Some Things that are True are Not Very Useful

[MormonVideoGame]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 with the withholding of truths found unuseful to the promoting of faith and belief in Mormonism

He also said, "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." In my opinion he throws apologetics under the bus. 

I just hope someone answers my question 

Quote

What is "advance history"? and why exactly is "advance history" a threat to faith? Isn't the Holy Ghost more powerful?

"One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for “advanced history,” is himself in spiritual jeopardy"

https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect?lang=eng

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

He also said, "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." 

In my opinion he throws apologetics under the bus. 

Do you have any evidence he actually did so outside of your interpretation of this sentence?

[MormonVideoGame]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Do you have any evidence he actually did so outside of your interpretation of this sentence?

Yes, Elder Packer has a history, but I will give references tomorrow, I don't have time right now to look for them, it's late. 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

That may be what you're talking about but it's not what this thread is about. Re read the OP where I ask the question..."what things that are true are not useful". I've shown you in the examples that you provided that although not useful to me, the examples you gave are in fact useful to some impacted by the truth. And I think that is the point of this thread.

Truth that some find not useful could be useful to someone else who formed conclusions based on only partial information or by not having the entire truth. president packer finds some truths unuseful because they may lead some to form a conclusion that he doesn't approve of. So he finds that truth unuseful...but to the person who has the truth withheld they may very well find that same truth both critical and useful.  

Since he was talking to CES teachers I would assume he means that some truths are not useful to building the testimonies of seminary and institute students. 

It is unlikely that knowing many of the pioneers ate pork/chicken/purple dinosaurs would increase a studen's faith or for that matter mean anything at all to them, especially if you only have classes 2- 5 hours per week. 

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Rain

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

To put the quote in context pres packer was referring to the writers of church history when he said 

So Pres Packer felt that things that are true, that are not faith promoting are not useful.  Should a truth that does not promote faith be kept from church members?

It was, and look at the problem we have now.  Telling the truth is always the best policy.  I leaned that in Sunday School.  Packer probably did too.  It seems like he might of forgot.

If an organization can be damaged by the truth, then at the very least, that should raise a red flag or two.

[carbon dioxide]

42 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So you're equating the details of my wife's Mother's Day lunch and the non impact those details have on your life with the withholding of truths found unuseful to the promoting of faith and belief in Mormonism by its leaders to whether those withheld truths could be useful to a member or investigator in being able to form a conclusion on Mormonism truth claims?

Truth is only useful if it is relevant to the subject in question and if one is able to properly understand and apply that truth correctly with the subject.  A first grade math teacher probably is going to withhold truths found in algebra to their students until they are able to understand and process basic math.   It is not always wrong to withhold truth based on circumstance. There are hundreds or thousands of individual issues one can look at in "Mormonism" in relation to doctrine, practice, and history.  Not all issues care equal weight and some things are built on other things and one needs to understand the underlying things first.  I am not for withholding any truth forever from somebody but all things must be done in order.  If somebody wants to know about whether the LDS church is true and they bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre, why should I even waste much time on that subject?  If the Church was true before that event it is true after it and if the Church was not true before that event, it remains untrue after it.  Whatever truths might be found in the discussion of the Mountain Meadows event simply is not useful on the subject of whether the Church is true or not. 

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 The kind of truth that is a critical piece of information, that if withheld will allow faith and belief but if provided might cause one to conclude that a claim is not true. This is the kind of truth President Packer finds unuseful.

But these bits of harmful truths are far outweighed by the good truths and if people obsess over those few things they are at risk of ignoring the other 98% of the good things that suggest that the gospel and the church are true. The 98% makes the other 2% not very useful with regards to the overall effect. The harmful truths can be easily explained by the weaknesses and fallible nature of all people, including church leaders. 

[carbon dioxide]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But these bits of harmful truths are far outweighed by the good truths and if people obsess over those few things they are at risk of ignoring the other 98% of the good things that suggest that the gospel and the church are true. The 98% makes the other 2% not very useful with regards to the overall effect. The harmful truths can be easily explained by the weaknesses and fallible nature of all people, including church leaders. 

Even many of these "harmful" truths are only "harmful" if viewed in a certain perspective. 

