Seek For Truth Etc "Whatever The Source May Be..."

[canard78]

From the CES fireside this week

"Additionally, President Uchtdorf said that Latter-day Saints are “not asked to blindly accept everything they hear.” Rather, members are “encouraged to think and discover truth” for themselves and “to ponder, to search, to evaluate and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth.”

President Uchtdorf also relayed the fundamental Latter-day Saint beliefs in seeking after anything that is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” whatever the source may be, and that God “will yet reveal many great and important things” to His children."

In the wake of the hot topics here around a 'middle way,' defending the King article or finding a balanced approach to being/staying LDS, does Elder Uchtdorf's talk offer support for those who have an adapted faith or does it offer a clear blueprint for how someone might make some course corrections to fully embracing every aspect of LDS teachings.

If the second, does Elder Uchtdorf offer a model for how academics, bloggers and local priesthood leaders should approach someone who is trying to find answers or a balance between faith and uncertainty.

Links:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-uchtdorf-ces-truth-understanding-others

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/ces-devotionals/2013/01?lang=eng

[canard78]

I enjoyed his 'Doilies story' (18 minutes into the video). "It illustrates the folly of jumping to conclusions with limited information. Sometimes the fragments of truth are not the truth at all."

I think this can apply to many conversations. The presumptions some make about the motives of 'middle way members' but also the conclusions some leap to when investigating the history of the church. Unfortunately, historical and theological study will always give us limited information.

Here's a summary (not transcript) of other points he made. I suggest you don't re-quote it elsewhere as I'm sure an official transcript will come out elsewhere.

At 26:40 he makes the excellent point that when we face the truths of others that contradict our own, instead of accepting that they may have information that could be helpful and augment or complement what we know we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed... or knowingly trying to deceive. He says this stretches to all aspects of our life, including religion.

He asks if it is possible to know the truth? He says: It exists beyond belief. It is true, even if no-one believes it. Our Father in Heaven is pleased when we use our talents/faculties to discover truth.

Truth has been discovered through many ways. The things we once thought we knew, are being contradicted.

The Devil offers the idea that truth is relative. Or that one person's truth is as valid as any other. Some he entices to believe there is an absolute truth but impossible to know it. For those who embrace the truth he has sowed seeds of doubt.

Elder Uchtdorf goes on to gives the example of people finding information about the church that seems to contradict what they had learned previously. He says: If this happens, remember, in this age of information, there are many who create doubt about everything and anything. He then quips that people will even say the moon is a hologram and certain movie stars are aliens from another planet.

"Just because something is printed on paper, put on the internet or has a powerful group of followers, it doesn't make it true." (I wondered which 'powerful group of followers' he was alluding to).

Some things are presented that appear credible. But when something contradicts the revealed word of God, remember the blind man holding the elephants trunk will never be able to describe the full elephant. "What might seem contradictory now may seem reasonable in the future. Because we see through a glass darkly, we have to trust the Lord who see all things clearly."

"Eventually, all our doubts will be replaced by certainty because our Heavenly Father is the source of all truth. He knows truth as it was, is and will be.

What is his truth? The gospel of Jesus Christ. He is the way, the truth and the life. (Then lists the blessings of following in his footsteps). How can we trust this truth? Knowing for ourselves is not an opportunity, it is an obligation. It is one of the reasons we were sent to this earth. LDS are not asked to blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to discover truth for ourselves and come to a personal knowledge of the truth.

We seek for truth where-ever we may find it. Joseph Smith taught that Mormonism is truth. (Use the quote about we have the right to embrace every item of truth without limitation or probitation of the superstitious creeds or notions of men).

We do have the fullness of the everlasting gospel. But that does not mean that we know everything. One principle of the restored gospel is that God will yet reveal many things.

If a man lacks wisdom, he can ask God and the truth will be given him. We seek truth from all good books and other wholesome sources.

As you accept the responsibility to seek after truth with an open mind and humble heart... you will be more inclined to build up instead of tearing down. You need not be deceived. You can discover divine truth. Some people seek to show off their supposed learning and thus cause contention. As disciples of Jesus Christ, such contention is inconsistent with the Spirit upon which we depend in our search for truth.

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. It will not be the convenient way. It will be the Saviour's way.

