ozpoof Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) If the church is true, then there should be no fear that factual history can prove otherwise. There should be no off limits sources of facts. The source should not matter if there is truth to be found, and ALL history will verify that the church is true.Why then is there a fear by some LDS members that they may be led astray by some historically accurate and verifiable information? All truth should point to the LDS being the true church if it is so.Are some truths in life really not useful? Should some facts be ignored because the person conveying them is an apostate? Does it matter who conveys truth? Edited August 15, 2011 by ozpoof
Storm Rider Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 If the church is true, then there should be no fear that factual history can prove otherwise. There should be no off limits sources of facts. The source should not matter if there is truth to be found, and ALL history will verify that the church is true.Why then is there a fear by some LDS members that they may be led astray by some historically accurate and verifiable information? All truth should point to the LDS being the true church if it is so.Are some truths in life really not useful? Should some facts be ignored because the person conveying them is an apostate? Does it matter who conveys truth?Joseph Smith encouraged the LDS to accept truth wherever it is found. Sources don't really matter; however, I suspect you are someone that "thinks" something is a fact, when in reality it is nothing but a POV or opinion.
ozpoof Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 Joseph Smith encouraged the LDS to accept truth wherever it is found. Sources don't really matter; however, I suspect you are someone that "thinks" something is a fact, when in reality it is nothing but a POV or opinion.Thanks for the psych analysis. Perhaps you are a person who "thinks" something is not factual, despite the information appearing in church publications or documents, because the information conflicts with your preconceived views? That's called cognitive dissonance, and it doesn't stop the facts you don't like from being true. The church itself has often never refuted information contained in early historical documents that are sometimes written by Prophets despite referring to this information as "disease germs" (Boyd K Packer), and stating that some truths are not useful. I have NEVER found any truth to be what could be considered to be "disease germs" and something to be avoided at all costs. I can't reconcile such an attitude by anyone who claims to represent truth. Perhaps you are a person who knows there are facts that are being omitted or deliberately altered by publishers of lesson manuals, yet you remain silent because the modified version fits better with your cognition? Such a person could really never claim to be dealing honestly with their fellow "men" could they?
ldsfaqs Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 If the church is true, then there should be no fear that factual history can prove otherwise.LDS aren't afraid of the truth, but only afraid FOR the truth.There should be no off limits sources of facts.Really? So, the intellectually inexperienced they should delve into Fanatical Islam's vile propaganda about the Jews in order to learn the "facts" about the Jews?The source should not matter if there is truth to be found, and ALL history will verify that the church is true.I won't disagree with you that ALL history will verify the Church is true, I and many other's have proved it."ALL" history isn't the problem, it's the character of those who frame the history.Why then is there a fear by some LDS members that they may be led astray by some historically accurate and verifiable information?You are aware that there are FACTS, and then there is the TRUTH right? Further, you are aware that people can use "facts" to tell great lies aren't you?That's why the "lay-member" is generally counseled to stay away from the liars of the world, i.e. Anti-mormons or any other kind of people.Mormons are encouraged to study out of the "best books". Do you really consider anti-mormonism among the "best books"???Further, since when does anti-mormonism use "historically accurate and verifiable information"?Sure, they use SOME "facts" and information from history, but it certainly isn't accurate nor verifiable generally, it's PERVERSION and LIES.And you do know who the Father of perversion and lies is right?Are you telling LDS that we should hang out at a GAY BAR, simply so we can get "accurate and verifiable information"?Are you telling LDS that we need to "kill" someone in order to know not to do it?Are you telling LDS that we need to wallow in ANY MUD and SIN in order to get accurate and verifiable information?If not, what's the difference between the above and anti-mormonism?Anti-mormonism perverts 99.9% of it's claims against mormonism.Please tell us what planet such a bad percentage as that gives a person a "need" to need to wallow in that crap?All truth should point to the LDS being the true church if it is so.All "facts" are not "truth". Facts can be manipulated and perverted so the truth is perverted. This is what anti-mormons do. They emphasis certain facts, omit important facts, pervert facts, etc. in order to tell a great lie about the Church. And so you know, I'm a former anti-mormon who also left the Church once, and was even a convert to the Church, so I know exactly what I'm talking about with knowing what anti's do. Plus, I've been dealing with their claims for the last 20 years, and I can tell you for a fact that their every word about the Church is a lie. Every conclusion they have about mormonism is a lie.So please tell us..... how something so worthless as that should have "value" to Mormons?Again, do you encourage people studying the Jews to delve into Fanatical Islam Bigotry? So, why should mormons delve into anti-mormon bigotry?Evil is evil buddy..... We are to shun evil in all it's forms. Don't you know that?Are some truths in life really not useful?All truth is useful, however not all facts are truth. Anti-mormon "truths" about us are not the truth, they are LIES.Do you find lies as useful? LDS don't, sorry.Should some facts be ignored because the person conveying them is an apostate? Does it matter who conveys truth?Yes it does matter who conveys truth. An "apostate" as you like to say isn't