Is The "Milk Before Meat" mentality bleeding into our non-religious institutions?

[Sara H]

I have been doing a lot of studying about the church and its theology over the past few months, particularly on some of the things that have never set right with me even when I thought myself to be totally in and 100% trusting in what the church had to say. Well, I was listening to a podcast a few days ago, and during that time I heard a man speak about this new word that has come around that basically helps people comprehend that not all truth is useful. That term is "malinformation," and the meaning of the word is typically explained or defined in this manner. The term "malinformation" refers to information that originates from the truth but is typically overstated in a way that causes people to get confused and may even put them in danger. I immediately thought of a talk that Boyd K. Packer has given in which he states that certain things that are true are not particularly useful. I had this thinking as soon as I finished reading the definition of malinformation. Also, a meme that appeared on one of my social media platforms brought up another memory for me. The image featured a quote by Dalin H. Oaks and explained that some things that are true are not very useful. And I have to admit that it does bother me a little bit that we live in a world where a word like "malinformation" may have a significant meaning in the context of something that is not religious. To tell you the truth, it doesn't bother me in the least if religious leaders have been trying to explain away the truth because the truth in religion is partly relative and can be interpreted in many different ways. One may say that the concept of truth in religion is open to as many interpretations as the followers of a given faith. Do we, as a society that hopefully places a high value on truth, want non-religious institutions to educate us how truth can mislead us and perhaps cause us harm? In my opinion, this is a very risky path to take because it is wholly debatable and entirely dependent on the person or group that is attempting to spin the facts in such a way that their information is portrayed in a more favorable light. 

 

I demand to know the truth if there is a further outbreak! I do not want a version that has been simplified by someone else because they are afraid that the actual truth may result in some kind of negative consequence for them. If we lived in a normal world, we would want the people in charge of our lifesaving organizations and other organizations to tell us the whole truth, unabridged and unfiltered, so that we could come to our own conclusions. Let's keep the concept of "milk before meat" confined to the realm of religion, where it properly belongs, and not let it seep into other institutions, who are responsible for determining such a large portion of what we do on a daily basis. 

 

Therefore, the question I'd want to pose to you is this: Is the mentality that "not all truth is useful" acceptable in religious organizations but not acceptable in organizations that are not religious, or vice versa? 

And, am I completely off base in my comparison of remarks from Boyd and Dallin to malinformation, or is this an appropriate parallel?

 

 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Therefore, the question I'd want to pose to you is this: Is the mentality that "not all truth is useful" acceptable in religious organizations but not acceptable in organizations that are not religious, or vice versa? 

And, am I completely off base in my comparison of remarks from Boyd and Dallin to malinformation, or is this an appropriate parallel?

There are plenty of things that are interesting and true, but don't really matter.  How many words of the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith translated per day is interesting, but it really isn't very useful as a basis for ones testimony.  What is important is that Joseph Smith translated the book. 

Knowing what year the earth was created, or when the flood took place, or even when Christ was born is interesting, but knowing any of those things does not lead to salvation.

Many things in the church are being taught on a simpler level now.  This is because the demographics of church members have changed.  More and more members of the church are converts who are still learning gospel basics.  To help them the church is focusing on foundational principles that will provide a solid foundation for growing testimonies.

President Packer's and President Oaks' remarks both speak to the need to focus on foundational principles rather than getting distracted by extraneous details.

Edited August 17 by ksfisher

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Sara H said:

I have been doing a lot of studying about the church and its theology over the past few months, particularly on some of the things that have never set right with me even when I thought myself to be totally in and 100% trusting in what the church had to say.

I'm not sure what you mean by "100% trusting."  Does that include accommodation for the possibility of errors by the Brethren? 

Then-Elder Faust gave an excellent talk in 1989: Continuous Revelation

The entirety of it is worth a read.  An excerpt (emphases added) :

Quote

Future Revelation

A very encouraging portion of the ninth article of faith we have been considering is its conclusion, “We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” Elder Boyd K. Packer stated: “Revelation is a continuous principle in the Church. In one sense the Church is still being organized. As light and knowledge are given, as prophecies are fulfilled and more intelligence is received, another step forward can be taken.” (The Holy Temple, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980, p. 137.)

