Statement Attributed To Dallin Oaks - Is It True?

[Walden]

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.

What is "anti" about the facts that I have presented. The facts themselves are not anti, they are actual facts. The interpretation of these facts is, I agree, another story. All I am saying is that if it is true, the church should actively teach it as such (and I don't mean teaching it by presenting it buried in some church article every 10 years, per the examples of Ensign and New Era article mentioned by bookofmormontruth.....I mean teach it as they do the other facts that they try to promote). I mean, obviously, the first vision, the translation of the plates, and plural marriage are pretty important to LDS history. Why obscure the facts surrounding these important historical events?

But by omitting these facts (multiple first vision accounts, head in teh hat translation, Jospeh Smith's multiple wives) from their own historical narrative, or at least cherry-picking the most faith promoting facts while ignoring less faith-promoting facts, the church has only itself to blame.....they left the door open for attack by cherry-picking their history.

This is what is referred to as deceit by ommision.

I'm not sure why apologists here are so threatened by the facts.

And in response to bookofmormontruths statement that "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.".......I left the church because Moroni's Promise failed for me; despite 25 years in the church, I was unable to obtain a testimony of it's truthfulness, after considerable study, fasting and prayer. I did not become aware of the historical cherry-picking until after I had already left the church. And for those who did leave the faith due to their struggles regarding contrasting accounts in LDS history, it's good to know that you consider that their "stumbling block" is laughed about,"....now there's the spirit of compassion that Christ taught!

And if the church will move forward despite us nonbelievers (as you keep reiterating), then why do you spend so much time defending the church from us nonbelievers? If we do not matter in the grand scheme of the lords church, why do you even waste your time and energy focused so intently on correcting, admonishing and arguing with non-believers? Makes no sense if we don't matter and we can have have no affect on the progression of the lord's church.

[bookofmormontruth]

And in response to bookofmormontruths statement that "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.".......I left the church because Moroni's Promise failed for me; despite 25 years in the church, I was unable to obtain a testimony of it's truthfulness, after considerable study, fasting and prayer. I did not become aware of the historical cherry-picking until after I had already left the church. And for those who did leave the faith due to their struggles regarding contrasting accounts in LDS history, it's good to know that you consider that their "stumbling block" is laughed about,"....now there's the spirit of compassion that Christ taught!

And if the church will move forward despite us nonbelievers (as you keep reiterating), then why do you spend so much time defending the church from us nonbelievers? If we do not matter in the grand scheme of the lords church, why do you even waste your time and energy focused so intently on correcting, admonishing and arguing with non-believers? Makes no sense if we don't matter and we can have have no affect on the progression of the lord's church.

It is laughable because it is never true. After the Joseph Smith papers, those who use this excuse should be laughed at.

The Lord's Church needs no defending. It moves on with or without us. Unfortunately, you are just on the wrong side. It might help to just move on and not focus on every negative thing possible you can find. It will just cause you heartache so there is your compassionate advice for the day. You are welcome.

[Jeff K.]

Walden is playing dodgeball again....

I note that he hasn't responded to the questions of Matthew 16:20 regarding Christ's act of deceit or perhaps could he comment on Moses being a murderer? Aren't thost "facts" too?

And of course he doubles down with the dodge by overlooking the amount of information the church makes available to the general public. There is so much the church has done (including the Joseph Smith project). But you see, there is where we go from the real context. Walden doesn't really want the truth unless it can be spun in such a way as to hurt the church, otherwise it becomes (for him) an irrelevant truth).

The truth is indeed the truth, when understood as "truth" being a contextual understanding as to what has occurred. Does Walden attack Christ with the same vien and venom regarding Christ's deceit, or perhaps the acts of Moses which apparently were justified by God?

Is it reasonable or unreasonable to presume that Walden doesnt' really seek truth, just "stuff", which allows his spin to occur?

[Jeff K.]

This is what is referred to as deceit by ommision.

I'm not sure why apologists here are so threatened by the facts.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the aChrist.

Walden by now should be screaming at churchs to expose the "conspiracy" of silence. Walden should be stating "If he is the son of God, why lie?" And why are the apostles so threatened by the facts? After all this is referred to as a sin of omission.

