Only part of the truth

[David T]

can you reference the opposing the church one? I don't remember it.

You are a bishop, how would you react to my posts at MD?

" Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

[ttribe]

Perhaps to inflame the controversy some more, but a VERY quick search of "Gospel Library" on LDS.org regarding seer stones provides the following:

A reference in an August 1987 Q&A - "40. Wilford Woodruff Journal, 11 Sept. 1859, quoting Brigham

[zeezrom]

" Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

oh yah. I forgot about that post.

mfbwowski (sp?),

I will follow your advice and think about it.

Thanks,

Zee.

[zeezrom]

Perhaps to inflame the controversy some more, but a VERY quick search of "Gospel Library" on LDS.org regarding seer stones provides the following:

..snip

Thanks Tim!

I'm bringing quotes from these articles to EQ. I always thought it would be thought provoking to discuss the stones in the hat method.

[ttribe]

Thanks Tim!

I'm bringing quotes from these articles to EQ. I always thought it would be thought provoking to discuss the stones in the hat method.

I'd start with Elder Nelson's address to Mission Presidents. That should be reasonably authoritative for most members.

[Scottie]

When has he EVER told the COMPLETE truth?

None of us. I guess we shouldn't believe anything any of us say.

I never called him a liar, I am questioning his story. I don't believe it.

Umm... which is calling him a liar.

"I'm not calling you a liar. I just don't believe you are telling the truth."

[David T]

Thanks Tim!

I'm bringing quotes from these articles to EQ. I always thought it would be thought provoking to discuss the stones in the hat method.

In Which of the next lessons do you plan on bringing this up in?

[Vance]

Perhaps to inflame the controversy some more, but a VERY quick search of "Gospel Library" on LDS.org regarding seer stones provides the following:

A reference in an August 1987 Q&A - "40. Wilford Woodruff Journal, 11 Sept. 1859, quoting Brigham

[ttribe]

WOW!!!

Such blatant attempts to tell "only part of the truth".

Shameful, isn't it? Especially publishing such things in an obscure publication like the Friend.

[Scottie]

Perhaps you could all explain why so few members know about these issues?

After all, they are published in the church magazines, right?

Or, will you keep beating your chests and screaming from the rooftops that there is no problem and all is well as the church continues to lose members that discover the troublesome history?

[MorningStar]

Shameful, isn't it? Especially publishing such things in an obscure publication like the Friend.

But you can't expect faithful members of the church to actually read the Friend. Each member needs to be contacted individually to make sure they know all controversial things.

[ttribe]

Perhaps you could all explain why so few members know about these issues?

After all, they are published in the church magazines, right?

Or, will you keep beating your chests and screaming from the rooftops that there is no problem and all is well as the church continues to lose members that discover the troublesome history?

Why are you pushing out to the extreme? I'm not "beating my chest", etc. I've gone on the record as saying there are areas the Church curriculum could improve. Nevertheless, I am quite sick of the - "It was ALL hidden from me!" and "I had to read it at an anti site!" - excuses that get thrown out there with repetition. Was it there and in readily available sources or not Scottie?

[Vance]

Shameful, isn't it? Especially publishing such things in an obscure publication like the Friend.

And putting it out there on that internet thingy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Perhaps you could all explain why so few members know about these issues?

After all, they are published in the church magazines, right?

Or, will you keep beating your chests and screaming from the rooftops that there is no problem and all is well as the church continues to lose members that discover the troublesome history?

I don't accept the premise that "so few members know about these issues". Can you demonstrate this for us?

[ttribe]

But you can't expect faithful members of the church to actually read the Friend. Each member needs to be contacted individually to make sure they know all controversial things.

That's what Home and Visiting Teaching are for.

[Vance]

Perhaps you could all explain why so few members know about these issues?

After all, they are published in the church magazines, right?

Or, will you keep beating your chests and screaming from the rooftops that there is no problem and all is well as the church continues to lose members that discover the troublesome history?

Why do so few high school graduates know how to solve simple algebra problems?

