Would You Teach A Historical Truth If You Knew It Would Cause Doubts?

[ERayR]

I know you won't agree. But I think he did make the wrong choice.

I don't think so. At this point there were serious problems and her behavior was one of controlling him. If he had stayed he would have been a puppet on a string jumping to her every whim. For a marriage to work neither side can make that kind of demand. If he had demanded she join the church that would have been just as wrong.

[canard78]

You need to watch this video: Was just posted in another thread OP.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209282609

There is an interesting state that suggests: truth is that which yields a desired result more effectively than other options.

This whole true to everyone thinking is very limiting in my mind.

"truth is that which yields a desired result more effectively than other options."

Brilliant!

[Danzo]

The Mrs Harris from the strippings incident was Lucinda Morgan Harris, wife of George W. Harris. From Thomas B. Marsh's (5 May 1857) letter to Heber C. Kimball begging forgiveness for his past wrongs:

Are you trying to tell us that George A Smith did not make up stories about Thomas Marsh?

[Calm]

I know you won't agree. But I think he did make the wrong choice.

Depends on the spouse. I know one man who forced his wife to make that choice because of his ego and she has resented living with him ever since because he pulls out the Church card whenever he wants something she doesn't want, but she stays with him because of the children.

If it is manipulation and not because he is overspending time at Church, neglecting her than one has to wonder why she feels so insecure as to demand this and how it might affect the relationship in other ways.

Having said that..I would never suggest to someone that they should leave their spouse if such an ultimatum was given, but rather leave it to them to decide what their relationship needed (I might suggest counseling to help them both learn better negotiating skills and awareness of the other's need though).

[Calm]

Mormonism is especially good for people who seek certainty.

It is especially good for those who love ambiguity as well because there is an ultimate purpose (though currently unknown in details) to the exploration, even if only to exercise the intellect. One never has to feel guilty about wasting time on a pursuit of something one will never know because life is all about building line upon line, constructing something magnificent. Edited July 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Depends on the spouse. I know one man who forced his wife to make that choice because of his ego and she has resented living with him ever since because he pulls out the Church card whenever he wants something she doesn't want, but she stays with him because of the children.

If it is manipulation and not because he is overspending time at Church, neglecting her than one has to wonder why she feels so insecure as to demand this and how it might affect the relationship in other ways.

Having said that..I would never suggest to someone that they should leave their spouse if such an ultimatum was given, but rather leave it to them to decide what their relationship needed (I might suggest counseling to help them both learn better negotiating skills and awareness of the other's need though).

Maybe like this:

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1406432

Go to bottom and play video

Edited July 26, 2013 by ERayR

[Calm]

I don't think so. At this point there were serious problems and her behavior was one of controlling him. If he had stayed he would have been a puppet on a string jumping to her every whim. For a marriage to work neither side can make that kind of demand. If he had demanded she join the church that would have been just as wrong.

Having seen this occur in several marriages in and out of the faith, I agree.

[canard78]

The Mrs Harris from the strippings incident was Lucinda Morgan Harris, wife of George W. Harris. From Thomas B. Marsh's (5 May 1857) letter to Heber C. Kimball begging forgiveness for his past wrongs:

I cannot live long so without a reconciliation with the 12 and the Church whom I have injured O Bretheren once Bretheren!! How can I leave this world without your forgiveness Can I have it Can I have it? Something seems to say within me yes O then hasten and signify it by writing the word yes to me & then O Joy I shall be content. I have met with G.W. Harris and a reconsiliation has taken place with us, and when that was accomplished I was so overjoyed that I was constrained to say in my heart this is an evidence that the Lord loves me after all my rebellion & my sins.

There's not much evidence of milk strippings in there, only that he wanted to reconcile himself with George Harris.

Even if we accept that milk strippings happened, it's still hugely overblown and oversimplified

[Ahab]

You need to watch this video: Was just posted in another thread OP.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209282609

There is an interesting state that suggests: truth is that which yields a desired result more effectively than other options.

This whole true to everyone thinking is very limiting in my mind.

It's the "thought" that matters. If a thought is true it is true for everyone who has it, even if some people don't consider that thought to be true.

[Ahab]

"truth is that which yields a desired result more effectively than other options."

Brilliant!

And not necessarily true. It depends on what a person desires as a result. Lies yield the desired result more effectively if you don't want others to know what is true. Edited July 26, 2013 by Ahab

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Historical truth should never be at odds with context, truth is truth. It is only when historical truth has been sanitized and you suddenly find yourself in crisis control in front of a class.

[Bikeemikey]

And not necessarily true. It depends on what a person desires as a result. Lies yield the desired result more effectively if you don't want others to know what is true.

Fact, accuracy and truth are very different things.

Truth is a more metaphysical construct.

A lie is about accuracy... Truth regarding religion is a question of being/existence... they are different things.

I am don't think it is really appropriate to use the term truth in the quantitate context.