That is, we are still receiving light and knowledge, and some of that includes correcting errors in our past understanding of some things.

The next bit is a protracted explanation of the role of living prophets and apostles:

Quote

This Church constantly needs the guidance of its head, the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This was well taught by President George Q. Cannon: “We have the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; but all these books, without the living oracles and a constant stream of revelation from the Lord, would not lead any people into the Celestial Kingdom. … This may seem a strange declaration to make, but strange as it may sound, it is nevertheless true.

“Of course, these records are all of infinite value. They cannot be too highly prized, nor can they be too closely studied. But in and of themselves, with all the light that they give, they are insufficient to guide the children of men and to lead them into the presence of God. To be thus led requires a living Priesthood and constant revelation from God to the people according to the circumstances in which they may be placed.” (Gospel Truth, Classics in Mormon Literature Series, 2 vols. in one, sel. Jerreld L. Newquist, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987, p. 252.)

When will this promised revelation come? Only God knows when. It will come as needed. To whom will it come? To obtain the answer to this, we must go back to the words of Amos: “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7.) This continuous revelation will not and cannot be forced by outside pressure from people and events. It is not the so-called “revelation of social progress.” It does not originate with the prophets; it comes from God. The Church is governed by the prophet under the guidance and direction of God. Parley P. Pratt disclosed:

“The legislative, judicial, and executive power is vested in Him [the Lord]. He reveals the laws, and he elects, chooses, or appoints the officers; and holds the right to reprove, to correct, or even to remove them at pleasure. Hence the necessity of a constant intercourse by direct revelation between him and his church.” (Millennial Star, Mar. 1845, p. 150.)

We have been promised that the President of the Church will receive guidance for all of us as the revelator for the Church. Our safety lies in paying heed to that which he says and following his counsel.

The doctrine of this church was stated by Elder Stephen L Richards: “They [the Presidency] are the supreme court here on earth in the interpretation of God’s law.

“In the exercise of their functions and delegated powers they are controlled by a constitution, a part of which is written and a part of which is not. The written part consists in authenticated scripture, ancient and modern, and in the recorded utterances of our latter-day prophets. The unwritten part is the spirit of revelation and divine inspiration which are appertinent to their calling.

“In formulating their interpretations and decisions they always confer with the Council of the Twelve Apostles who by revelation are appointed to assist and act with them in the government of the Church. When, therefore, a judgment is reached and proclaimed by these officers it becomes binding upon all members of the Church, individual views to the contrary notwithstanding. God’s Kingdom is a kingdom of law and order.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1938, pp. 115–16.)

The next part addresses the common question of "how can we be sure" (which came to my mind when I read your comment about "be{ing} totally in and 100% trusting in what the church had to say") (emphases added) :

Quote

How can we be so sure that, as promised, the prophets, seers, and revelators will never lead this people astray? (See Joseph Fielding Smith, Ensign, July 1972, p. 88.) One answer is contained in the grand principle found in the 107th section of the Doctrine and Covenants: “And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same.” (D&C 107:27.) This requirement of unanimity provides a check on bias and personal idiosyncrasies. It ensures that God rules through the Spirit, not man through majority or compromise. It ensures that the best wisdom and experience is focused on an issue before the deep, unassailable impressions of revealed direction are received. It guards against the foibles of man.

The responsibility for determining the divine validity of what one of the oracles of God states does not rest solely upon him. President J. Reuben Clark stated, “We can tell when the speakers are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’ only when we, ourselves, are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’” (Daniel H. Yarn, Jr., ed., J. Reuben Clark: Selected Papers on Religion, Education, and Youth, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1984, pp. 95–96.)

This is in harmony with the counsel of Brigham Young: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” (In Journal of Discourses, 9:150.)

Revelation was required to establish this church. Revelation has brought it from its humble beginnings to its present course. Revelation has come like flowing, living water. Continuing revelation will lead it forward to the windup scene. But as President Clark told us, we do not need more or different prophets. We need more people with “a listening ear.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1948, p. 82.)

We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators. Yet I humbly state that I have sat in the company of these men, and I believe their greatest desire is to know and do the will of our Heavenly Father. Those who sit in the highest councils of this church and have participated as inspiration has come and decisions have been reached know that this light and truth is beyond human intelligence and reasoning. These deep, divine impressions have come as the dews from heaven and settled upon them individually and collectively. So inspired, we can go forward in complete unity and accord.