generally a truth teller. They have developed a "perversion" of the actual truth.They've learned a little something more, usually from anti's, and then they somehow NOW think THEY are the experts on mormonism, when they aren't even close.They've just gone from a position of truth, to a more informed but ignorant position. They don't realize that there is another step in the process of learning about mormonism, that is the actual truth of things on every issue, and in fact actually supports the "basic" version that they originally knew in the first place that they once believed.Do Atheists tell the "truth" about Christianity? Do former Christians now anti-Christian Atheists tell the "truth" about Christianity?Why should Christians go to these people to learn the "truths" about Christianity?Isn't it possible that they have a negative and perverted bias that isn't actually the the "truth" at all?Why are the enemy's of righteousness and truth somehow in your mind the "truth holders"? 1
ldsfaqs Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) doublidee doo Edited August 15, 2011 by ldsfaqs
ldsfaqs Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Thanks for the psych analysis. Perhaps you are a person who "thinks" something is not factual, despite the information appearing in church publications or documents, because the information conflicts with your preconceived views? That's called cognitive dissonance, and it doesn't stop the facts you don't like from being true. The church itself has often never refuted information contained in early historical documents that are sometimes written by Prophets despite referring to this information as "disease germs" (Boyd K Packer), and stating that some truths are not useful. I have NEVER found any truth to be what could be considered to be "disease germs" and something to be avoided at all costs. I can't reconcile such an attitude by anyone who claims to represent truth. Perhaps you are a person who knows there are facts that are being omitted or deliberately altered by publishers of lesson manuals, yet you remain silent because the modified version fits better with your cognition? Such a person could really never claim to be dealing honestly with their fellow "men" could they?So, I see you're not someone who's actually interested in learning and understanding, thus not wanting an actual serious answer to your questions, but instead you are someone here with all your wonderful anti-mormon cliches of "cognitive dissonance", lack of honesty etc. with Mormons and Mormonism.You've shown your true colors buddy. Let the stupid games begin. 1
The Nehor Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 If the church is true, then there should be no fear that factual history can prove otherwise.And if we were gods and understood all of "factual history" this would be true. We can at best pick up a smattering of it. If it is distorted by being a sample of the worst of it then someone could reach incorrect conclusions. There should be no off limits sources of facts.Of course you also shouldn't assume that every source is factual. The source should not matter if there is truth to be found, and ALL history will verify that the church is true.The first rule in studying history is that no one writes history without some kind of agenda (overtly or covertly, consciously or not). If Satan were to write a history of the world I doubt it would verify that the church is true. It is anyways.Why then is there a fear by some LDS members that they may be led astray by some historically accurate and verifiable information?I have never encountered said fear. All truth should point to the LDS being the true church if it is so.It does. Of course agenda-driven distortions may or may not do so.Are some truths in life really not useful?Yes. I could spend huge portions of my life studying Turkish bus schedules, memorizing baseball stats for the '43 season, or reading up on the latest of celebrity scandals. They may be true but they are not useful. If I had omniscience this wouldn't matter but I have a limited mortal brain and I have to prioritize on what I learn. Have to find the important stuff. Should some facts be ignored because the person conveying them is an apostate?Being ignored does not mean you are not believed. It just means people (correctly) don't consider your information important. Does it matter who conveys truth?Yes, if they have an agenda that is counter to the truth. Even if they use facts. 2
Messenger Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) If the church is true, then there should be no fear that factual history can prove otherwise. There should be no off limits sources of facts. The source should not matter if there is truth to be found, and ALL history will verify that the church is true.Why then is there a fear by some LDS members that they may be led astray by some historically accurate and verifiable information? All truth should point to the LDS being the true church if it is so.Are some truths in life really not useful? Should some facts be ignored because the person conveying them is an apostate? Does it matter who conveys truth?Ozproof,I suppose it depends on what you are doing with the truth you find. Here are few opinions of mine.1) When teaching a lesson in church, the source means everything in order to gain credibility. 2) In personal study, the tried and true rule of 2 or 3 witnesses to verify truth is necessary.3) When searching for truth, there is no better concentration of truth than from the church itself. That’s one of the blessings of being a member of the church; we have access to tons of truth. Truth outside the church is naturally sparse.4) Historical facts outside the church historically have been questionable at best. There are a lot of people that have their own personal motivation to 'create' the evidence of historical fact based on created documents.5) If a person is apostate, in my opinion, they have left truth. Why would I trust them that they are speaking it now? I mean, if they have been led astray once, into thinking the church wasn’t true, couldn’t they be led astray again - especially since they aren’t a member anymore? As a member, I would consider that a poor source of truth.6) Nobody owns truth. History is replete with churches, individuals and governments that try to control it, and twist it for their own benefit. They key is to not be fooled by them. Having the Holy Ghost to verify truth is priceless. 7) Since the apostate has left the church, and the Holy Ghost is no longer a constant companion, I would suggest that the apostate repent and return as soon as possible so that they can again find the purest source of truth and enjoy it once again. Edited August 15, 2011 by Messenger