Spare no efforts in the search to know this truth for yourself. This truth will make you free.

[Tacenda]

Listening right now, love the "doily" story. I wish he could be a little more specific about half truths on the internet or full truths for that matter. But so far it's vague.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[go_utes01]

What do you mean by an "adapted faith"? Don't we all have adapted faiths? I still do not understand the need to categorize people into so-called "middle way" members and, I guess, "non-middle way (outside way)" members? President Uchdorf appears to be speaking to all members and providing insights for all members in their study/exploration/spiritual journey.

[Biz]

I thought the talk was a major disappointment, seems like it was just a follow up from Elder Cook's poor talk last conference. If you found information that is contradictory from what you have heard in church the information is false. I'm not going to tell why it's false or what the truth actually is but it's false. If you have a problem with the false information then Satan is deceiving you. I have the truth, I'm not going to tell you the truth but I have it. The talk was just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and full of victim blaming. Instead of manning up and correcting some or any false information he vaguely identifies it and tosses the problem on the truth searcher.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Biz

[Tacenda]

Truth of the matter is, JS applied polygamy in a questionable manner. I don't have to know all the details to know of this truth. Because the moral compass I hold that was given me at birth tells me this truth. I don't have to read a word past this knowledge to tell me that this is so. The geneology that was present on the church website and listed each of his wives, is all the truth I needed. Of course it is now taken down, so therefore hidden. I wish the church would come out and tell the whole truth and nothing but. If this church is true....it should be open and honest. That's what I would like to see happen. Until that happens my trust is in limbo.

[go_utes01]

Truth of the matter is, JS applied polygamy in a questionable manner. I don't have to know all the details to know of this truth. Because the moral compass I hold that was given me at birth tells me this truth. I don't have to read a word past this knowledge to tell me that this is so. The geneology that was present on the church website and listed each of his wives, is all the truth I needed. Of course it is now taken down, so therefore hidden. I wish the church would come out and tell the whole truth and nothing but. If this church is true....it should be open and honest. That's what I would like to see happen. Until that happens my trust is in limbo.

I don't believe the oft-repeated claim that the Church hides its history. It may not discuss all of its history in all situations, appropriately I might add. If you want to know the history, it is available. Do you believe President Monson should say Joseph Smith "applied polygamy in a questionable manner" at conference or to the media? Do you think that would help the mission of the Church? There is a time and place for all things, "to everything there is a season."

[Tacenda]

I don't believe the oft-repeated claim that the Church hides its history. It may not discuss all of its history in all situations, appropriately I might add. If you want to know the history, it is available. Do you believe President Monson should say Joseph Smith "applied polygamy in a questionable manner" at conference or to the media? Do you think that would help the mission of the Church? There is a time and place for all things, "to everything there is a season."

But it's my fault for feeling this way apparently. But thank you for your patience and not slamming me down to the curb, for thinking this. You don't know how grateful I am for that.

[Biz]

But it's my fault for feeling this way apparently. But thank you for your patience and not slamming me down to the curb, for thinking this. You don't know how grateful I am for that.

In my experience in Church settings, it's almost always your fault.

[Biz]

? There is a time and place for all things, "to everything there is a season."

So where is the time and place to discuss some hard to discuss facts in an official Church setting? Would love to hear your answer cause so far the answer is, "Never." Edited January 15, 2013 by Biz

[Tacenda]

So where is the time and place to discuss some hard to discuss facts in an official Church setting? Would love to hear your answer cause so far the answer is, "Never."

This place is about as good as it gets, Biz! Because of the many on here who are fully believing members, and not anti. That's why I love this place, atleast no one can say I'm only listening/reading anti-sources. It's my saving grace. It's the reason I'm still on the radar of mormonism, more so than at the beginning of my crisis. I attribute MD for keeping me active in the church. The thought that if they (board members) can believe while knowing every single wart ever found about the church, tells me there is something to hold onto until I get a clear and concise answer from the Lord.

[go_utes01]

So where is the time and place to discuss some hard to discuss facts in an official Church setting? Would love to hear your answer cause so far the answer is, "Never."