I think that part and parcel of being a faithful Latter-day Saint is sustaining and following the leaders of the Church.  My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Joseph Fielding Smith, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it.

11 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Well, I was listening to a podcast a few days ago, and during that time I heard a man speak about this new word that has come around that basically helps people comprehend that not all truth is useful.

I think this is mostly understood as saying that "speaking all truth is not always useful."  Context matters.  The duty to disclose or withhold information matters.

Socrates had a sort of "triple filter test" (in terms of "truth") that can be helpful:

Quote

The triple filter test refers to an anecdote of the great Greek philosopher, Socrates. Many consider this anecdote a great life lesson that can help you deal with gossip and rumors.

This story tells that, one day, one of Socrates’ disciples was quite agitated. He told Socrates that he had met one of Socrates’ friends and that he had spoken badly of him.

Socrates asked the man to calm down. After thinking for a moment, he asked him to wait a minute. Before listening to what he had to say, the message had to go through a triple filter test. If the message didn’t pass the test, it wasn’t worthy of being heard.

As he always did, the Greek philosopher asked his anxious disciple a question: “Are you absolutely sure that what you’re going to tell me is true?” The disciple thought for a moment. In fact, he couldn’t be sure if what his friend had told him was actually malicious. It was a matter of perspective . “So you do not know if everything he said about me is true or not,” said the philosopher. The disciple had to admit that he didn’t.

Then, Socrates asked him a second question: “Is what you’re going to tell me good or not?” The disciple replied that, evidently, it wasn’t good at all. In fact, it was quite the opposite. He believed that what he was going to share with the philosopher would cause him discomfort and distress. Thus, Socrates said to him: “You’re going to tell me something bad, but you’re not completely sure it’s true”. The disciple admitted that this was the case.

Then, Socrates asked the third and final question: “Is what you have to say about my friend going to help me?” The disciple hesitated. He really didn’t know if that information was useful or not. Maybe it would distance him from his friend, but considering that he wasn’t sure whether it was true or not, maybe it wasn’t useful at all.

Truth, goodness, and usefulness

In the end, the philosopher refused to listen to what his disciple wanted to tell him. “If what you want to tell me isn’t true, isn’t good, and isn’t even useful, why would I want to hear it?” he finally told his disciple.

Truth, goodness, and usefulness are the foundation of Socrates’ triple filter test. Socrates thought that a person must ask themselves the following questions before they say anything: “Am I sure that what I am going to say is true?”, “Is what I’m going to say a good thing?”, and “Do I really need to say it and is it useful?”

This triple filter test is an excellent guide, both for what we’re going to say and for what we’re going to listen to. It’s a set of parameters that represent healthy and constructive communication.

This resonates with me.

11 minutes ago, Sara H said:

That term is "malinformation," and the meaning of the word is typically explained or defined in this manner. The term "malinformation" refers to information that originates from the truth but is typically overstated in a way that causes people to get confused and may even put them in danger. I immediately thought of a talk that Boyd K. Packer has given in which he states that certain things that are true are not particularly useful. I had this thinking as soon as I finished reading the definition of malinformation. Also, a meme that appeared on one of my social media platforms brought up another memory for me. The image featured a quote by Dalin H. Oaks and explained that some things that are true are not very useful. And I have to admit that it does bother me a little bit that we live in a world where a word like "malinformation" may have a significant meaning in the context of something that is not religious. To tell you the truth, it doesn't bother me in the least if religious leaders have been trying to explain away the truth because the truth in religion is partly relative and can be interpreted in many different ways. One may say that the concept of truth in religion is open to as many interpretations as the followers of a given faith. Do we, as a society that hopefully places a high value on truth, want non-religious institutions to educate us how truth can mislead us and perhaps cause us harm? In my opinion, this is a very risky path to take because it is wholly debatable and entirely dependent on the person or group that is attempting to spin the facts in such a way that their information is portrayed in a more favorable light. 

