If Something Is Factually True, Does The Source Matter?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Since when did "zone administrator" equal official declarations to the body of the church?

Oh that is right, it doesn't. Oh well more facts that just don't matter to you.

You want us to believe that Elder Packer was going to

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

Now that sure is a load.

Further more there is no way for us to verify what this unnamed source says. As far as I can tell it is a bald assertion. So the CFR still stands?

And not sharing certain facts is not lying. It is quite revealing that your "source" quickly jumps to that conclusion.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ozpoof]

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.

The church excommunicates people who publish nothing but copies of church documents from the past. The Tanners book that has nothing but quotes from church leaders and photocopied documents. Of course the church tells people to avoid anything that paints them as liars. "Some truths are not very useful".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

No, that is not how it works, you claimed that is what he was trying to convey. It is up to you to prove it. I simply challenged your assertion and you want me to prove your P.O.V.? What a weak position.

[ozpoof]

Since when did "zone administrator" equal official declarations to the body of the church?

Oh that is right, it doesn't. Oh well more facts that just don't matter to you.

You want us to believe that Elder Packer was going to

Now that sure is a load.

Further more there is no way for us to verify what this unnamed source says. As far as I can tell it is a bald assertion. So the CFR still stands?

So a Zone administrator is a no one in your mind? Packer calling discussions of geography "disease germs" is a load. Are you serious?

[ozpoof]

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

So no answer then, just deflection. Typical.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The church excommunicates people who publish nothing but copies of church documents from the past.

CFR please.

This looks like more BS.

You are going to get reported then banned for not complying with board guide lines. Besides if you want people to take you serious you need to provider sources.

I know of no one who was exed solely because they copied church history documents. Now when they choose to put the most negative spin on something or print brazen false hoods, that is a different story.

The Tanners book that has nothing but quotes from church leaders and photocopied documents. Of course the church tells people to avoid anything that paints them as liars. "Some truths are not very useful".

Um, no that is not all that Tanners books contain. For you to claim other wise is pure dishonesty.

That Tanners have the ability to read the minds of dead people. That Tanners were able to pull some great quotes though, most taken out of context and given very negative spin such as "This is obviously what JS was thinking".

[ozpoof]

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.

I'm yet to hear anything intelligent myself, particularly given so many people here only choose to read the heavily correlated (code for censored) material the church puts out there.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So no answer then, just deflection. Typical.

How is saying "your posts are hard to read" a deflection.

Get real.

I have answered plenty of your rather imaginative posts in this thread. If you want me to respond to your rather large diatribe use the quote feature so I can respond with better clarity. If not it is not my loss.

[ozpoof]

CFR please.

This looks like more BS.

You are going to get reported then banned for not complying with board guide lines. Besides if you want people to take you serious you need to provider sources.

I know of no one who was exed solely because they copied church history documents. Now when they choose to put the most negative spin on something or print brazen false hoods, that is a different story.

Um, no that is not all that Tanners books contain. For you to claim other wise is pure dishonesty.

That Tanners have the ability to read the minds of dead people. That Tanners were able to pull some great quotes though, most taken out of context and given very negative spin such as "This is obviously what JS was thinking".

Oh, you need to google "the September Six". That's a start. The Authors of Mormon Enigma were excommunicated despite their book being factual. Why is the church so afraid of true history? You have not read the Tanners books.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm yet to hear anything intelligent myself, particularly given so many people here only choose to read the heavily correlated (code for censored) material the church puts out there.

Maybe if you want an intelligent response perhaps you could bring an intelligent argument.

You know, when you put crap in you only get crap out?

What does "given so many people here only choose to read the heavily correlated (code for censored) material the church puts out there." mean?

I don't even know how to respond because your sentence makes no sense.

[ozpoof]

How is saying "your posts are hard to read" a deflection.

Get real.

I have answered plenty of your rather imaginative posts in this thread. If you want me to respond to your rather large diatribe use the quote feature so I can respond with better clarity. If not it is not my loss.

Large diatribe? It's answers to what you said!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Oh, you need to google "the September Six". That's a start. The Authors of Mormon Enigma were excommunicated despite their book being factual. Why is the church so afraid of true history? You have not read the Tanners books.

I have read the Tanners books. So what. They are horrible. You are going to need to do better than "Google the September Six".

I want sources dude.

And what source do you have that the church excommunicated the authors for writing Mormon Enigma? I need something official.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Large diatribe? It's answers to what you said!

That is what it is.

Sorry I cannot follow it as it is poorly formatted. I don't know how much more clear I can be.

[ozpoof]

Maybe if you want an intelligent response perhaps you could bring an intelligent argument.

You know, when you put crap in you only get crap out?

What does "given so many people here only choose to read the heavily correlated (code for censored) material the church puts out there." mean?

I don't even know how to respond because your sentence makes no sense.

