"truth" That Doesn't Matter

[Mystery Meat]

Rather than derail a thread I thought I would start a new one.

 

The fundamental question posted by this thread is "does all truth matter?"

 

Rockpond quoted Joseph Smith as saying:

 

"The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same."

 

Yet, Elder Packer has more recently said that some truths do not matter. 

 

Are these quotes in conflict? To me the answer is no and I will explain why. I believe, first, that the speaker's are using the term truth differently. Joseph Smith is talking about eternal truth in all its glory and impact. Truth's such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the reality of the Atonement, the necessity of priesthood authority. Elder Packer was talking about mortal truths. 

 

The fact that I had pasta for lunch, while true, is of little significance to my or your eternal salvation, NOR does it effect the validity of eternal truths. 

 

As I studied difficult Church history issues (and believe me, I studied them), I ultimately shrugged my shoulders. They didn't matter; they were unimportant. This is precisely because they do not effect eternal truths. How we got the BoA does not effect any of the eternal truths contained therein. Nor does the ins and outs of polygamy, as confusing as it is to me, effect the reality (and eternal truth) that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and restored vital priesthood authority.

 

Yes, we need to make sure that our account is clean and in good order. That doesn't mean we need to focus in on issues that ultimately have no eternal value.

Edited December 9, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is always easy to take sound bite comments out of context. I am not familiar with what was said on the other thread so Ill need to go read up.

[Mystery Meat]

You got me thinking about what Elder Packer said (I mean actually said). Critics like to use this one, and so I went to find his quote. It doesn't really exist. I should have looked before I trusted the internet. 

 

Here is what he did say:

 

"I know words carried by the gift of the Holy Ghost can bring to your understanding “the truth of all things.” All truth is worth knowing. Some truths are more useful, but there are truths that are most worth knowing."

 

I think this quote makes my above comments pretty meaningless. I will leave them there for the internet to know that I am a dumby. I hope this language can serve as some sort of middle ground.

 

edited to add:

 

Apparently, there is another quote coming from an alleged personal interaction with President Packer and D. Michael Quinn.

Edited December 9, 2014 by lvjd66

[Ahab]

Knowing all truth and appreciating all the truth there is no know are different issues, and while I do have and will claim the right to know all I will ever know that has been clearly demonstrated to my mind with the highest degree of evidence, I'll probably continue to shrug some things off as things that aren't really worth knowing when knowing those things doesn't do me or anyone else any real good.

[mfbukowski]

Rather than derail a thread I thought I would start a new one.

 

The fundamental question posted by this thread is "does all truth matter?"

 

Rockpond quoted Joseph Smith as saying:

 

"The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same."

 

Yet, Elder Packer has more recently said that some truths do not matter. 

 

Are these quotes in conflict? To me the answer is no and I will explain why. I believe, first, that the speaker's are using the term truth differently. Joseph Smith is talking about eternal truth in all its glory and impact. Truth's such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the reality of the Atonement, the necessity of priesthood authority. Elder Packer was talking about mortal truths. 

 

The fact that I had pasta for lunch, while true, is of little significance to my or your eternal salvation, NOR does it effect the validity of eternal truths. 

 

As I studied difficult Church history issues (and believe me, I studied them), I ultimately shrugged my shoulders. They didn't matter; they were unimportant. This is precisely because they do not effect eternal truths. How we got the BoA does not effect any of the eternal truths contained therein. Nor does the ins and outs of polygamy, as confusing as it is to me, effect the reality (and eternal truth) that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and restored vital priesthood authority.

 

Yes, we need to make sure that our account is clean and in good order. That doesn't mean we need to focus in on issues that ultimately have no eternal value.

Yep, ya got it, according to me, for what that is worth.  I would change the words around a little bit but that's not worth a hill of beans.

Edited December 9, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Apparently, there is another quote coming from an alleged personal interaction with President Packer and D. Michael Quinn.

Unless it is in writing from Pres. Packer himself, I myself would assume it was consistent with this one we do have rather than be dependent on someone's memory about a conversation. Too often what we remember is what we thought about what a person said and not their actual words.

Especially given the contradiction with his own words of all truth having value, though some can be judged as having more value than others.

Edited December 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[Coreyb]

Rather than derail a thread I thought I would start a new one.

The fundamental question posted by this thread is "does all truth matter?"

Rockpond quoted Joseph Smith as saying:

"The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same."

Yet, Elder Packer has more recently said that some truths do not matter.

