVERYTHING about it's history.

It's quite obvious that there are some significant parts which are quite purposely left out of the curriculum.

I am confused by your statements. They appear to be a contradiction.

[Scottie]

I am confused by your statements. They appear to be a contradiction.

I, nor do I believe any critic, is asking for the church to teach what color of pants JS wore, or did Emma prefer her hair in a bun or flowing.

The comments on this thread, such as "if someone asks you how you are, will you tell them how many cheerios you ate" seems to be insinuating that critics want every single last little detail of church history to be taught. Which is a straw man. Nobody is asking for that.

[ERayR]

Someone next to me in EQ once leaned over and asked, "How many times do we have to cover the same topics over and over?"

Have you ever looked around at the glazed eyes in EQ before? I don't think we need to continually discuss the second annointing but it might help to start trusting the members to deal with more than what is repeated in the manuals now.

Hey, if the church is true, what would it hurt to disclose more?

Until they get it right.

A better prepared teacher might help. Also if the quorum members would read and study a little it might help make it more interesting. We don't seem to have any trouble in my HP group making the lessons interesting.

It sounds like you don't need more rocks in the hat but more Christ's atonement.

[ERayR]

You make some good points. I try to look at the church as a flawed organization with people in it who are trying to do what is right. That helps.

Maybe more trust can be given to the membership so we can see more put into the manuals.

Maybe if instead, you looked at as a place to go to partake of the sacrament and seek spiritual uplift you would get more out of it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I, nor do I believe any critic, is asking for the church to teach what color of pants JS wore, or did Emma prefer her hair in a bun or flowing.

The comments on this thread, such as "if someone asks you how you are, will you tell them how many cheerios you ate" seems to be insinuating that critics want every single last little detail of church history to be taught. Which is a straw man. Nobody is asking for that.

And I have not aruged that ofcourse. All I have stated is that not every little detail in church histroy is of value, such as that JS had a gun at Carthage. Some other things are opinion and other things are taken out of context. Some things are not pretty either. Some of it is hard to understand. At least I understand what you are saying a little better.

For the record I don't think the apologists are trying to say that the critics arguemnt is that we need to know if JS liked Cheerios, or did he like red pants or blue pants. To some extent we could say that you have presented a strawman of your own. But we don't need to go there.

[ERayR]

OK, here is the question. My head stopped spinning so I can address it. Everyone stop for a second so we can look at this.

How will additional details help members grow closer to Christ?

Here is my problem. I found details that make Joseph Smith be someone other than I originally thought. Should we include the nitty gritty details to prevent the shock factor for me later on? Maybe not.

Should the church discuss the problems with the BofM evidence and BofA translation in SS?

Maybe not. That would just confuse and hurt people's belief in the Restoration and the foundation of Mormonism.

Maybe it needs to stay withheld.

Does withholding information bring us closer to Christ because we just see a nice peaceful painting with young flowers and pretty rainbows?

Maybe pretty things do that for us. I don't know. Does anyone have any thoughts besides that I'm an evil apostate?

Maybe if any of the above were incontrovertibly true and it related to the mission of improving lives and teaching Christ's atonement...? But it isn't and it doesn't.

[David T]

I, nor do I believe any critic, is asking for the church to teach what color of pants JS wore, or did Emma prefer her hair in a bun or flowing.

The comments on this thread, such as "if someone asks you how you are, will you tell them how many cheerios you ate" seems to be insinuating that critics want every single last little detail of church history to be taught. Which is a straw man. Nobody is asking for that.

No, they just want the things that make people look bad.

[Scottie]

No, they just want the things that make people look bad.

Yes, exactly!!! We want the church to stop ONLY telling people the parts about JS that make him look good! Mix a little of the bad in there as well!

[Scottie]

For the record I don't think the apologists are trying to say that the critics arguemnt is that we need to know if JS liked Cheerios, or did he like red pants or blue pants. To some extent we could say that you have presented a strawman of your own. But we don't need to go there.

Jason said in post #11

I suppose, Zeezrom, when someone asks how you're doing you go into details on how many cheerios you ate for breakfast (even if you didn't eat cheerios for breakfast, in which case the count is zero), because anything less wouldn't be full disclosure, right?

[thesometimesaint]

zeezrom:

When you are looking for an excuse, ANY will do.

[David T]

So the parts in the Doctrine and Covenants where God Chastises Joseph don't count?

[wenglund]

It's quite obvious that there are some significant parts which are quite purposely left out of the curriculum.

Significant? Not in terms of the intents and purpose of the gospel.

Again, back to my MLM example. Would you REALLY expect the MLM salesman to tell you EVERYTHING about himself? Or just the pertinent parts that would influence you decision to get involved with the company? If he left out significant details, might you be a bit upset? Would it make sense for this salesman then to come back to you and angrily say, "Oh, FINE!! Here, let me write down my entire life history for you!!!"

All that I would required to know prior to making any purchase is a general description of the product, what the product is designed to do, a basic sense for whether the product works as intended, and the proscribed tests for determing if the product is what it claims to be and works as intended. It isn't necessary to know whether the founder of the company that made the product was sealed to more than one woman, had a talisman, dabbled in magic, or any other matters not relevant to whether the product can be trusted to work as intended.

The same is true for the restored gospel.

But, the naysayers and critics don't seem to get this, and persist in wrongfully suggesting otherwise. Even though they have, for the time being, failed or are faltering in the tests of faith, they mistakenly view themselves as in a position to advise those successful in faith regarding what is needed to know to pass and grow in faith. It is like a failed businessman trying to advise a highly successful MLM company on how to do their business.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

Never mind.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Jason said in post #11

I stand corrected. I disagree with Jason or the way he presented his argument.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, exactly!!! We want the church to stop ONLY telling people the parts about JS that make him look good! Mix a little of the bad in there as well!

Here is the thing, and I will use an example from the past here on this board. How does telling people that JS had a gun in Carthage constitute a bad thing?

When this has been brought up in that past it was to give the idea that JS was jsut a fraud and was not a true martyr. It is a week argument but I see lots of things like this. Little chestnuts from the churches past that are not really bad. But it is spun in a negitve light. When the church does teach it the critics just ignores the references and insist that the church hides its history. And that if it tuaght said history that people would be less likely to join or whate ever. Thus presenting a straw man.

[Vance]

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?

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=12d72bce258f5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD