If Something Is Factually True, Does The Source Matter?

[ozpoof]

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.

What if the story is distorted by being a sample of the best? Do you agree that someone could reach incorrect conclusions if only the good history is taught?

"Of course you also shouldn't assume that every source is factual." I agree, which is why I check the sources and make sure different sources corroborate. Do you check the history you assume 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)." I agree 100%. The first rule of reading history is to verify the accuracy of the information. Have you?

" I could spend huge portions of my life studying Turkish bus schedules........." You don't devote your life to the Turkish bus system, or give at least 10% of your income to it. I would say that with the time and money you spend on the church, it is VERY important to understand the religion and verify the truthfulness of what they claim. If you have faith they are telling the truth, you have nothing to fear do you?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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."

This is a falsehood. The closest thing I was ever told, and it was in a non official capacity, was to not read anti-Mormon lit from my seminary teachers. However, I never listen to that and I have never once been reprimanded for it.

[wenglund]

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?

To me, truths, themselves, are value and meaningful neutral. What gives them meaning and value is dependent upon whether they can be put to good and intended use. For example, it may be true that on average Osama Ben Laden may have had seven grains of sand lodged in his beard. But, such a "truth" is relatively devoid of value or meaningfulness to most anyone but perhaps Osama, himself, and those immediately around him. However, the "truth" regarding his whereabouts may be quite meaningful to those intent on finding him.

In principle, the same applies to the Church. The "truths" that are meaningful and of value to us believers, and thus ought to be pursued, are those that are pertinent to the intents and purpose of the restored gospel (i.e. the four-fold mission of the Church and the end objective of the plan of salvation). These "truths" are the things that one may find at the focus of the Church curriculum and the things most pronounced across the pulpit.

Whereas, many of the historical "truths" that are pursued by antagonists towards the Church or those struggling in the gospel, while perhaps of value to their respective goals, are impertinent to the intents of the gospel. They are distractions that may keep people from progressing in faith and achieving the end which they and God may desire. That is why the Church may not focus on them or pay them much mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You don't devote your life to the Turkish bus system, or give at least 10% of your income to it.

So the truth finally comes out. Oz has an issue with tithing. Why not just state that you do?

[KevinG]

A discussion of Boyd K Packers talk "The mantle is far greater than the intellect"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Boyd_K._Packer%27s_talk:_%22The_Mantle_is_Far,_Far_Greater_Than_the_Intellect%22

That is of course if you don't mind the openly pro-mormon source.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

You should learn to use the quote feature. It is really hard to follow your posts.

[KevinG]

So the truth finally comes out. Oz has an issue with tithing. Why not just state that you do?

I suspect Oz has multiple issues with the LDS Church and that his sources are limited to some key web sites that amass less than flattering information about the Saints. He uses lots of stock phrases mixed in with his rants.

I'm still waiting for the CFR.

[KevinG]

Here we go... the original talk from the 1981 BYU Studies edition that chronicled the 5th Annual Church Education Symposium talk.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/21.3Packer.pdf

It took me a minute to find. Context is a beautiful thing.

[ozpoof]

1) When teaching a lesson in church, the source means everything in order to gain credibility. ----Credibility doesn't mean truthful.

2) In personal study, the tried and true rule of 2 or 3 witnesses to verify truth is necessary. --- unless those witnesses are on record lying, say by signing an affidavit that the church does not engage in polygamy while being married to more than one woman. John Taylor lied in an affidavit he signed after the dates of his marriage to multiple women. That's not a credible witness.

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. --- Are you confusing dogma with historical facts?

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. ---What would you say about people who create a "faith promoting history" within the church. Is that deception acceptable?

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. --- You assume they have left the church because they have lost the truth. You don't talk to many ex Mormons do you?

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. --- Yes, that's the key isn't it? Don't be fooled by people with an agenda. Look out for those who want to control information or limit access to it. They have something to hide.

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.----- Warm fuzzies are not a reliable way to verify truth, ESPECIALLY if what you are pondering and praying about ISN'T THE REAL HISTORY!! What do you think it means if you are told a false history, and you ponder and pray about it and feel good about it? Does that make the false history true? NO. It's still false. Who's telling you it's true then?

[KevinG]

Bah... my wife says the grass is too long and I have to mow it.

Too long is a relative thing and not an absolute truth. Can I tell her that or am I better off finding that truth "not useful" and doing what she asks of me?

Don't bother I already know the answer. Later!

[ozpoof]

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?

You would say that. I believe Elder Packer was warning CES employees not to teach truths if they make kids question. IOW, he was saying that if they want to keep their jobs they should shut up and teach the correlated pap.

[ozpoof]

Oh - there you are! I was worried this was a dead thread and I was talking to myself.

You have been. Settle down there pal. You seem a bit frantic.

[ozpoof]

So the truth finally comes out. Oz has an issue with tithing. Why not just state that you do?

No, I have an issue with people who hate truth that makes them feel uncomfortable. Those people are liars and bullies.