[Kenngo1969]

What is "anti" about the facts that I have presented.

I stand by my statement: there's no functional difference between telling the "truth" out of context and outright lying.

The facts themselves are not anti, they are actual facts. The interpretation of these facts is, I agree, another story.

A devotional setting (or a Seminary class, or Institute class) is ill-suited to providing the necessary context surrounding the "facts" you present as the "truth." An academic setting such as the Maxwell Institute or an apologetic setting such as the FAIR Conference is much better suited to that task, and that's why these topics are more actively discussed in such settings than they are in Church meetings.

All I am saying is that if it is true, the church should actively teach it as such ...

Chasing these red herrings, and encouraging others to do so, would divert the Church from its core mission of leading people to Christ. That's why the Church defers to such fora as this one and the Maxwell Institute to deal with such issues. Were the Church to attempt to do so, there would be no time left over for the to teach the core principles of the Gospel. The Church has rightly concluded that the mortal "whys" and "hows" surrounding these events are less significant than the events themselves.

... (and I don't mean teaching it by presenting it buried in some church article every 10 years, per the examples of Ensign and New Era article mentioned by bookofmormontruth ...

I'm sorry you don't like to, or find it difficult to, read.

... I mean [that the Church should] teach it as they do the other facts that they try to promote). I mean, obviously, the first vision, the translation of the plates, and plural marriage are pretty important to LDS history. Why obscure the facts surrounding these important historical events?

Given the limits of human cognition, I wish you luck in your world, where all facts apparently are of equal importance. (You'd better hit the books, Kiddo! )

[The Church] left the door open for attack by cherry-picking their history.

You're in serious denial if you think that the most virulent of the Church's critics would be mollified simply by a change in the Church's approach to its history. They wouldn't be content simply to see the Church apply Clearasil to the alleged zits: they want it to set its face on fire.

This is what is referred to as deceit by ommision.

No, it's simply a recognition that most people (you excepted, apparently) have limited time, must set priorities, have limited cognitive power by virtue of their humanness, have differing interests,

I'm not sure why apologists here are so threatened by the facts. ...

:rofl: :rofl: [sigh!] :rofl: :rofl: [Tears roll ...]

[Bernard Gui]

That Joseph used the "head in the hat" trick is a fact, one that is acknowledged by the church....

Please provide a source where the church acknowledged the fact that Joseph used the "head in the hat" trick? CFR.

Bernard

[sunstoned]

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.

Very well stated Mr. Walden.

[sunstoned]

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."

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you feel the ends justifies the means?

[LeSellers]

I stand by my statement: there's no functional difference between telling the "truth" out of context and outright lying.

A truth that's told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent.

Enjoy,

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

A hundred truths told to support a single lie is still a lie.

[Jeff K.]

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you feel the ends justifies the means?

Matthew 16:20?

[Flyonthewall]

The "head in the hat" method that critics like to throw around is a non-issue. The Lord has said that He uses simple things to confound the "wise".

Can anyone else look into a hat at some stones and translate an ancient record? No. Didn't think so. So it isn't the act of looking into a hat at some stones that translated the BoM, it is, as the church describes, through the power of God that it was translated.

Same thing with curing Poisonous bites, leprosy, or blindness, it wasn't the actions themselves that did the curing, but the power of God.

So, does the church "lie" in stating that it was done through the power of God? Absolutely NOT!

While critics want us to focus on the physical actions, which are powerless, we focus on the real power involved.

[Jeff K.]

Mud on the eyes

Hat in the hand

Don't tell anyone

Seems that parallels exist if you ask me.

[Kenngo1969]

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you feel the ends justifies the means?

I think what I said was really rather clear on its face. If critics want to try to entice people to chase red herrings, they're free to do so. From the position of the Church, the mortal "how" and "why" things are done are irrelevant to the question of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling: they're red herrings.

As, I believe, Jeff K pointed out, the blind man didn't care that Jesus anointed his eyes with clay made out of spit and dirt and told him to go wash in Siloam ... he didn't say "Spit and dirt? Ewwww!" (even though that's just about as silly as translating gold books with one's face in a hat and/or with a rock). The blind man didn't care what day it was, and he didn't care that the Pharisees didn't think much of Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. He didn't care that they called Jesus a sinner. The only thing that mattered to him was getting his sight back. ("Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not," he said. "One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.")