[Meadowchik]

It depends on the context in which he said it. As an apologetic argument, for example, it could be considered dismissive or deliberately ignorant,  even sinister. 

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Truth is only useful if it is relevant to the subject in question and if one is able to properly understand and apply that truth correctly with the subject.  A first grade math teacher probably is going to withhold truths found in algebra to their students until they are able to understand and process basic math.   It is not always wrong to withhold truth based on circumstance. There are hundreds or thousands of individual issues one can look at in "Mormonism" in relation to doctrine, practice, and history.  Not all issues care equal weight and some things are built on other things and one needs to understand the underlying things first.  I am not for withholding any truth forever from somebody but all things must be done in order.  If somebody wants to know about whether the LDS church is true and they bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre, why should I even waste much time on that subject?  If the Church was true before that event it is true after it and if the Church was not true before that event, it remains untrue after it.  Whatever truths might be found in the discussion of the Mountain Meadows event simply is not useful on the subject of whether the Church is true or not. 

Maybe, but the first grade math teacher isn't asking their student to make a life long covenant to make a career of math.  The first grade teacher isn't telling anyone that an inability to commit to math will keep them away from their families for eternity. The first grade teacher isn't telling their students to take 2 years from their life at their own expense and preach the one true gospel of Algebra.  

That is were these analogies lose me. If I'm not mature enough to be told the true history of mormonism then I shouldn't be mature enough to make decisions related to committing to Mormonism either. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by sjdawg

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, sjdawg said:

Maybe, but the first grade math teacher isn't asking their student to make a life long covenant to make a career of math.  The first grade teacher isn't telling anyone that an inability to commit to math will keep them away from their families for eternity. The first grade teacher isn't telling their students to take 2 years from their life at their own expense and preach the one true gospel of Algebra.  

That is were these analogies lose me. If I'm not mature enough to be told the true history of mormonism then I shouldn't be mature enough to make decisions related to committing to Mormonism either. 

Yup.

But moreso, advanced math does not undermine the basic math. On the other hand, the legitimacy of historical truth claims have a direct impact on the legitimacy of basic LDS teachings.

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

But these bits of harmful truths are far outweighed by the good truths and if people obsess over those few things they are at risk of ignoring the other 98% of the good things that suggest that the gospel and the church are true. The 98% makes the other 2% not very useful with regards to the overall effect. The harmful truths can be easily explained by the weaknesses and fallible nature of all people, including church leaders. 

What  if we compare it to buying a used car, would you want to know what was broken on it or the repairs it needed, but in this case if it had been in a flood? These give insight into what the person is buying. Buyer Beware policy. Our eyes should be wide open into what we're getting into. If the church's doctrine isn't provided and someone bases their information on being saved by Christ's atonement, even thinking they'll live with God again. Won't they feel a little deceived if after they commit and become baptised they're told they must take out endowments and make promises before being able to live with God again and it's not the "Christian" church they thought they were joining after all, as far as the rest of the Christians in the world believe? Since he or she may not have heard/read President Hinckley say we believe in a different Jesus?

[HappyJackWagon]

I think it's true that not all truth is useful. Some things just really don't matter. Useful to whom? 

But in the context of Pres. Packer's statement, I think he was more specifically referring to historical and doctrinal issues which are not faith affirming. While it may also be true that some of those things may not be useful, it is important that each individual have the opportunity to decide for themselves if it is useful or not.

Are details about Joseph's marriages to already married women and 14 year olds useful?  The answer may vary based on who you are speaking to. It doesn't seem to be useful to the church but it may be useful to an individual as they make decisions about their faith.

Edited March 2, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's true that not all truth is useful. Some things just really don't matter. But to whom? 

But in the context of Pres. Packer's statement, I think he was more specifically referring to historical and doctrinal issues which are not faith affirming. While it may also be true that some of those things may not be useful, it is important that each individual have the opportunity to decide for themselves if it is useful or not.

Are details about Joseph's marriages to already married women and 14 year olds useful?  The answer may vary based on who you are speaking to. It doesn't seem to be useful to the church but it may be useful to an individual as they make decisions about their faith.

I agree with this with one caveat.

*If this really is the Lord's church (which makes for a better mortal life and the way to get back to Him) and if knowledge, in this life, of the marriage keeps a person away from the church then the information is not only not useful, but also harmful. 

