Statement Attributed To Dallin Oaks - Is It True?

[Jeff K.]

I am of the opinion that the church should present "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

I do not propose that the LDS church teaches the "anti's" view of LDS history alongside their own story of LDS history, and then let the listener decide. However, I do propose that the LDS church teach the facts as they know them.

If you know that it is true that Joseph used the "head in the hat" trick to translate, then teach it. If you know that it is true that there were varying accounts of the first vision, then teach it. If you know that Jospeh Smith had multiple wives, then teach it. In my 25 years in the church, none of these topics were ever mentioned in a church lesson, whether it be seminary, Sunay school, EQ, etc. But these are the facts, the truth, and they should be presented as such.

I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around a perfect god who condones deceit (lying by ommision) by his one, true religion on this earth.

Especially if it holds some kind of negative connotation for the chuch. Interpretive history is always interesting, when anti-Mormons get hold of stuff. But you see anti-Mormons hold a double standard and so the truth is less of a goal, and the interpretation of the truth becomes their weapon.

Walden is of course the perfect example of a double standard. Note he has a hard time "wrapping my mind around a perfect god who condones deceit" and then overlooks Matthew 16:20. Maybe he has a hard time getting around a perfect savior that condones deciet.

[Jeff K.]

Yes, Walden,

Well said, you make an excellent example for all of us to study.

[bookofmormontruth]

I am of the opinion that the church should present "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

I do not propose that the LDS church teaches the "anti's" view of LDS history alongside their own story of LDS history, and then let the listener decide. However, I do propose that the LDS church teach the facts as they know them.

If you know that it is true that Joseph used the "head in the hat" trick to translate, then teach it. If you know that it is true that there were varying accounts of the first vision, then teach it. If you know that Jospeh Smith had multiple wives, then teach it. In my 25 years in the church, none of these topics were ever mentioned in a church lesson, whether it be seminary, Sunay school, EQ, etc. But these are the facts, the truth, and they should be presented as such.

I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around a perfect god who condones deceit (lying by ommision) by his one, true religion on this earth.

There is that "head in the hat" again. Keeps revealing its ugly head when out of the Church "testimonies" are given.

The truth is, you only have your "opinion" for the Lord's Church doesn't need or require "proposals" from the unbelieving world and it keeps moving forward with or without you. Sorry.

[sjdawg]

There is that "head in the hat" again. Keeps revealing its ugly head when out of the Church "testimonies" are given.

The truth is, you only have your "opinion" for the Lord's Church doesn't need or require "proposals" from the unbelieving world and it keeps moving forward with or without you. Sorry.

If it is true it should be talked about.

[sjdawg]

Especially if it holds some kind of negative connotation for the chuch. Interpretive history is always interesting, when anti-Mormons get hold of stuff. But you see anti-Mormons hold a double standard and so the truth is less of a goal, and the interpretation of the truth becomes their weapon.

Walden is of course the perfect example of a double standard. Note he has a hard time "wrapping my mind around a perfect god who condones deceit" and then overlooks Matthew 16:20. Maybe he has a hard time getting around a perfect savior that condones deciet.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for God and his annointed to need to lie about things.

[Kenngo1969]

I believe both sides have a responsibility to present the facts whatever they may be. Individuals can reach their own conclusions what these facts mean.

For example - it is fact that JS had polygamous marriages. That is fact. The why is up for interpretation.

Where do you think the "fact" should be presented? In a mainstream Sunday School class? In a mainstream Institute class? In a fireside, the purposes of which are to present and to deal with "difficult" issues surrounding the history and doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In a nondevotional academic setting?

And there are reasons good and sound why a "just-the-facts" approach to history wouldn't work. As you yourself implicitly admit, history isn't science. While it may be a "fact" that "In fourteen-hundred, ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue," the implications of that "fact" are likely to be nearly as many and as varied as the historians who present them: to one, the discovery and colonization of the American continent might have been a boon which provided a venue where religious freedom could flourish, while to another, that discovery and colonization might have been the beginning of imperialism and opporession of people who were already here.

You give our critics and skeptics far too much credit: many of them would not be satisfied no matter how or in what venue the Church were to undertake confrontation of such issues, nor would they be satisfied with any presentation of history which allows for Joseph Smith's imperfections while allowing him to retain his prophetic mantle. To far too many of them, Joseph Smith was nothing but a hedonistic charlatan and an opportunistic con man.

One may wish that the Church presented its history by saying, "While many consider(ed) him to be a hedonistic charlatan and an opportunistic con man, Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet because he ..." Anybody sitting on the fence with regard to Joseph Smith and his purported prophetic calling likely would be lost after the opening clause of that sentence, considering anything which followed to be irrelevant. (And they would likely be lost even if that opening clause weren't nearly so inflammatory).

Which is exactly the result that so many of the critics and skeptics are hoping for.