I agree with Tacenda that this site is a good place to discuss such questions (other sites like Fair, etc. are also available to see how others who have encountered the same questions have been able to find answers sufficient to remain faithful). I also think you can find somebody you trust who is knowledgeable about these sorts of questions in almost every congregation. Seek that person out and have a conversation. I find personal, one-on-one interactions to be the best way to deal with these sorts of questions/struggles.

[Biz]

I agree with Tacenda that this site is a good place to discuss such questions (other sites like Fair, etc. are also available to see how others who have encountered the same questions have been able to find answers sufficient to remain faithful). I also think you can find somebody you trust who is knowledgeable about these sorts of questions in almost every congregation. Seek that person out and have a conversation. I find personal, one-on-one interactions to be the best way to deal with these sorts of questions/struggles.

So no real official Church setting? Everyone should privately learn from outside sources or from the Bishop or try and have a Bishop teach them, "If he is aware?"

If I'm understanding correctly, certain material facts cannot or should not be taught in an official Church setting?

Edited January 15, 2013 by Biz

[Tacenda]

I don't believe the oft-repeated claim that the Church hides its history. It may not discuss all of its history in all situations, appropriately I might add. If you want to know the history, it is available. Do you believe President Monson should say Joseph Smith "applied polygamy in a questionable manner" at conference or to the media? Do you think that would help the mission of the Church? There is a time and place for all things, "to everything there is a season."

The link below is enough to make me believe things are hidden. Joseph Smith has Emma as his one and only wife listed in "Significant Events", BY has no marriage/wife as being significant and the following Presidents do not have wives/marriages listed until you get to George A. Smith, and from then on they have listed wives. Because all the presidents from JS to Heber J. Grant are polygamists. The reason they have to include Emma and not the other presidents wives, to me, is that they can't leave out Emma because in so many minds she is the only wife to JS. That is blatent hiding, IMO. I want the church to be open and know that it's members will not run! The church will never go away if they come clean with the history. There might be some that leave but isn't that why in the book series "The Work and the Glory", that Gerald Lund mentions that the church needed to weed out the members who aren't as committed to the Gospel? I think the term was "refiner's fire" or something like that? I believe one of the chapters in the book, it alludes to polygamy being brought for that exact purpose. Wouldn't it be a "refiners fire" to tell the whole truth, not in a church setting, but a fireside for adults, and young adults? And change the sketchy history in Seminary and Primary manuals?

https://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp

[Biz]

I don't believe the oft-repeated claim that the Church hides its history. It may not discuss all of its history in all situations,

I don't believe the oft-repeated claims that the Church hides its history, but if people want to learn about hard to swallow facts about the Church's history they have the consult outside sources and have one on one discussions with people outside a Church setting to talk about it.

Makes no sense!

Edited January 15, 2013 by Biz

[go_utes01]

So no real official Church setting? Everyone should privately learn from outside sources or from the Bishop or try and have a Bishop teach them, "If he is aware?"

If I'm understanding correctly, certain material facts cannot or should not be taught in an official Church setting?

Like I said previously, there are is a time and manner to discuss different things differently. You would not have a lesson of a sexual nature in primary - or probably even an adult class. But, if a person had a concern, they could speak with their leaders or a trusted friend about such questions. They could also do their own research, as you suggested. We have to remember the mission of the Church is not, I repeat NOT, to teach church history - it is to help people learn about and come closer to Christ. And the majority of the members probably do not have the same concerns or having lessons as you desire might not be the best way to fulfill the Church's real mission. Leaders/teachers need to make decisions (hopefully following the guidance of the Spirit) about what topics will best facilitate the mission of the Church.

Edited January 15, 2013 by go_utes01

[go_utes01]

I don't believe the oft-repeated claims that the Church hides its history, but if people want to learn about hard to swallow facts about the Church's history they have the consult outside sources and have one on one discussions with people outside a Church setting to talk about it.

Makes no sense!

Who said it has to be outside a "church setting"? What do you even mean by that anyways? You can speak with a memner in the church building or in their home and I think that would fit within my definition of a church (faithful) setting.

[David T]

I thought the talk was a major disappointment, seems like it was just a follow up from Elder Cook's poor talk last conference. If you found information that is contradictory from what you have heard in church the information is false. I'm not going to tell why it's false or what the truth actually is but it's false. If you have a problem with the false information then Satan is deceiving you. I have the truth, I'm not going to tell you the truth but I have it. The talk was just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and full of victim blaming. Instead of manning up and correcting some or any false information he vaguely identifies it and tosses the problem on the truth searcher.