[KevinG]

You would say that. I believe Elder Packer was warning CES employees not to teach truths if they make kids question. IOW, he was saying that if they want to keep their jobs they should shut up and teach the correlated pap.

Go read Elder Packer's talk (I provided a handy link) and come back with a more cogent analysis please.

[KevinG]

You have been. Settle down there pal. You seem a bit frantic.

Just eager to hear intelligent discussion of the questions you posted and the replies to them.

I guess I'm in for disappointment given your last few comments.

[ozpoof]

To me, truths, themselves, are value and meaningful neutral. What gives them meaning and value is dependent upon whether they can be put to good and intended use. For example, it may be true that on average Osama Ben Laden may have had seven grains of sand lodged in his beard. But, such a "truth" is relatively devoid of value or meaningfulness to most anyone but perhaps Osama, himself, and those immediately around him. However, the "truth" regarding his whereabouts may be quite meaningful to those intent on finding him.

In principle, the same applies to the Church. The "truths" that are meaningful and of value to us believers, and thus ought to be pursued, are those that are pertinent to the intents and purpose of the restored gospel (i.e. the four-fold mission of the Church and the end objective of the plan of salvation). These "truths" are the things that one may find at the focus of the Church curriculum and the things most pronounced across the pulpit.

Whereas, many of the historical "truths" that are pursued by antagonists towards the Church or those struggling in the gospel, while perhaps of value to their respective goals, are impertinent to the intents of the gospel. They are distractions that may keep people from progressing in faith and achieving the end which they and God may desire. That is why the Church may not focus on them or pay them much mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I very much doubt Elder Packer was talking about something like 7 grains of sand. If the historical facts the church advises members to avoid show the church they believe in to be something other than it claims, surely you will agree those truths are very important to the individual, but damaging to the church. That's why the church ignores them and teaches others to ignore them.

[KevinG]

I very much doubt Elder Packer was talking about something like 7 grains of sand. If the historical facts the church advises members to avoid show the church they believe in to be something other than it claims, surely you will agree those truths are very important to the individual, but damaging to the church. That's why the church ignores them and teaches others to ignore them.

Actually Wade is spot on. Please read the actual talk and understand that it was delivered to an audience of Church Education System employees in 1981.

Until you know the truth of this talk and the context it was given you won't be able discuss this intelligently.

I am really off to mow now... I look forward to your thoughts (pro and con) about the actual address you are talking about.

[ozpoof]

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."

Oh, so you aren't told to avoid apostates? Great! I'll email you some reading material then.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You would say that. I believe Elder Packer was warning CES employees not to teach truths if they make kids question. IOW, he was saying that if they want to keep their jobs they should shut up and teach the correlated pap.

This is false. He was not talking about that. He was specifically talking about getting side tract on such things as BoM geography in a gospel class setting. Such is not very useful to peoples spiritual welfare.

For some one that cares so much about the facts you sure like to spin it. "IF they want to keep their jobs"? Seriously?

[ozpoof]

Actually Wade is spot on. Please read the actual talk and understand that it was delivered to an audience of Church Education System employees in 1981.

Until you know the truth of this talk and the context it was given you won't be able discuss this intelligently.

I am really off to mow now... I look forward to your thoughts (pro and con) about the actual address you are talking about.

I've read the talk, and I know someone who was there and who was an employee of the CES. HE took it as intended by Elder Packer - shut up about inconvenient facts or lose your job. Such and attitude to facts and truth is not of God.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, I have an issue with people who hate truth that makes them feel uncomfortable. Those people are liars and bullies.

you mean like this quote?

OW, he was saying that if they want to keep their jobs they should shut up and teach the correlated pap.

There is note one lick of truth to your statement here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Just eager to hear intelligent discussion of the questions you posted and the replies to them.

I guess I'm in for disappointment given your last few comments.

Hahahaha. Yeah good thing you picked up on that.

[ozpoof]

This is false. He was not talking about that. He was specifically talking about getting side tract on such things as BoM geography in a gospel class setting. Such is not very useful to peoples spiritual welfare.

For some one that cares so much about the facts you sure like to spin it. "IF they want to keep their jobs"? Seriously?

So Elder Packer called discussion about BoM geography "spread[ing] disease germs" in his talk? Give me a break. A CES employee I know was told by Zone administrators not to discuss certain FACTS lest it creates difficult questions among the students. He asked if they were telling him to lie and the just repeated "don't destroy testimonies". If a testimony is based on a lie, it's worthless.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If the historical facts the church advises members to avoid

Straw man alert.

Were has the church ever told people to avoid historical facts?

CFR.

You have been spouting this since the last thread you participated on. See, we saints care about the truth. And you claimed to care about it. So since you do please back up your assertion.

You cannot because it is false. The church has never told people to avoid the churches past.

[ozpoof]

There is note one lick of truth to your statement here.

And you know this how? Prove it's not true or back off.