[Duncan]

let's not forget either that history is written from documents or basically what is left over, unless everything that is ever thought of about an event or person is recorded and is still around 100 plus years later we'll never know everything about it. Obviously some things are better known about then others

[Stone holm]

let's not forget either that history is written from documents or basically what is left over, unless everything that is ever thought of about an event or person is recorded and is still around 100 plus years later we'll never know everything about it. Obviously some things are better known about then others

History is history. It can be as accurate a portrait of the times depicted as the people living at the time understood it -- which is not very accurate at all. If you think you understand history, then you try to fathom what on earth was going through the minds of the people at the Nuremburg rallies you realize you really have no clue at all. At best you can at least get the facts straight, and know that on such and such a date certain people slaughtered certain people. You can get the facts straight, but understanding those fact is a completely different matter. Whether Joseph was staring at the plates through the Urim and Thummim, or he had his head in a hat staring at a seer stone, those are facts -- but they really don't tell us much. Why would someone say that okay because he wasn't looking at the plates when he translated the Book of Mormon, the Church isn't true. How does that sound logical to anyone? Why on Earth would somebody apostasize over discovering that Joseph had plural wives? or, if it is true, that he was sealed to a 14 year old girl for that matter. Someone who apostasizes over stuff like that didn't have enough knowledge to have a true testimony in the first place. Why should we have so little faith in the brain power of our fellow members that we would assume that they would apostasize over hearing some facts that aren't in the manuals, unless they felt they had been deliberately kept away from the facts with sinister intent. Sorry am on a rant tonight.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Stone holm

[cinepro]

Just to be clear, I started this thread not to discuss the subjectivity of "truth". I started this thread to point out that there are currently members of the Church who only remain members because of the things they don't know (as evidenced by the members who have left after learning about Joseph Smith's polyandry or something like that).

In the future, the Church as an institution and we as individuals will no doubt face situations where someone will leave the Church if they learn about something, and we have to know whether or not it is ethical not to tell them.

Edited July 27, 2013 by cinepro

[ERayR]

History is history. It can be as accurate a portrait of the times depicted as the people living at the time understood it -- which is not very accurate at all.

If you don't believe this just get a rendition of the Custer story from the Sioux and Cheyenne and compare it to what is written in history texts. I had that privilege. The native american version makes a lot more sense.

[ERayR]

Just to be clear, I started this thread not to discuss the subjectivity of "truth". I started this thread to point out that there are currently members of the Church who only remain members because of the things they don't know (as evidenced by the members who have left after learning about Joseph Smith's polyandry or something like that).

In the future, the Church as an institution and we as individuals will no doubt face situations where someone will leave the Church if they learn about something, and we have to know whether or not it is ethical not to tell them.

Such as it has always been. The problem is not the telling but how they choose to handle it after they find out. That can not be dictated but is and must always be their own choice.

[Duncan]

If you don't believe this just get a rendition of the Custer story from the Sioux and Cheyenne and compare it to what is written in history texts. I had that privilege. The native american version makes a lot more sense.

I saw a show on the tele about the archaeology about the whole Custer scene and that tells a story too

[Tacenda]

Sometimes I wish our church could just join the other faiths that just ask you to have a belief in Christ. Yoke would be so much easier. No our belief in more than Christ, is the only way one becomes a God, great. Even though the bible mentions that we will be angels, even perfected ones.

[ERayR]

I saw a show on the tele about the archaeology about the whole Custer scene and that tells a story too

Is there a place I could pull this up and view it. Would like to see how it jibes with my Cheyenne friend's rendition. I must say I was very convinced of his oral history lesson.

[ERayR]

Sometimes I wish our church could just join the other faiths that just ask you to have a belief in Christ. Yoke would be so much easier. No our belief in more than Christ, is the only way one becomes a God, great. Even though the bible mentions that we will be angels, even perfected ones.

So went the lamentations of the Israelites. "Give us a king, give us a keing so we can be like our neighbors" . Didn't work out to well for them either.

[Duncan]

Is there a place I could pull this up and view it. Would like to see how it jibes with my Cheyenne friend's rendition. I must say I was very convinced of his oral history lesson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8bDcD81AiY

no charge!

[Calm]

In the future, the Church as an institution and we as individuals will no doubt face situations where someone will leave the Church if they learn about something, and we have to know whether or not it is ethical not to tell them.

How can we know for sure that it will cause them to leave....and if we have the information and don't tell them and they realize that later, that just adds additional issues into the discussion making it more difficult to deal with, not easier.

[ERayR]

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8bDcD81AiY

no charge!

Thanks I am now gone for the rest of the evening or a least until this is over.

[canard78]

How can we know for sure that it will cause them to leave....and if we have the information and don't tell them and they realize that later, that just adds additional issues into the discussion making it more difficult to deal with, not easier.

If people's faith is built on expectations of peers, prophets, pioneers or the Book of Mormon then for some people the full history will be too much. It nearly is/was for me.

Many people get the perception that a testimony should be built on the Book of Mormon or the prophet Joseph. But that's risky, and where I went wrong as that's what mine was built on. I've realised that I misunderstood the bricks in the building of faith. It's not a good idea to build on a keystone if the foundation is sand.

Christ is the cornerstone, the Book of Mormon is the keystone. Only one is good for using as a foundation.