I prefer the unapologetic (that is, the void-of-apology) tack which the Church of Jesus Christ takes in presenting its history via official channels. Anybody with access to a halfway decent Internet connection and more than half a brain can unearth the more complex aspects of that history if they choose. If they wish, they may, after unearthing such stuff, claim that it "drove them out of the Church" (as so many do) ... as though they had no choice in the matter. As I note above, however, doubt, like faith, is a choice.

Indeed, far from distancing itself from the more complex aspects of its history, the Church is actually taking the lead in presenting them through promulgating such projects as The Joseph Smith papers (and they're even on line, for those with a halfway decent Internet connection and more than half a brain ...) But that having been said, there are reasons, all of which are perfectly good, sound and valid, why the Church presents "Our Heritage" in Sunday School instead of presenting "The Joseph Smith Papers."

[Kenngo1969]

If it is true it should be talked about.

At the risk of channeling President Boyd K. Packer, not everything that's true is equally useful ...

[Kenngo1969]

I think it is perfectly reasonable for God and his annointed to need to lie about things.

Said sjdawg tongue-in-cheek, or, worse yet, cynically?

[bookofmormontruth]

If it is true it should be talked about.

Says who? The unbelieving world making demands on the Lord's Church? Wishful thinking.

If you are talking about the regurgitated anti-Mormon/apostate's "we were never taught the head in the hat translation" whine. It has been talked about, it has been published in numerous world-wide publications including Church history and it remains a "part" of the translation process.

Sorry you weren't listening or haven't read about it in the LDS publications and no, anti-mormon mills (who are the only ones to make it an issue for others to attach onto) don't count, sorry.

[Walden]

There is that "head in the hat" again. Keeps revealing its ugly head when out of the Church "testimonies" are given.

The truth is, you only have your "opinion" for the Lord's Church doesn't need or require "proposals" from the unbelieving world and it keeps moving forward with or without you. Sorry.

What are you talking about? That Joseph used the "head in the hat" trick is a fact, one that is acknowledged by the church......it is only "ugly" because the church spent decades downplaying, sidestepping and essentially ignoring this translation method for the urum and thummim story that promotes a more holy, spiritual vibe. If the church had taught this true story from the beginning, as consistently as they promote the urim and thummin story, there would be nothing "ugly" about it. The same can be said about Smith's multiple wives and the varying first vision accounts.

I could understand your grievances if these were mere stories, speculations or half-truths promoted by critics. But the fact is that they are true facts that have been intentionally blurred by the LDS church, and thus, they only have themselves to blame when these issues become a stumbling block to belief.

[Kenngo1969]

... I do not propose that the LDS church teaches the "anti's" view of LDS history alongside their own story of LDS history, and then let the listener decide. However, I do propose that the LDS church teach the facts as they know them. ...

I think the Church is right to conclude that, many times, the mortal "hows" and "whys" are irrelevant to the purposes of its presentation. If the Church believes that God wants me to believe that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record, revealed and translated by the power of God, how is knowing the precise mechanism of translation relevant to that end? Conversely, only detractors, skeptics, and critics want me to start chasing the red herring (from the Church's point of view) of the mortal "how" and "why."

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

All depends on the spin that is put on those "facts".

[sjdawg]

I think the Church is right to conclude that, many times, the mortal "hows" and "whys" are irrelevant to the purposes of its presentation. If the Church believes that God wants me to believe that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record, revealed and translated by the power of God, how is knowing the precise mechanism of translation relevant to that end? Conversely, only detractors, skeptics, and critics want me to start chasing the red herring (from the Church's point of view) of the mortal "how" and "why."

If fact prevents people from accepting "LDS Truth" then maybe it is the LDS truth that is problematic.

[Walden]

Especially if it holds some kind of negative connotation for the chuch. Interpretive history is always interesting, when anti-Mormons get hold of stuff. But you see anti-Mormons hold a double standard and so the truth is less of a goal, and the interpretation of the truth becomes their weapon.

What is "interpretive" about this history?

1. True or False - Joseph translated parts of the Book of Mormon by placing his head inside of a hat

2. True or False - Joseph Smith was married to more than one woman

3. True or False - The "official" first vision account is but one of a number of first vision accounts

These are either true or false....what is there to interpret?

[bookofmormontruth]

What are you talking about? That Joseph used the "head in the hat" trick is a fact, one that is acknowledged by the church......it is only "ugly" because the church spent decades downplaying, sidestepping and essentially ignoring this translation method for the urum and thummim story that promotes a more holy, spiritual vibe. If the church had taught this true story from the beginning, as consistently as they promote the urim and thummin story, there would be nothing "ugly" about it. The same can be said about Smith's multiple wives and the varying first vision accounts.

I could understand your grievances if these were mere stories, speculations or half-truths promoted by critics. But the fact is that they are true facts that have been intentionally blurred by the LDS church, and thus, they only have themselves to blame when these issues become a stumbling block to belief.