After all they were required to take the course, right?

Or will you keep beating your chest and screaming from the rooftops that there is no problem and all is well as our education system continues to loose our children to ignorance?

[Scottie]

Why are you pushing out to the extreme? I'm not "beating my chest", etc. I've gone on the record as saying there are areas the Church curriculum could improve. Nevertheless, I am quite sick of the - "It was ALL hidden from me!" and "I had to read it at an anti site!" - excuses that get thrown out there with repetition. Was it there and in readily available sources or not Scottie?

Once again, denying that there is a problem.

Even if it is readily available in publications, for some reason, those are not resonating with the members.

I work in manufacturing and we have to deal all the time with a great design that doesn't work. Sure, it works great for us. But when we get it in the field, for whatever reason, the homeowners can't use it. We could sit all day and say, "We printed instructions! The buttons are labeled! It's great and we're not going to change it!" How far do you suppose we would get if we took this stance instead of saying, "We don't really understand WHY people aren't able to use this correctly, but obviously they can't. Lets redesign it."

Perhaps the church needs to stop saying, "It's all out there! We don't really understand WHY people are shocked by this. We're not going to change anything."

I don't accept the premise that "so few members know about these issues". Can you demonstrate this for us?

Sure. Just take a stroll to RfM and see just how many exit stories have the phrase, "I never knew about" or "when I found out about".

[volgadon]

I don't accept the premise that "so few members know about these issues". Can you demonstrate this for us?

Interesting how my fiancee, a convert in a country with very few church resources in her native language, apart from lesson manuals and the Liahona, knew about "these issues". Same goes for a good deal of the converts on my mission. If they can know about these things, what excuse is there for, say, the wife of an EQP in the USA?

[Scottie]

Why do so few high school graduates know how to solve simple algebra problems?

After all they were required to take the course, right?

Or will you keep beating your chest and screaming from the rooftops that there is no problem and all is well as our education system continues to loose our children to ignorance?

This isn't even worth commenting on. I'm dumber for having read this.

[ttribe]

Once again, denying that there is a problem.

Bullcrap Scottie. You know that's not what I am saying. I'm saying that individuals have to take ownership of their contribution to the problem. My impression is that you want to lay 100% of the blame at the feet of the Church. I think that's wrong.

[volgadon]

Sure. Just take a stroll to RfM and see just how many exit stories have the phrase, "I never knew about" or "when I found out about".

I recall a thread by Doug the Hutt about Joseph Smith telling his mother that he knew Presbetyrianism was not true. MFB and someone else whose name escapes me at the moment said that they had never heard of it, yet it was right there in the PoGP.

[Scottie]

Bullcrap Scottie. You know that's not what I am saying. I'm saying that individuals have to take ownership of their contribution to the problem. My impression is that you want to lay 100% of the blame at the feet of the Church. I think that's wrong.

No, I'm asking for the church and apologists to acknowledge that there is a problem. So far, whenever this is brought up, it is met with a stone wall of resistance from apologists (not necessarily you) screaming that there is no problem.

Granted, many critics that bring this up do so in a "the church lied to me" approach, which would naturally bring up the defenses.

I don't share that animosity. I did at one point, but I've moved on. I don't delight in seeing people leave Mormonism like many critics do. I simply recognize that there is a problem and I believe the church should deal with it head on.

When a member leaves the church because he/she read a troublesome fact that they did not know about, does it really matter what % blame the individual has vs the church? The bottom line is that the member left, no?

Whether or not they have some responsibility in this, the church is the one that needs to take action. Perhaps it could be as simple as TSM asking that all members read RSR in the next GC. Start educating the members about these things in ways other than putting random snippets in the Ensign.

[volgadon]

Is RSR available in a language other than English?

[Vance]

This isn't even worth commenting on. I'm dumber for having read this.

So when your drivel is fed back to you it makes you dumber?

[Scottie]

So when your drivel is fed back to you it makes you dumber?

When it's horribly modified to try and make some stupid point that doesn't even work, yes, it most certainly makes me dumber.