Are these quotes in conflict? To me the answer is no and I will explain why. I believe, first, that the speaker's are using the term truth differently. Joseph Smith is talking about eternal truth in all its glory and impact. Truth's such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the reality of the Atonement, the necessity of priesthood authority. Elder Packer was talking about mortal truths.

The fact that I had pasta for lunch, while true, is of little significance to my or your eternal salvation, NOR does it effect the validity of eternal truths.

As I studied difficult Church history issues (and believe me, I studied them), I ultimately shrugged my shoulders. They didn't matter; they were unimportant. This is precisely because they do not effect eternal truths. How we got the BoA does not effect any of the eternal truths contained therein. Nor does the ins and outs of polygamy, as confusing as it is to me, effect the reality (and eternal truth) that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and restored vital priesthood authority.

Yes, we need to make sure that our account is clean and in good order. That doesn't mean we need to focus in on issues that ultimately have no eternal value.

Then why believe in a God who knows all things? Maybe God only knows all important things

[stemelbow]

Rather than derail a thread I thought I would start a new one.

 

The fundamental question posted by this thread is "does all truth matter?"

 

Rockpond quoted Joseph Smith as saying:

 

"The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same."

 

Yet, Elder Packer has more recently said that some truths do not matter. 

 

Are these quotes in conflict? To me the answer is no and I will explain why. I believe, first, that the speaker's are using the term truth differently. Joseph Smith is talking about eternal truth in all its glory and impact. Truth's such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the reality of the Atonement, the necessity of priesthood authority. Elder Packer was talking about mortal truths. 

 

The fact that I had pasta for lunch, while true, is of little significance to my or your eternal salvation, NOR does it effect the validity of eternal truths. 

 

As I studied difficult Church history issues (and believe me, I studied them), I ultimately shrugged my shoulders. They didn't matter; they were unimportant. This is precisely because they do not effect eternal truths. How we got the BoA does not effect any of the eternal truths contained therein. Nor does the ins and outs of polygamy, as confusing as it is to me, effect the reality (and eternal truth) that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and restored vital priesthood authority.

 

Yes, we need to make sure that our account is clean and in good order. That doesn't mean we need to focus in on issues that ultimately have no eternal value.

Is this the Packer quote you were thinking of:

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

Some things that are true are not very useful.

—Elder Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, 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

[Coreyb]

Whether he said it or not, Neal A. Maxwell taught the same thing, only better.

..Brothers and sisters, it is clear from the verses of scripture that some truths may turn out to have a place in a yet-to-be-revealed hierarchy of truth that the world doesn’t understand. The scriptures tantalize us by saying, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it” (D&C 93:30). One even wonders if truths, like planets, belong to a particular order (see Abraham 3:9). But we do not now know...

..Another important implication of what we have been discussing is that all knowledge is not of equal significance. There is no democracy of facts! They are not of equal importance. Something might be factual but unimportant, as Elder Spencer Condie has observed. For instance, today I wear a dark blue suit. That is true, but it is unimportant. The world does not quite understand this. As we brush against truth, we sense that it has a hierarchy of importance. We are dealing with some things of transcending importance. Some truths are salvation ally significant, and others are not... ~Neal A. Maxwell, The Inexhaustible Gospel

[cursor]

Rather than derail a thread I thought I would start a new one.

 

The fundamental question posted by this thread is "does all truth matter?"

 

Rockpond quoted Joseph Smith as saying:

 

"The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same."

 

Yet, Elder Packer has more recently said that some truths do not matter. 

 

Are these quotes in conflict? To me the answer is no and I will explain why. I believe, first, that the speaker's are using the term truth differently. Joseph Smith is talking about eternal truth in all its glory and impact. Truth's such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the reality of the Atonement, the necessity of priesthood authority. Elder Packer was talking about mortal truths. 

 

The fact that I had pasta for lunch, while true, is of little significance to my or your eternal salvation, NOR does it effect the validity of eternal truths. 

 

As I studied difficult Church history issues (and believe me, I studied them), I ultimately shrugged my shoulders. They didn't matter; they were unimportant. This is precisely because they do not effect eternal truths. How we got the BoA does not effect any of the eternal truths contained therein. Nor does the ins and outs of polygamy, as confusing as it is to me, effect the reality (and eternal truth) that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and restored vital priesthood authority.

 

A direct reference to what Elder Packer said would be helpful, don't you think?

 

What, by the way might the Bank of America ("BoA") have to do with this line of thought? Absolute clarity only costs a couple of meaningful keystrokes ...

[Mystery Meat]

Whether he said it or not, Neal A. Maxwell taught the same thing, only better.

