Jeff K. Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Maybe knowing more of what is out there did not incite you to reexamine your testimony. For some people, it does. One thing I realized was that I was not going to hear the complete truth at lds.org. What they chose to tell me was chosen based on whether or not it would lead me to join and be active in the Church, not with the sole purpose of finding the truth. You could fairly criticize me as being young and naive, which I was, but at one time I really believed the highest priority was finding the truth. What I now know is that from their perspective, omitting truths, giving half truths, and even a few lies are considered "good," as long as it makes people more likely to join and be active in the Church. It's manipulative. Whether that is good or bad, it definintely created a mistrust between me and those telling the stories.There will always be "more information out there". No matter what the church does, someone will continuously say "but there is more information out there" and come to the assumption that "therefore the church is hiding something". If there is always "more information out there" regardless of the church's actions, then isn't it a bit dishonest to complain that the church is not providing "the complete truth".By the way, I challenge everyone and anyone to show me a website with "the complete truth". And if the truth is not complete, do we presume that "those" with said website are hiding something?I would criticize someone with such a standard as being intellectually naive enough to believe that the "complete truth" is somehow found anywhere. Indeed, the definition of truth seems to be (based on the posts) seeing what you want to see. That being the case let us be truthful and understand it isn't the information the church presents that bothers so many, it is the fact that they want to see overwhelmingly negative information from their limited perspective, then they will label it truth.Pretty silly isn't it? Edited January 27, 2012 by Jeff K.
Sky Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Maybe knowing more of what is out there did not incite you to reexamine your testimony. For some people, it does. One thing I realized was that I was not going to hear the complete truth at lds.org. What they chose to tell me was chosen based on whether or not it would lead me to join and be active in the Church, not with the sole purpose of finding the truth. You could fairly criticize me as being young and naive, which I was, but at one time I really believed the highest priority was finding the truth. What I now know is that from their perspective, omitting truths, giving half truths, and even a few lies are considered "good," as long as it makes people more likely to join and be active in the Church. It's manipulative. Whether that is good or bad, it definintely created a mistrust between me and those telling the stories.Not everything you are reading on critical websites is the complete truth, either. In fact, many of them would like nothing more than for you to lose your testimony and either not join the Church or leave it if you are already a member. Edited January 27, 2012 by Sky 2
Sky Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Duplicate post Edited January 27, 2012 by Sky
LeSellers Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Not everything you are reading on critical websites is the complete truth, either. In fact, many of them would like nothing more than for you to lose your testimony and either not join the Church or leave it if you are already a member.Duplicate postYou should have left it in: it needs to be said, not just twice, but a million times.Lehi
LeSellers Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Not everything you are reading on critical websites is the complete truth, either. I'd say, rather, "Little you are reading on critical websites is the truth, complete or not. They are widely known for fabrication, distortion, and quote mining to attain their goal: to get you to lose your testimony and leave (or never join) The Church of Jesus Christ."Lehi
KevinG Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 The debate over who has the unvarnished truth does not end with Mormons or Anti-Mormons. It ends with God.Why are so many seeking the archives of history when they really need to be asking Father in Heaven how to return to His presence?
cinepro Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 I'd say, rather, "Little you are reading on critical websites is the truth, complete or not. They are widely known for fabrication, distortion, and quote mining to attain their goal: to get you to lose your testimony and leave (or never join) The Church of Jesus Christ."LehiI think you're overstating the case. While there are still egregious offenses in the accuracy department to be found, the general trend (as far as I can see among the more popular search results when I'm looking for information) is for an emphasis on information presented accurately and in context. I suspect someone figured out that in order to get some people to lose their testimony and leave (or never join) the Church, they don't have to do much more than that. 1
Libs Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 I suspect someone figured out that in order to get some people to lose their testimony and leave (or never join) the Church, they don't have to do much more than that. There is a lot of truth in that.I remember being faced with many quotes from LDS Prophets that had that effect on me (especially from Brigham Young). Out of context, perhaps, but it's difficult to imagine that some of those quotes would look any better "in context".
Libs Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 I'd say, rather, "Little you are reading on critical websites is the truth, complete or not. They are widely known for fabrication, distortion, and quote mining to attain their goal: to get you to lose your testimony and leave (or never join) The Church of Jesus Christ."LehiBut, there is a lot of truth in this, as well...
robuchan Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 I'd say, rather, "Little you are reading on critical websites is the truth, complete or not. They are widely known for fabrication, distortion, and quote mining to attain their goal: to get you to lose your testimony and leave (or never join) The Church of Jesus Christ."LehiWhat's a critical website? This site? Mormon Stories where half the interviews are faithful LDS? Everything I learned that made me lose my belief in the truthfulness of Mormon history was validated from Richard Bushman and other faithful LDS sources. Dan Peterson did as much harm than any "critical website" you are referring to. 1
Deborah Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 What's a critical website? This site? Mormon Stories where half the interviews are faithful LDS? Everything I learned that made me lose my belief in the truthfulness of Mormon history was validated from Richard Bushman and other faithful LDS sources. Dan Peterson did as much harm than any "critical website" you are referring to.How very sad. I take it you never really had a testimony of any of the teachings or doctrine?
robuchan Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 How very sad. I take it you never really had a testimony of any of the teachings or doctrine?That's a strange assumption. Do you believe it's impossible for someone to have a testimony and then stop believing?