Joseph Smith said he translated the Book of Mormon by the power of God. The witnesses said he translated it by the power of God. Anyone who has taken Moroni up on the challenge issued in Moroni 10:3-5 and thereby received a testimony knows he translated it by the power of God.

Whether he did it with his head in a hat, with a rock, or while standing on his head and rubbing his head clockwise, rubbing his tummy counterclockwise, and clucking like a chicken all at the same time might be scandalous in the eyes of the critics, and they might want to play up that angle of the account: they're free to do so. But the "how" is irrelevant to everyone but the skeptics and the critics, just as was the case with Jesus restoring the blind man's sight.

P.S.: And the short answer to your question is no, I'm not saying that the ends justify the means at all: I'm simply saying that not all truth is equally useful for all purposes. If you're trying to master the intricacies of Euclidian Geometry, the "truth" that the Moors invaded Spain in 711 A.D. isn't likely to be of much help to you.

[Bernard Gui]

Very well stated Mr. Walden.

Perhaps you could respond to the CFR that the church

accepts the fact of the "head in the hat" trick. Mr. Walden has failed to reply and you agree with what he said.

Bernard

[Walden]

Walden is playing dodgeball again....

I note that he hasn't responded to the questions of Matthew 16:20 regarding Christ's act of deceit or perhaps could he comment on Moses being a murderer? Aren't thost "facts" too?

And of course he doubles down with the dodge by overlooking the amount of information the church makes available to the general public. There is so much the church has done (including the Joseph Smith project). But you see, there is where we go from the real context. Walden doesn't really want the truth unless it can be spun in such a way as to hurt the church, otherwise it becomes (for him) an irrelevant truth).

The truth is indeed the truth, when understood as "truth" being a contextual understanding as to what has occurred. Does Walden attack Christ with the same vien and venom regarding Christ's deceit, or perhaps the acts of Moses which apparently were justified by God?

Is it reasonable or unreasonable to presume that Walden doesnt' really seek truth, just "stuff", which allows his spin to occur?

You can do your best to try to obscure the topic of LDS church history with points about Christ, Moses, etc. I do not consider what is contained in the Bible as fact, and I have no probelm in attacking Christ or the LDS church, neither of which I believe are "divine."

The difference being, the LDS church has control of the information that they release regarding LDS church historical fact; not so much with historical fact regarding teh Bible. To cloud the discussion with biblical history, which occured 2000-3000 years ago, with LDS church history, which began 180 years ago, is just ridiculous.

[Jeff K.]

I note that he hasn't responded to the questions of Matthew 16:20 regarding Christ's act of deceit or perhaps could he comment on Moses being a murderer? Aren't thost "facts" too?

Still waiting for a response rather than a non-response.

You can do your best to try to obscure the topic of LDS church history with points about Christ, Moses, etc. I do not consider what is contained in the Bible as fact, and I have no probelm in attacking Christ or the LDS church, neither of which I believe are "divine."

Of course you don't. But you consider attacks upon the church as "fact". An amazing dichotomy really. Do you always selectively choose your "facts" or simply go with a popular vote?

Our church claims to follow the pattern of the church established by Jesus Christ. So if you wish to assert that Jesus Christ did NOT do those things, and therefore our church does NOT follow such a pattern. Feel free to make the arguments as such. Otherwise your double standard and dodgeing simply mark you as someone who hasn't really thought out the process and you are reacting with little more than a viceral anger towards the church, something done without thought.

The difference being, the LDS church has control of the information that they release regarding LDS church historical fact; not so much with historical fact regarding teh Bible. To cloud the discussion with biblical history, which occured 2000-3000 years ago, with LDS church history, which began 180 years ago, is just ridiculous.

Has any church made more available to the general public than the Church of Jesus Christ? I doubt you can name one. And more to the point, if the church claims to follow a patter from a millenia ago, then the justification exists biblically, you however fail to see that, after all, it would interfere with your process of attack. Which kind of falls flat on its face when you look at the context.

Feel free to continue the duck and weave while you stumble over context.