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be honest. I'm just saying in the long run the info may not be useful even if one fully believes it is useful to make those choices in the here and now. In that way, President Packer's words were correct. 

*I'm not expecting everyone to agree it is the Lord's church.

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No I don't think it's good science but we all have to die sometime, right?

I was thinking more of the psychological effect on the world as a whole, not just my own death. If it's good science or not I wouldn't know. I'm a ships carpenter, or a shipwright, whatever. I stumbled across the Carter Catastrophe in a novel, Manifold Time by Stephen Baxter. It's written from an atheist's point of view.  It's published in 2000 and makes some predictions on where we would be with space travel in the near future, 2010 and forward. Interestingly enough many of the predictions are on the money but a major political one with NASA is off the mark 100%. The plot is we need to send out arks to survive as a species.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, Rain said:

I agree with this with one caveat.

*If this really is the Lord's church (which makes for a better mortal life and the way to get back to Him) and if knowledge, in this life, of the marriage keeps a person away from the church then the information is not only not useful, but also harmful. 

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be honest. I'm just saying in the long run the info may not be useful even if one fully believes it is useful to make those choices in the here and now. In that way, President Packer's words were correct. 

*I'm not expecting everyone to agree it is the Lord's church.

Fair point.

But I think the mere fact that a person has the knowledge and information upon which they can utilize their agency, is key. It could be argued that a person's agency is limited or even subsumed by an entity that willingly keeps information from the individual. How could I choose properly between X, Y, or Z if I don't even know Y exists? God's plan depends on agency and the idea that we are all actors, not objects to be acted upon. When someone else (person or organization) makes decisions about what I can or cannot know they are restricting my agency and I am merely being acted upon even if I feel confident in my choice of Z over X.

[Meadowchik]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

I agree with this with one caveat.

*If this really is the Lord's church (which makes for a better mortal life and the way to get back to Him) and if knowledge, in this life, of the marriage keeps a person away from the church then the information is not only not useful, but also harmful. 

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be honest. I'm just saying in the long run the info may not be useful even if one fully believes it is useful to make those choices in the here and now. In that way, President Packer's words were correct. 

*I'm not expecting everyone to agree it is the Lord's church.

But with Christ there is no harm in the truth. He said that the truth will liberate us.

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Truth is only useful if it is relevant to the subject in question and if one is able to properly understand and apply that truth correctly with the subject.  A first grade math teacher probably is going to withhold truths found in algebra to their students until they are able to understand and process basic math.   It is not always wrong to withhold truth based on circumstance. There are hundreds or thousands of individual issues one can look at in "Mormonism" in relation to doctrine, practice, and history.  Not all issues care equal weight and some things are built on other things and one needs to understand the underlying things first.  I am not for withholding any truth forever from somebody but all things must be done in order.  If somebody wants to know about whether the LDS church is true and they bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre, why should I even waste much time on that subject?  If the Church was true before that event it is true after it and if the Church was not true before that event, it remains untrue after it.  Whatever truths might be found in the discussion of the Mountain Meadows event simply is not useful on the subject of whether the Church is true or not. 

I appreciate this perspective...I believe it adds to the discussion Thank you.  I see the church taking on the role of a parent to a child...first feeding believers baby food then more solid foods as they mature...ok fine...but a life time of baby solids to keep the child from a full understanding of truth couldn't possibly have been God's plan (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that God exists)  Wouldn't a loving God want those initial building blocks of truth to eventually increase to a full understanding of truth...and yet I see the church having made imperial choices to focus on the claimed truth that promote faith while keeping the difficult truths that don't out of their narrative.  And this is what President Packer seemed to be saying also. 

I view the process of forming a belief in Mormonism much like a jury who only hear the legal arguments for the defense and then are told...see there you go its all true based on the evidence presented, you can conclude that the church is true.  The problem is that there is a body of evidence that was not useful to the conclusion that the church wanted us to form  that was kept from us...for the sole purpose that it wasn't very useful to their preferred conclusions...and that is the problem

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

But these bits of harmful truths are far outweighed by the good truths and if people obsess over those few things they are at risk of ignoring the other 98% of the good things that suggest that the gospel and the church are true. The 98% makes the other 2% not very useful with regards to the overall effect. The harmful truths can be easily explained by the weaknesses and fallible nature of all people, including church leaders. 