This is not what I got from it at all. Rather, the opposite. I saw it as inviting all to examine their beliefs, suggesting that all of us - personally and communally - may need to re-think ideas and concepts taught and accepted as truth in the past (both inside and outside of the Church). Lately, President Uchdorf has had a recurring theme of the importance of asking questions, vigorously embracing and seeking after education and secular knowledge, and being willing to adjust what you think you already know.

I see Pres. Uchtdorf as subtly laying down an important, even essential foundation for members holding themselves back with tradition, and inviting an openness to embracing changed paradigms.

He even pointed out that not everything we hear prophets say/write in the scriptures is necessarily fully accurate (the Nephites' stereotypical description of the Lamanites being a spelled out example).

Edited January 15, 2013 by David T

[canard78]

I don't believe the oft-repeated claim that the Church hides its history. It may not discuss all of its history in all situations, appropriately I might add. If you want to know the history, it is available. Do you believe President Monson should say Joseph Smith "applied polygamy in a questionable manner" at conference or to the media? Do you think that would help the mission of the Church? There is a time and place for all things, "to everything there is a season."

Definition of hide: Put or keep out of sight.

Brigham Young historical chronology in teachings of the presidents manual mentioned a first marriage, the death of that wife and then a second marriage. It doesn't mention the other 50-odd (depending on estimates):

1824:

Marries Miriam Works (23).

1832:

Baptized into the Church and ordained an elder. Wife dies (31).

1834:

Marries Mary Ann Angell. Acts as captain in march of Zion’s Camp (33). (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, Historical Summary)

Given this was the book the majority of members would read about BY, there was an opportunity missed to be more open about BY's marriages.

I noticed the church seems to have learned from some of the reaction to this as the Pres Snow manual mentions 2 of his 6 polygamous marriages and his later imprisonment for doing so.

[canard78]

Who said it has to be outside a "church setting"? What do you even mean by that anyways? You can speak with a memner in the church building or in their home and I think that would fit within my definition of a church (faithful) setting.

The reality is that if you approach the majority of church members and want to talk about Joseph Smith treasure digging, magic practices, marrying teens/other men's wives, the BoM parallels to incorrect translations of a 1800s KJV of the bible etc, the majority would be very uncomfortable and would usually view as a trouble-maker with a negative agenda.

All of these do have answers, but the reality is there is a 'version A' of church history and a 'version B.' most people discover and go via 'version Z' which often negative outcomes.

Elder Uchtdorf warned of false information on the Internet. This is fair. But where should a member go for correct information when so much appears to have been 'selectively' omitted from institute an church manuals.

[go_utes01]

The reality is that if you approach the majority of church members and want to talk about Joseph Smith treasure digging, magic practices, marrying teens/other men's wives, the BoM parallels to incorrect translations of a 1800s KJV of the bible etc, the majority would be very uncomfortable and would usually view as a trouble-maker with a negative agenda.

You'll notice I did not suggest that you go to any member or "the majority" of members or some random member, but rather a person you trust who is knowledgeable (or at least open to discuss) about these subjects. It has been my experience that you can find somebody like that in most congregations.

[pogi]

The reality is that if you approach the majority of church members and want to talk about Joseph Smith treasure digging, magic practices, marrying teens/other men's wives, the BoM parallels to incorrect translations of a 1800s KJV of the bible etc, the majority would be very uncomfortable and would usually view as a trouble-maker with a negative agenda.

All of these do have answers, but the reality is there is a 'version A' of church history and a 'version B.' most people discover and go via 'version Z' which often negative outcomes.

Elder Uchtdorf warned of false information on the Internet. This is fair. But where should a member go for correct information when so much appears to have been 'selectively' omitted from institute an church manuals.

There are plenty of church historians who have written on the history of the church and on Joseph openly. You can read their books if you want. Is the church being deceptive by not teaching the "full story"? I don't think so. I don't go around sharing all of my "questionable" history with all of my friends and associates. The goal is for people to like me after all. I don't dress the same way I used to, I don't talk the same way I used to, I don't act the same way I used to, I don't listen to the same music, etc. In short, I am not my history. I am a different man, improved, changed, evolved. We should not judge the church for some of the "questionable" practices by individuals in it's history. Does the church as an institution have warts, absolutely! It is ran by fallible and imperfect human beings. So what? They, like myself, probably want to be seen for who they are, not who they were.