Deborah Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 The question is if you have a testimony of the doctrine and the teachings, what makes you think those things are no longer valid because of something that is disturbing in the history, which by the way even from friendly historians is still not complete.
LeSellers Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Do you believe it's impossible for someone to have a testimony and then stop believing?Of course people with testimonies can neglect them and allow them to wither. We see cases like that all the time.The question, from my vantage point, is how diligent a person is in nourishing his testimony, in defending it, in exercising it. Those who do these things have tstimonies, those who do not, lose them, often in the face of trivial issues .Lehi
Libs Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) In the face of trivial issues? I think that's a little unfair, Lehi. Whether or not Joseph Smith was telling the truth, is not really trivial. It goes to the core of an LDS testimony.Testimonies come in varying degrees of fragility. Not all of us have a "rock solid" testimony, no...but, that doesn't mean we didn't have one at all. Edited January 27, 2012 by Libs
Deborah Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Whether or not Joseph Smith was telling the truth, is not really trivial. But for many of us there is no question about his telling the truth in the context of the situation. I just know of the many first hand accounts given by those closest to him that he was a man of greatest integrity and charity.
mledbetter Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Deleted Edited January 28, 2012 by mledbetter
Jeff K. Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 What's a critical website? This site? Mormon Stories where half the interviews are faithful LDS? Everything I learned that made me lose my belief in the truthfulness of Mormon history was validated from Richard Bushman and other faithful LDS sources. Dan Peterson did as much harm than any "critical website" you are referring to.People will always see what they want to see in order to justify their actions.
Libs Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 But for many of us there is no question about his telling the truth in the context of the situation. I just know of the many first hand accounts given by those closest to him that he was a man of greatest integrity and charity.Yes, I understand that and I think it's wonderful, actually. Not all of us have that kind of faith or assurance. But, I can tell you that I had experiences that did lead me to believe the church was true. Things that caused me to doubt, later, don't automatically cancel that out...especially if the church really is true. You believe the church is true, yes? So, why is it not possible that I and others could have spiritual stirrings in that direction? And, later, second guess or doubt...
Jeff K. Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Yes, I understand that and I think it's wonderful, actually. Not all of us have that kind of faith or assurance. But, I can tell you that I had experiences that did lead me to believe the church was true. Things that caused me to doubt, later, don't automatically cancel that out...especially if the church really is true. You believe the church is true, yes? So, why is it not possible that I and others could have spiritual stirrings in that direction? And, later, second guess or doubt...Doubt is, I believe, often a part of faith, the question is the patience of the spirit to wait for an answer. The feeling of truth and spirituality is often like mana, it lasts for a while but not forever until we mature enough to have the spirit with us always. That is why we pray and study the scriptures seeking insight. It is a manifestation of the spiritual, not the physical. History is an interpretation of the physical, an "ephemeral" interpretation of the physical. It cannot overcome the spiritual unless we replace the spiritual with the physical.
Gervin Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 By the way, I challenge everyone and anyone to show me a website with "the complete truth". And if the truth is not complete, do we presume that "those" with said website are hiding something? done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 In the face of trivial issues? I think that's a little unfair, Lehi. Whether or not Joseph Smith was telling the truth, is not really trivial. It goes to the core of an LDS testimony.Testimonies come in varying degrees of fragility. Not all of us have a "rock solid" testimony, no...but, that doesn't mean we didn't have one at all."Facts" have nothing to do with religous testimonies- all the facts in the world cannot prove that the person Jesus of Nazareth even existed much less that he was the Son of God with a virgin mother who was the savior of the world who redeemed us from sin.Every Christian on earth believes that with no historical evidence whatsoever.
robuchan Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 People will always see what they want to see in order to justify their actions.Curious what actions you think I'm trying to justify. Wife beating? Porn? Shoplifting? Starting a multi level marketing company? Go ahead, you've gone this far. Speak your mind. 1
Jeff K. Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 I wouldn't even venture to guess what you are seeking to justify. I am merely pointing out a very well worn truism. People generally interpret history in order to justify their own actions..... Remember the Alamo?
Recommended Posts