..Brothers and sisters, it is clear from the verses of scripture that some truths may turn out to have a place in a yet-to-be-revealed hierarchy of truth that the world doesn’t understand. The scriptures tantalize us by saying, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it” (D&C 93:30). One even wonders if truths, like planets, belong to a particular order (see Abraham 3:9). But we do not now know...

..Another important implication of what we have been discussing is that all knowledge is not of equal significance. There is no democracy of facts! They are not of equal importance. Something might be factual but unimportant, as Elder Spencer Condie has observed. For instance, today I wear a dark blue suit. That is true, but it is unimportant. The world does not quite understand this. As we brush against truth, we sense that it has a hierarchy of importance. We are dealing with some things of transcending importance. Some truths are salvation ally significant, and others are not... ~Neal A. Maxwell, The Inexhaustible Gospel

 

Edited: That quote is very good. I love Elder Maxwell.

Edited December 9, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mystery Meat]

A direct reference to what Elder Packer said would be helpful, don't you think?

 

What, by the way might the Bank of America ("BoA") have to do with this line of thought? Absolute clarity only costs a couple of meaningful keystrokes ...

 

If you read the posts that followed you might see some additional clarification on the matter. BOA is a standard reference to the Book of Abraham. I think that is practically understood by the board's participants.

[Mystery Meat]

Is this the Packer quote you were thinking of:

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

Some things that are true are not very useful.

—Elder Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, 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

 

There it is. I think when read in context of his other quotes, Elder Packer makes a very convincing argument.

[Freedom]

We accept all truth but obviously, some truths are more important than others. It is more important, for example, for my children to learn how to read than to learn how to ride an elephant. It is more important for a child to understand the dangers of fire than the dangers of a mosquito bite. Since we can only teach so much in a Sunday school class, we focus on basic gospel principles. More importantly, the 9 essential doctrines of the church. Electrical currents are important to understand, but it should not be taught in a course focusing on making pottery. Likewise, ancient Hebrew is important, but it does not belong in a class focusing on temple service. 

[3DOP]

LJVD, you were right the first time. No conflict at all. There is no way that Joseph Smith's "every item of truth" includes what we ate for breakfast...or whatever it was ljvd. It is probably within a context where he has been challenged to minimize articles of the LDS religion so as to be more compatible with the other churches of the day and place. I think it is very doubtful that Joseph Smith was insisting upon a high priority for minutiae, in contrast to the common sense of Elder Packer. Who needs the Holy Ghost to know what size pants fit best? Those are "truths", but in the ladder of hierarchy, it is worthless information which is why if anyone should try to discuss it, they would bore their audience. This non-LDS votes NO CONFLICT, because there are 'truths" that are trivial and irrelevant. By definition, "words carried by the gift of the Holy Ghost" are relevant and comprise a kind of knowledge that excludes such trivial information as the birthplace of the chicken you put on the barbecue. 

 

Even if the truths are from "words carried by the gift of the Holy Ghost", there is a hierarchy, and I certainly could not insist that how you got the Book of Abraham or the marital practices of your prophet are among them. They are higher on the hierarchy of knowledge than tracking the births of the animal we eat, but if it works for you to ignore polygamy, it does for me. I have never considered either as an obstacle if I should ever find it necessary to look for a Restoration. 

[JLHPROF]

Someone once pointed out an interesting scriptural fact to me:

 

Prior to our spirit birth we existed as "Intelligences".  The scriptures inform us that intelligence = Truth + Light.

 

Given these facts - what piece of truth/knowledge formed the very makeup of our existence?  Self awareness/knowledge perhaps.

And what light (energy/power?) formed the very makeup of our existence?  Faith?  Priesthood?  Not spirit, since this was pre-spirit.

 

As pre-spirit intelligences our very substance was a self-aware (truth) element with some kind of "light"...but what kind?

[Freedom]

I am not convinced that there is a difference between an intelligence and a spirit. perhaps someone can correct me, but I an not aware of any scripture that states we were born as spirits or that we became spirits at some point. I think the point is that we are intelligences filled with light and truth and that we have always been so. We were spirits that were always embodied with light and truth. 

[Calm]

Is this the Packer quote you were thinking of:There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.Some things that are true are not very useful.—Elder Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect"http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Boyd_K._Packer's_talk:_"The_Mantle_is_Far,_Far_Greater_Than_the_Intellect"

Not very useful is not as useless or of no matter. Pres. Packer stated as cited above that all truth has value. Some has great life altering, world shaking value, others may not have much effect but still be of value in some small way. It is wisdom to devote our time to learning truths that are of good or great value to us and not to ignore when we learn small truths as well. Who knows, in the future they may add up to something huge after all. That someone is wearing a blue suit may become important if he goes missing or what was for breakfast if a person has an allergical reaction. The key is to not obsess over little things, but not to shut them out where possible. Justifying ignoring something because it has no value is often used IMO to disregard what is important to others. We need to be careful in being prudent with our resources including our attention, we are not neglectful.