thesometimesaint Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) I have no problem with the facts, I occassionally do have a problem with what some think the interpretation of what those facts mean. Edited August 15, 2011 by thesometimesaint 1
CV75 Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 If the church is true, then there should be no fear that factual history can prove otherwise. There should be no off limits sources of facts. The source should not matter if there is truth to be found, and ALL history will verify that the church is true.Why then is there a fear by some LDS members that they may be led astray by some historically accurate and verifiable information? All truth should point to the LDS being the true church if it is so.Are some truths in life really not useful? Should some facts be ignored because the person conveying them is an apostate? Does it matter who conveys truth?The more important the question, the greater the personal investment in getting it answered and the greater the spiritual aspect there is to the process, and so the more important it is to find and ask someone who has both the correct answer and your best interests at heart. Fear undermines faith more than facts do; the love of or quest for facts over the love or quest for truth is a symptom of spiritual fear. I think most people distinguish between facts and truth, adn when it comes to spiritual matters, truth is far more useful.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) Truth is one thing, spin is another. The 2 are not the same thing.LDS, as far as I can tell, are not any more or less "afraid" of the truth than any other group is.This will be interesting to see how LDS are afraid of the truth.Why then is there a fear by some LDS members that they may be led astray by some historically accurate and verifiable information?This argument is a straw man. No one that I am aware of has ever argued that one might be " led astray by some historically accurate and verifiable information".Are some truths in life really not useful? Should some facts be ignored because the person conveying them is an apostate? Does it matter who conveys truth?Is knowing that it was 75 and balmy on the day that JS prayed to God useful?Some truths are not very useful under certain context. Please don't misquote the GA's. Edited August 15, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
LeSellers Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 LDS, as far as I can tell, are not any more or less "afraid" of the truth than any other group is.In this, I believe you wrong.We Saints are less afraid of truth (irrespective of either its source or its domain) than most others. I am not limiting this to other religious people, but to any others at all.Lehi
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) In this, I believe you wrong.We Saints are less afraid of truth (irrespective of either its source or its domain) than most others. I am not limiting this to other religious people, but to any others at all.LehiI was speaking of those that would be afraid. Some people are. Remember all those threads with a certain poster who claimed the thing that "started it all" was that he learned JS had a gun at Carthage. We would put a bunch of "K" after his name? Lol.I would say by and large the populace of LDS are less "afraid of the truth" than other groups. I was only stating that some people, like all groups of people, have people in them that are afraid to learn things. Perhaps I worded my thoughts poorly. Edited August 15, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
KevinG Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 IMO anti-mormons make waaaaay to much of Elder Packers off the cuff remark about the usefullness of all truth.I wonder if most critics of Elder Packer find sharing the whole truth useful when asked by their wife is she looks fat?
ozpoof Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 So, I see you're not someone who's actually interested in learning and understanding, thus not wanting an actual serious answer to your questions, but instead you are someone here with all your wonderful anti-mormon cliches of "cognitive dissonance", lack of honesty etc. with Mormons and Mormonism.You've shown your true colors buddy. Let the stupid games begin. Pot, kettle. If you can tell me how those BoM quotes don't actually mean what they say somehow, I'm all ears.
KevinG Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Pot, kettle. If you can tell me how those BoM quotes don't actually mean what they say somehow, I'm all ears.What BoM quotes? There isn't a single quote from the Book of Mormon in this thread.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Pot, kettle. If you can tell me how those BoM quotes don't actually mean what they say somehow, I'm all ears.What BoM quotes?Yeah facts sure do matter. Lol.
KevinG Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 OZpoof - about the opening post. I would challenge you to provide an authoritative source who said we should ignore verified truth that comes from an apostate? I think that is a myth or a false assumption.Now if we are discussing the utility of truth, or the usefullness of facts, this is another matter. For example (some of which have been provided above)- One can spend an entire Sunday School period discussing the minutiae of a subject to the neglect of the most important principles conveyed in that verse. - One can study in detail the critics and opponents of a view to the neglect of learning the information that will advance learning of that view.- One can learn a falsehood thinking it is the truth simply because it is a popularly supported idea at cost to their belief in saving revelation from God.- One can get hung up on errors and weaknesses of brethren and sisters casing them to discount or abandon the importance of their membership in the church.All of these things are examples of what unbalanced focusing on something that is or appears true but is not useful to a persons growth or salvation costing them the opportunity to benefit from critically important issues or learning.