[Walden]

Still waiting for a response rather than a non-response.

Of course you don't. But you consider attacks upon the church as "fact". An amazing dichotomy really. Do you always selectively choose your "facts" or simply go with a popular vote?

Our church claims to follow the pattern of the church established by Jesus Christ. So if you wish to assert that Jesus Christ did NOT do those things, and therefore our church does NOT follow such a pattern. Feel free to make the arguments as such. Otherwise your double standard and dodgeing simply mark you as someone who hasn't really thought out the process and you are reacting with little more than a viceral anger towards the church, something done without thought.

Has any church made more available to the general public than the Church of Jesus Christ? I doubt you can name one. And more to the point, if the church claims to follow a patter from a millenia ago, then the justification exists biblically, you however fail to see that, after all, it would interfere with your process of attack. Which kind of falls flat on its face when you look at the context.

Feel free to continue the duck and weave while you stumble over context.

Your ability to move the mark continues to amaze me.

Regarding the verse you reference in Matthew (which I still don't see as relevant to the argument about LDS history); I think we can agree that christ is considered by christianity (of which I include mormonism) to be perfect, meaning that he lived a life that was without sin. As a believer, it is up to you to rationalize the conundrum that since christ was perfect, how can a perfect being command others to be deceitful for his cause? The ends justifying the means, even when deceit is to be used, seems more a formula of satan than a perfect being such as christ. So yes, there is, in a sense, justification for the LDS church to be deceitful about it's history, but I think that draws to the bigger questions fo whether chrust was then perfect, which is a discussion for another post.

Off the top of my head (and having earned a degre from a lutherna university) I would say that the Lutheran church is more forthcoming with their history, just to name one example. I find it funny that someone would also ask if there is any church that has "made more available to the general public than the Church of Jesus Christ?". And this question from a follower of a church who refuses to divulge their finances (except where forced by threat of law, such as in Canada and England) unlike most other major relgious institutions, conducts highly secretive temple ceremonies that are fiercely guarded from the public and selectively teaches a history to their own adherents that knowingly and deliberately excludes known facts that may frustrate the message that the church prefers to preach.

But this is beside the point, which I know doesn't appear to matter to you as you continue to try to move the point anyway. My simple point, from the beginning, is that the church cherry-picks it's historical lessons and selectively ignores certain facts that may contradict with their intended message in order to present "their" version of the truth, rather then "the" version of the truth that is very much known to them.

[Jeff K.]

The points raised by the scripture speak on several plains.

1-Christ Himself used distinct methods by which he carried out the needs of the priesthood.

2-Christ also sought what some may consider deception by stating that certain things should not be mentioned to the populace.

Funny how Joseph Smith followed in a sense Christ's pattern. Something you seem to overlook, or as you say "rationalize away".

Off the top of my head (and having earned a degre from a lutherna university) I would say that the Lutheran church is more forthcoming with their history, just to name one example. I find it funny that someone would also ask if there is any church that has "made more available to the general public than the Church of Jesus Christ?". And this question from a follower of a church who refuses to divulge their finances (except where forced by threat of law, such as in Canada and England) unlike most other major relgious institutions, conducts highly secretive temple ceremonies that are fiercely guarded from the public and selectively teaches a history to their own adherents that knowingly and deliberately excludes known facts that may frustrate the message that the church prefers to preach.

Did you mean in Martin Luther's endorsement of polygamy? Or was there something else you didn't mention? Should we consider the fact you did not immediately bring that out, that somehow you are hiding it? The fact that you do not teach that Martin Luther endorsed polygamy, does that not also mean you are "hiding it"? I bet most Lutherans (at least the German Lutherans in my family) aren't aware of it.

I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

So do you apply the same standards to yourself? Probably not.

[Jeff K.]

I have moved no goal posts, just exposed what you seem to be obfuscating around.

[kolipoki09]

Off the top of my head (and having earned a degre from a lutherna university) I would say that the Lutheran church is more forthcoming with their history, just to name one example. I find it funny that someone would also ask if there is any church that has "made more available to the general public than the Church of Jesus Christ?". And this question from a follower of a church who refuses to divulge their finances (except where forced by threat of law, such as in Canada and England) unlike most other major relgious institutions, conducts highly secretive temple ceremonies that are fiercely guarded from the public and selectively teaches a history to their own adherents that knowingly and deliberately excludes known facts that may frustrate the message that the church prefers to preach.