Edited December 10, 2014 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

Whether he said it or not, Neal A. Maxwell taught the same thing, only better.

..Brothers and sisters, it is clear from the verses of scripture that some truths may turn out to have a place in a yet-to-be-revealed hierarchy of truth that the world doesn’t understand. The scriptures tantalize us by saying, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it” (D&C 93:30). One even wonders if truths, like planets, belong to a particular order (see Abraham 3:9). But we do not now know...

..Another important implication of what we have been discussing is that all knowledge is not of equal significance. There is no democracy of facts! They are not of equal importance. Something might be factual but unimportant, as Elder Spencer Condie has observed. For instance, today I wear a dark blue suit. That is true, but it is unimportant. The world does not quite understand this. As we brush against truth, we sense that it has a hierarchy of importance. We are dealing with some things of transcending importance. Some truths are salvation ally significant, and others are not... ~Neal A. Maxwell, The Inexhaustible Gospel

Great quote, but flawed at a crucial point:  "salvationally significant"

[poptart]

I have a personal habit, I always listen to my gut, it's almost never wrong.  I tend to distrust people in general, and the moment I ever hear anyone either saying something that doesn't sound right or the "truth" doesn't matter or my personal favorite, you're being closed minded!  Immediatly I stop trusting them so much.  Don't take offense to that, but when I hear stuff that sounds post modernist I get paranoid, fast.  I hear people say things like the 2nd amendment isn't relevent anymore, and like with many things I totally disagree. 

Truth is truth, and lies are lies, it's that simple.

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not convinced that there is a difference between an intelligence and a spirit. perhaps someone can correct me, but I an not aware of any scripture that states we were born as spirits or that we became spirits at some point. I think the point is that we are intelligences filled with light and truth and that we have always been so. We were spirits that were always embodied with light and truth. 

You certainly have the freedom and right to be wrong on that point.

[cursor]

If you read the posts that followed you might see some additional clarification on the matter. BOA is a standard reference to the Book of Abraham. I think that is practically understood by the board's participants.

 

Yes, I know. I read all of the posts in this topic, lvjd66. I was just adding a bit of levity.  My point is/was that it only takes a couple of extra keystrokes/words to effectively communicate. IYKnWiM. < good luck with that ... 

 

It would, however, have been helpful if the OP had supplied reference to the Elder Packer quote ... which is key to this thread.

Edited December 10, 2014 by cursor

[omni]

Is this the Packer quote you were thinking of:

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

Some things that are true are not very useful.

—Elder Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, 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

Elder Packer was clearly instructing the CES educators not to teach history that was non-faith promoting. So why does the method JS used to translate the plates or the fact that he married other men's wives and teenage girls fall into the category of not being faith promoting?

This isn't the airing of dirty laundry, these things were commanded by God. Shouldn't we instead be shouting these truths from the roof tops?

[Freedom]

You certainly have the freedom and right to be wrong on that point.

And you certainly have the freedom to provide some evidence from the scriptures that I am wrong. And you also have the freedom to be wrong yourself. 

[The Nehor]

Elder Packer was clearly instructing the CES educators not to teach history that was non-faith promoting. So why does the method JS used to translate the plates or the fact that he married other men's wives and teenage girls fall into the category of not being faith promoting?

This isn't the airing of dirty laundry, these things were commanded by God. Shouldn't we instead be shouting these truths from the roof tops?

God commanded me to sever an engagement and break two hearts for some good I still do not fully understand. Should I shout that from the rooftops?

I once told God I needed money for temple clothes as I had just been called as a temple worker. The next day I was given a winning $200 scratch-off lottery ticket by my boss and paid for them. Should I share that story in sacrament meeting?

Without context some stories are deceiving even if the facts are reported correctly. I am perfectly okay with everyone knowing the story of Joseph Smith's polygamy IF they sit down and do some serious studying of it and learn the facts surrounding it. Most will not. They want a sound byte or a quick five minute explanation. This is the same reason schools do not teach quantum physics in a side lecture in one day. Students are more likely to get the wrong idea and reach the wrong conclusions if they do not understand the underlying math and concepts.

So.....shout it from the housetops but be prepared to shout for a long time as you give as much of the full story as we have.