KevinG Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 PS - trying to find someone on an apologetics site that is afraid of learning something unflattering about Mormons probably isn't an activity ripe with utility. 1
KevinG Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Some useful citations about truth from our Standard Works:Articles of Faith:13 aWe believe in being bhonest, true, cchaste, dbenevolent, virtuous, and in doing egood to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we fhope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to gendure all things. If there is anything hvirtuous, ilovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.Doctrine and Covenants 93 (read through verse 40 -very cool!) http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.30?lang=eng#29 2 Nephi 9:40 (Actual BoM quote) I know that the words of truth are chard against all duncleanness; but the erighteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken.Aww heck- just have fun with the whole subject http://lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=truth&x=0&y=0
KevinG Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Where did Ozpoof go. He was typing then... poof!Darn- this promised to be a fun discussion.
ozpoof Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 So, the intellectually inexperienced they should delve into Fanatical Islam's vile propaganda about the Jews in order to learn the "facts" about the Jews?No, I said FACTS. You're confusing dogma with facts. I agree with you that the problem with history is with those who frame it, or create lesson manuals about it, deliberately altering the order of events, omitting facts that would change the entire story, half truths, complete lies.I am aware that people or organizations can lie while conveying facts. I oppose that where ever I see it.You are told to stay away from ex Mormons because you might learn what they know. That's the reason. If what they believe is not the truth, why worry? The church can surely stand if it speaks the truth and has nothing to hide.Do you actually consider ANYTHING written by a non-Mormon to be a "best book"? If a so-called Anti Mormon publishes a book that contains nothing but copies of early church documents, are you seriously telling me you will believe these are lies and must be ignored? Do you know what that type of behavior sounds like?The fact that you don't even know what so-called anti Mormons use as their sources shows you have never bothered to even check. You have already made up your mind. By claiming ex Mormons don't use historically accurate and verifiable information as their sources you have also said BYU and the church itself has fraudulent documents in their possession and are passing these off as historical, because most sources used by ex Mormons in their research are owned by the church. No, These authors do not use "some" facts. They are very careful to use nothing but historical documents that often speak for themselves. Even familysearch.org is used. Are you claiming these sources are inaccurate and perverse?Yes, I do know who the Father of perversion and lies is. I'd say someone who wants to protect lies would make sure the people he lies to never do their own research. He would create fear in them, claiming anything other than what he says is evil and must be ignored and avoided. Yes, I'm pretty familiar with the tactics used by liars.Am I telling LDS that you should hang out at a GAY BAR, simply so we can get "accurate and verifiable information"? Ah no. I'm saying you should CHECK FACTS rather than dismissing everything anyone says who disagrees with what you believe.Am I telling LDS that you need to "kill" someone in order to know not to do it? Let's not get carried away with straw men.Am I telling LDS that you need to wallow in ANY MUD and SIN in order to get accurate and verifiable information? Not at all. Again, read what people say and CHECK FOR YOURSELF. Why are Mormons so afraid of doing some thinking for themselves?"Anti-mormonism perverts 99.9% of it's claims against mormonism." How on Earth would you know that? That's an outright lie!"Every conclusion they have about mormonism is a lie." The Church disagrees with you. They have changed the preamble to the Book of Mormon now that DNA evidence shows the Native Americans originated in Asia. So the conclusion by ex Mormons that so-called Lamanites are not THE ancestors of a lost Semitic tribe is not a lie. The church wouldn't have changed the preamble if it was a lie.Again, do you encourage people studying the Jews to delve into Fanatical Islam Bigotry? So, why should mormons delve into anti-mormon bigotry?Evil is evil buddy..... We are to shun evil in all it's forms. Don't you know that?"All truth is useful, however not all facts are truth." Oh really? You certainly have taken Packer's talk to heart haven't you?
KevinG Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Oh - there you are! I was worried this was a dead thread and I was talking to myself.
KevinG Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 You might enjoy this Ozpoof...I don't have a testimony of the History of the Church by Davis Bitton.http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=560 A longer but enjoyable read is Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Lyman Bushmanhttp://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling/dp/1400042704 It deals openly with complementary and difficult issues in LDS Church History and Joseph Smith's history.- - -Don't spend too much time on Mormons who don't appreciate their own history and cannot reconcile imperfect beings who deal with with the messages of a perfect God. They do exist and they play off of full time Church critics quite well. But using anti-mormons and peter priesthoods as foils against each other leads to more heat than light.
KevinG Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Call for reference on this point... I'd like to see where these ideas came from."You are told to stay away from ex Mormons because you might learn what they know."
Recommended Posts