Surprisingly I actually agree with you...I believe the church has good intentions...as President Hinckley said we want to take good men and make them better ( or something long those lines)  But if you keep that critical 2% out of reach from members and investigators, information that was true but just not useful to the agenda of the church's desire for us to conclude that it is what it claims to be, then we feel manipulated instead of being able to assess and form a conclusion based on all of the evidence.

I've had a conversation recently with a new investigator/member...who is resigning from the church a mere 2 months after her baptism. Her #1 reason is that she felt lied to, deceived and only given select information designed to manipulate her to conclude that the church was true.  She loved the people...but it was the feeling of manipulation that was her death nail.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So said Boyd K. Packer.

So in the Illustrious opinion of this boards members...what things that are True are Not useful exactly?  I've always believed that we should aspire to the truth?  That we should seek after truth?  That we should desire truth above all else? And yet President Packer taught that some truth is not useful?  I would like to know exactly how truth and what truth is not useful.

Context my friend context. The Pythagorean Theorem is undoubtedly true, but not really useful for anything other than plane geometry. .

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Surprisingly I actually agree with you...I believe the church has good intentions...as President Hinckley said we want to take good men and make them better ( or something long those lines)  But if you keep that critical 2% out of reach from members and investigators, information that was true but just not useful the agenda of the church's desire for us to conclude that it is what it claims to be, then we feel manipulated instead of being able to assess and form a conclusion based on all of the evidence.

I've had a conversation recently with a new investigator/member...who is resigning from the church a mere 2 months from her baptism. Her #1 reason is that she felt lied to, deceived and only given select information designed to manipulate her to conclude that the church was true.  She loved the people...but it was the feeling of manipulation that was her death nail.

This sounds like me years ago.  I was feeling lied to and could not see a way to ever trust again.  Especially when you are raised inside the church and so much has happened in your life good and bad because of it.  Truth is always useful.  Whether it is shoes or whatever one laughs about here...truth is useful!  From one who cannot hear well, my truth will e different if I don't understand..I have made huge mistakes and embarrassed myself by not understanding just small truths.  It does matter.  Some truths will matter differently to different people depending on where they place their most trust and essential goals in life. 

[stemelbow]

Packer was wrong as can be to say what he did here.  It is up to us individuals to decide what truths are useful or not, not for him to decide for us.  I think the Church is slowly moving away from the perspective that Packer shares, even if the Church never fully goes away from it. 

[Jeanne]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Packer was wrong as can be to say what he did here.  It is up to us individuals to decide what truths are useful or not, not for him to decide for us.  I think the Church is slowly moving away from the perspective that Packer shares, even if the Church never fully goes away from it. 

Exactly.  My post above explains that what matters to me..may not matter to someone else.  But no one but me can determine what is important....to me.

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That you are willing to decide on my behalf what truths are useful to me and which aren't has been duly noted. I sincerely doubt you would tolerate such presumption on the part of Church figures.

your objection here is exactly the problem with Packer's perspective.  It is not up to him to tell me what is useful or not as it pertains to the welfare of my soul.  He might think it is his duty, but it is not.  I'm glad you recognize this. 

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You believe that some truths should be withheld too. No doubt you understand that I would use those truths to form opinions about you, and you don't want me to do that. You may even suspect that I could use those truths about you to construct a narrative that you would find unfair and incomplete, and you're exactly right! I assure you that I can -- and would -- do that.

By the way, I'm glad you've been using the word withhold. Because of course, if you read Pres Packer's entire address to seminary teachers, his point was not for Church-employed teachers to hide facts from their students but rather to focus on teaching them matters of higher importance first so that they would have the necessary context into which to place all the facts. You did read that far, right?

 

[Johnnie Cake]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Context my friend context. The Pythagorean Theorem is undoubtedly true, but not really useful for anything other than plane geometry. .

Agreed, Context is important...so in the context of forming an opinion on the truth claim of Mormonism...should members and investigators only be exposed to faith promoting truths that would cause them to conclude that the church is what it claims to be?