The church uses heavily edited scripture and half truths in their manuals. Everywhere they quote scripture and fill it with ........... or add words within [ ] they are modifying the scripture. If you go to the original, you can often see why they omitted parts. Section 132 is nothing but an embarrassment - talking about taking virgins and using the law of Sarah on first wives to threaten them with eternal destruction of they don't agree with their husband taking a teen girl. The manual writers do things like mention marriages and deaths in non-chronological order to hide the FACT that some women married other men in UT while their husband was still alive and still married to them. Joseph Smith AND Brigham Young engaged in polyandry, which is not doctrinal, even if you believe the atrocity of polygamy was of God. The church tells people NOT to use sources other than the manuals for lessons. Read the lesson manual before you screech CFR. The facts are there, but they are presented so as to deceive. That's lying and is not something a true church would do

[ozpoof]

That is what it is.

Sorry I cannot follow it as it is poorly formatted. I don't know how much more clear I can be.

What you said was in quotes. My response follows. Not poorly formatted at all, just not what you want. Your responses only prove you have done very little research into the church you claim to believe in. That's your problem.

[ozpoof]

I have read the Tanners books. So what. They are horrible. You are going to need to do better than "Google the September Six".

I want sources dude.

And what source do you have that the church excommunicated the authors for writing Mormon Enigma? I need something official.

Do your own research. Sources? What do you want me to do, break into the COB. Wow you really do have a closed mind and a hardened heart. Read Mormon Enigma. You might lear a few things about Joseph Smith. The preface talks about their excommunication. Simon Southerton also excommunicated for bringing to light the FACT there is zero Semitic DNA in "Lamanites". Write anything that makes the "official" church garbage look like lies and your get exxed, even if the book is factual and cannot be refuted by the church.

Edited August 15, 2011 by ozpoof

[Maidservant]

Ozproof,

Are you personally on a search for truth in your life? Would that be how you would characterize yourself, or your form of life right now? Or what is your priority in life?

Welcome to the Board .

Maidservant

[ozpoof]

Ozproof,

Are you personally on a search for truth in your life? Would that be how you would characterize yourself, or your form of life right now? Or what is your priority in life?

Welcome to the Board .

Maidservant

My priority is to find truth no matter how it shakes my preconceived notions. If I believe something and that is proven to be false, I will change my beliefs. I will not ignore new information that challenges my beliefs, I will learn and grow.

All truth is valuable. No truth is "disease germs" as Elder Packer called it. I want to show the facts of history to my family and help them find the truth. I want them to see all and then decide. I feel sorry for my family who are in the church and are too scared to read or learn from unapproved sources. That's not what a member of Christ's church should feel - fear of information. That's scary.

Right now I am very happy, except when I speak to Mormons. I find this site very adversarial, and feel a bad spirit here - except for your post. I come here to try and make people think, that;s all. Just think and research for yourself. Don't be afraid.

[wenglund]

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.

Perhaps.

Or, perhaps that is the way someone who doesn't correctly understand the Church and its purpose might view things.

In almost every respect it is off the mark--which is interesting given your claimed devotion to truth. But, you are free to think otherwise. After all, that would be perfectly fitting when you have evidently decided that you know better than God and his chosen leaders what is important to God's Church, and you have decided you know better than God how best to assess his Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 15, 2011 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What you said was in quotes. My response follows. Not poorly formatted at all, just not what you want. Your responses only prove you have done very little research into the church you claim to believe in. That's your problem.

Stop projecting dude. You want people to take you seriously. It is hard to do that when your stuff is formatted like crap.

It is easier to understand what some one says when you

quote it like this

then when you "quote it like this".

I have a hard time following that post. To you want a response or not?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do your own research. Sources? What do you want me to do, break into the COB. Wow you really do have a closed mind and a hardened heart. Read Mormon Enigma. You might lear a few things about Joseph Smith. The preface talks about their excommunication. Simon Southerton also excommunicated for bringing to light the FACT there is zero Semitic DNA in "Lamanites". Write anything that makes the "official" church garbage look like lies and your get exxed, even if the book is factual and cannot be refuted by the church.

Sorry but telling me to "google" search something is not a source.

I want specific info you are obligated to provider it. What specifically do you want me to read in Mormon Enigma that will spell out their excommunication. And Simon Southerton was not excommunicated for "telling the truth." He wrote a hit piece on the church and was warned that if he published it he would be gone. His argument is a giant red herring and was designed solely to get people to leave the church.

Stop projecting, this thread is not about me.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

dupe

Edited August 15, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Jeff K.]

Knowing the source may provide a reason for the nuanced interpretation of facts.

[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?

BTW Oz, these are not my quotes. I have no idea who you were talking to.

[KevinG]

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

Go for it. In fact we're taught to find lost sheep. Could you be confusing avoid apostates with avoid apostate teachings?