Edited January 15, 2013 by pogi

[SamIam]

I thought the talk was a major disappointment, seems like it was just a follow up from Elder Cook's poor talk last conference. If you found information that is contradictory from what you have heard in church the information is false. I'm not going to tell why it's false or what the truth actually is but it's false. If you have a problem with the false information then Satan is deceiving you. I have the truth, I'm not going to tell you the truth but I have it. The talk was just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and full of victim blaming. Instead of manning up and correcting some or any false information he vaguely identifies it and tosses the problem on the truth searcher.

Biz,

You display much angst in your response. You are missing a key piece of the puzzle that I am sure you comprehend the concept superficially but you have not embraced it. It is incumbent on every member of the church to fulfill and complete the 2 part process of their baptism. Receiving the Holy Ghost is required before you will have the answers you keep hoping someone else will give you.

To simply be able to have others explain things to you circumvents the education of learning how to receive revelation. In your quote above you seem to be stating that you do not believe what is being said about Satan deceiving you with false information and that would be corrected if someone would simply tell you the truth. The brethren are wise enough to realize that only those who will develop the proper repentant relationship with the Holy Ghost will ever be able to "hear" the truth. For them to circumvent the process and simply answer all of your questions will never make you strong enough to be an independently strong, stable, valiant servant and you will simply remain what you clearly are at this time. Because it does not work to explain more than is prudent, they do not do it. The process of developing that knowledge of how Christ's teaches each one of children independently according to the deed and diligence they give unto him that has left you in this lurch at this time. It will not change until you change and there are no answers that will appease your frustration except for the Holy Ghost.

I don't believe the oft-repeated claims that the Church hides its history, but if people want to learn about hard to swallow facts about the Church's history they have the consult outside sources and have one on one discussions with people outside a Church setting to talk about it.

Makes no sense!

So no real official Church setting? Everyone should privately learn from outside sources or from the Bishop or try and have a Bishop teach them, "If he is aware?"

If I'm understanding correctly, certain material facts cannot or should not be taught in an official Church setting?

So where is the time and place to discuss some hard to discuss facts in an official Church setting? Would love to hear your answer cause so far the answer is, "Never."

In my experience in Church settings, it's almost always your fault.

Edited January 15, 2013 by SamIam

[Tacenda]

Like I said previously, there are is a time and manner to discuss different things differently. You would not have a lesson of a sexual nature in primary - or probably even an adult class. But, if a person had a concern, they could speak with their leaders or a trusted friend about such questions. They could also do their own research, as you suggested. We have to remember the mission of the Church is not, I repeat NOT, to teach church history - it is to help people learn about and come closer to Christ. And the majority of the members probably do not have the same concerns or having lessons as you desire might not be the best way to fulfill the Church's real mission. Leaders/teachers need to make decisions (hopefully following the guidance of the Spirit) about what topics will best facilitate the mission of the Church.

If it is NOT the mission of the church to teach church history, l say let's skip this year's curriculum on church history and study Christ only, vs. by vs., story by story.

[go_utes01]

If it is NOT the mission of the church to teach church history, l say let's skip this year's curriculum on church history and study Christ only, vs. by vs., story by story.

The primary mission of the Church is not to teach its history. Even when the curriculum for the year is about Church history, the primary purpose is not to teach the history, but rather to help people understand the restoration in an attempt to help people learn more about, understand more fully, and come closer in relationship with Heavenly Father and our Savior - for this is life eternal. This is not to say that a person, if personally inclined or interested, is estopped from learning more about the Church's history. There are many resources that tell the tale in a faithful way - from many different perspectives. Have you checked out Richard Bushman's work, for instance. Furthermore, I have had great discussions with my wife and other members concerning Church history, the restoration, and all that entails. Just because it is not front and center in a Sunday School class, does not mean that it is in any way hidden. We are all called on to do our own personal study. There is no way everything can be covered in 3 hour a week blocks - especially when that is not even the stated purpose of the church-going experience.

Edited January 15, 2013 by go_utes01