It should be noted that Oaks' remarks are directed primarily at Seminary and Institute instructors. Is it the responsibility of S&I to know and teach the whole story, or the parts that are considered most beneficial for the purpose of the class?

Does the Church per se deliberately exclude history, or is this exclusion a mere byproduct of correlation? The resources are now well-available for any inquiring Latter-day Saint to conduct primary historical research on almost any topic (whether controversial or not) relative to the history of the LDS Church. The temple ceremonies are made available to anyone who qualifies themselves to participate in them. While I don't disagree that there are certainly better accounts of LDS Church history than others, there are mounds of great books available on the subject that I think most people (whether deliberately or not) ignore.

The material is there, you just have to put forth the time and the effort to search it. I'd say most Lutherans aren't all together concerned about their history as much as they are about teaching the message of Christ's gospel to those who they feel need the message the most. The same goes for Roman Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. But just because someone hasn't put forth the effort to look for material relative to the details of Church history does not mean the Church is "hiding" its history. From polygamy to money-digging, to multiple first vision accounts and the Book of Abraham papyri, almost all of these issues have been treated at one time or another (usually multiple times) in multiple Church-sponsored publications over the years. Yes, they're not treated exhaustively, but I wouldn't expect much from a demographic targeting individuals with an 8th grade reading level.*

*Not long ago I had the chance to meet with an employee working for the Church's magazines. When asked why the articles are kept short and precise, the individual responded that the ideal Ensign/Liahona article is edited in such a way that it can be understood as easily as possible. Like a newspaper, the author may have only 1,000 words or so to get their point across.

[HiJolly]

sjdawg, on 10 June 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

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 ...

...who was quoting Immanuel Kant...

HiJolly

[Kenngo1969]

...who was quoting Immanuel Kant...

HiJolly

Huh ... I wasn't aware of that: I guess that takes the air out of the sails of critics who want to take that line and beat President Packer endlessly over the head with it, doesn't it?

[Pahoran]

Off the top of my head (and having earned a degre from a lutherna university) I would say that the Lutheran church is more forthcoming with their history, just to name one example. I find it funny that someone would also ask if there is any church that has "made more available to the general public than the Church of Jesus Christ?". And this question from a follower of a church who refuses to divulge their finances (except where forced by threat of law, such as in Canada and England) unlike most other major relgious institutions, conducts highly secretive temple ceremonies that are fiercely guarded from the public and selectively teaches a history to their own adherents that knowingly and deliberately excludes known facts that may frustrate the message that the church prefers to preach.

So it's your position that the Lutheran Church proactively teaches Lutheran youth and adults that Martin Luther was a virulent anti-Semite who recommended polygamy rather than divorce to more than one contemporary ruler?

But this is beside the point, which I know doesn't appear to matter to you as you continue to try to move the point anyway. My simple point, from the beginning, is that the church cherry-picks it's historical lessons and selectively ignores certain facts that may contradict with their intended message in order to present "their" version of the truth, rather then "the" version of the truth that is very much known to them.

So your "simple point" is that the leaders of the Church are liars for not presenting the "version of the truth" that you somehow prefer.

Got it.

Y'know Walden, as soon as you start making accusations like that, you put yourself outside the pale of civil discourse. It is rude to make accusations against people who are not present to defend themselves. It is small-minded and bigoted to assume that your view of the "facts" is the only one available to honest people. It is ignorant to assume that the factoids so important to you are somehow determinative of the truth, and that they should be of equal importance to everyone else. It is ignorant and arrogant to fail to consider the possibility that someone presenting a different "version of the truth" might actually know something you don't know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[HiJolly]

Huh ... I wasn't aware of that: I guess that takes the air out of the sails of critics who want to take that line and beat President Packer endlessly over the head with it, doesn't it?

"Many things can be true and yet harmful to man. Not all truth is useful."

(p.43 Lectures on Logic, (translated by J. Michael Young))

-- Immanuel Kant