Right, the Lord's Church "ignored" (etc) the translation method by publishing it in the (Ensign, New Improvement and Church History) and to the entire world membership. What a cover up!

And you wonder why this so called "stumbling block" is laughed about? Stop blaming the Church, move on or at least come up with a better excuse. Or even better, take some responsibility for your own actions and choices. It does absolutely no good to blame an organization that will continue to move forward despite your unbelief.

[thesometimesaint]

sjdawg:

Or maybe it is the spin that critics like to put on those facts.

[Kenngo1969]

I am of the opinion that the church should present "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

I do not propose that the LDS church teach[ ] the "anti's" view of LDS history alongside their own story of LDS history, and then let the listener decide. However, I do propose that the LDS church teach the facts as they know them. ...

There's no functional difference between what you propose and teaching "pro-LDS" and "anti-LDS" history, side-by-side. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches "the truth" in ways that best suit its purposes, while those whose aims are antithetical to those of the Church teach "the truth" in ways that best suit their purposes. What you propose is that the Church teach "the truth" in ways that suit purposes of people whose aims are completely at odds with those of the Church.

[sjdawg]

There's no functional difference between what you propose and teaching "pro-LDS" and "anti-LDS" history, side-by-side. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches "the truth" in ways that best suit its purposes, while those whose aims are antithetical to those of the Church teach "the truth" in ways that best suit their purposes. What you propose is that the Church teach "the truth" in ways that suit purposes of people whose aims are completely at odds with those of the Church.

ah no, I don't think that is what he is proposing.

[kolipoki09]

Before proceeding with what?

Before proceeding with further reading of said blowhard's lengthy essays.

[Kenngo1969]

If fact prevents people from accepting "LDS Truth" then maybe it is the LDS truth that is problematic.

I hate to break it to you, 'Dawg , but despite your attempts to set yourself up as the lone beacon, unique among all humanity, who's completely objective, to borrow a saying from Stephen R. Covey, no one sees things ... especially not the past as they are: we see them as we are ... yourself included.

Sorry to burst your bubble. If it make you feel any better, here ... you can burst my (chewing gum) bubble in return!

[sjdawg]

Before proceeding with further reading of said blowhard's lengthy essays.

Oh, I've read them all before. There are some things I agree with, and lots I don't agree with. He is a pretty intelligent and reasonable guy in my estimation. I wouldn't really classify him as a blowhard. He is pretty good about stating what is his opinion and what is fact (and providing sources). In some areas he is complimentary when speaking about the Church.

[Kenngo1969]

ah no, I don't think that is what he is proposing.

I do think that's what he's proposing. Alas, we'll just have to agree to disagree!

[sjdawg]

I hate to break it to you, 'Dawg , but despite your attempts to set yourself up as the lone beacon, unique among all humanity, who's completely objective, to borrow a saying from Stephen R. Covey, no one sees things ... especially not the past as they are: we see them as we are ... yourself included.

Sorry to burst your bubble. If it make you feel any better, here ... you can burst my (chewing gum) bubble in return!

Oh, I'm not really that objective at all. We all have our own spin on things. However, there are some things that are fact and no one's spin changes fact. We can explain, justify, ignore, or rationalize (both in positive or negative ways) but the facts don't change.

I interpret some of the "facts" about LDS Church history as negative. Others (yourself included) are not bothered by them or even see them as a positive. The facts are the same either way. Our responses are different.

[Kenngo1969]

What is "interpretive" about this history?

1. True or False - Joseph translated parts of the Book of Mormon by placing his head inside of a hat

True - but irrelevant to his prophetic calling.

2. True or False - Joseph Smith was married to more than one woman

True - but also irrelevant to his prophetic calling

3. True or False - The "official" first vision account is but one of a number of first vision accounts

True - but also irrelevant to his prophetic calling

These are either true or false....what is there to interpret?

No matter how many times it's ignored, I'm going to keep saying it: the Church is perfectly free to teach a "version" of history that accords with Joseph's prophetic calling, and the skeptics are free to teach a version that fails to account for that prophetic calling. What you propose is that the Church teach the mortal "hows" and "whys" so that people will be distracted by those red herrings before they even CONSIDER the question of his prophetic calling ... which is EXACTLY what the skeptics, critics, and detractors want (even if you, and your like-minded fellows say you're not one of them)!

[Kenngo1969]

Oh, I'm not really that objective at all. We all have our own spin on things. However, there are some things that are fact and no one's spin changes fact. We can explain, justify, ignore, or rationalize (both in positive or negative ways) but the facts don't change.

I interpret some of the "facts" about LDS Church history as negative. Others (yourself included) are not bothered by them or even see them as a positive. The facts are the same either way. Our responses are different.

Which is all irrelevant, even if true: not all facts are equally relevant for all purposes. You and your like-minded fellows can keep demanding that the Church of Jesus Christ present facts which are irrelevant to the purposes of its presentation, and the Church will, rightly, continue to refuse to do so.

P.S.: Off to eat!