A few thoughts:

First, "Information" covers a lot of ground.  Included within it are things like

A) objective truths/facts (stuff about which reasonable minds cannot disagree),
B) informed assessments and conjecture (about which reasonable minds can disagree),
C) unempirical philosophies and ideologies (about which reasonable minds can disagree),
D) individual opinions, assessments and emotions (about which reasonable minds can disagree),
E) information that is sensitive and/or ought not be be (widely) disseminated),

and so on.

Second, in many contexts, the disclosure of information ought to be free and unimpeded.  In other (and fewer) contexts, however, the disclosure of information ought to be restricted.

Third, the foregoing distinctions and considerations ought be kept in mind when discussing the dissemination of information and any restrictions thereon.

11 minutes ago, Sara H said:

I demand to know the truth if there is a further outbreak! I do not want a version that has been simplified by someone else because they are afraid that the actual truth may result in some kind of negative consequence for them. If we lived in a normal world, we would want the people in charge of our lifesaving organizations and other organizations to tell us the whole truth, unabridged and unfiltered, so that we could come to our own conclusions.

By "outbreak" are you referencing COVID?

11 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Let's keep the concept of "milk before meat" confined to the realm of religion, where it properly belongs, and not let it seep into other institutions, who are responsible for determining such a large portion of what we do on a daily basis.

As an attorney, I am often called up on to explain factually and legally complex issues in a case to a client who

A) is not well-trained in the law,
B) is busy in life and not ready or willing to expend the time and effort necessary to get as "up to speed" as I am,
C) has hired me to investigate and manage their case, and to explain those portions of the facts and the law that are relevant to the client's needs and expectations, 

and so on.

In doing so, I necessarily pick and choose which information I provide to the client.  I usually need to distill, to sum up, to shorten, to simplify.  I do so with no intention of misleading the client, or of hiding anything.  To the contrary, my objective is to provide as much information to my client as he/she needs/wants in order to be apprised of the status of the case and make informed decisions about it. 

Moreover, a big part of my job is providing my professional assessment of the case based on my understanding of the facts and the law.  And sometimes "the law," and how it may ultimately be applied by a judge, will have some unknown or speculative aspects.  As a human being, I will likely never have a pristinely accurate grasp of such things, so the possibility of some error is there.  Nevertheless, my intentions and obligations are good.

I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV .  However, I think doctors and other medical professionals also grapple with these issues.  They too must distill, pick and choose, etc.  They must also work within constraints in terms of good data, informed assessments, etc.  

Broadly speaking, I agree that nobody should be misleading the public.  

11 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Therefore, the question I'd want to pose to you is this: Is the mentality that "not all truth is useful" acceptable in religious organizations but not acceptable in organizations that are not religious, or vice versa? 

I think so.

Here's a test of that: Your social security number is a "truth."  You have that information and we do not.  Would it be "useful" for you to post that information here, on a public message board?

What about some embarrassing fact you know about a loved one, who has entrusted you with it?  Would it be "useful" for you to post that information here?

What about hard feelings a husband has against his wife in the minutes following a heated argument?  Would it be "useful" for him to give voice to the disparaging thoughts he has in his mind in the heat of the moment?  Or what about posting those thoughts on Facebook?  Would that be "useful"?

What about your doctor publishing your medical status to the world?  Or your therapist publishing your disclosures to him?  Or your lawyer publishing your highly valuable trade secrets, to which he has access?  

The publication of "truth" may or may not be useful, depending on the context.

A "truth" in terms of emotions and opinions (as in "I truly have the following opinion on X...") may also be useful or not useful, depending the context.  It may be "true" that I am angry at my son because he said something I found offensive, but it may not be useful for me to communicate that to my son.  

11 minutes ago, Sara H said:

And, am I completely off base in my comparison of remarks from Boyd and Dallin to malinformation, or is this an appropriate parallel?

Pres. Oaks has been around the block, so he has a lot of life experience, training (as an attorney) experience (as an attorney, law professor, state supreme court justice, university president, apostle, husband, father, etc.).  I think his intention is more or less what I have laid out above.  He is not, as some critics have alleged, advocating lying.  See, e.g., here. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There are plenty of things that are interesting and true, but don't really matter.  How many words of the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith translated per day is interesting, but it really isn't very useful as a basis for ones testimony. 

Good point.  "Useful for what purpose" can have a variety of responses.

50 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What is important is that Joseph Smith translated the book. 

Knowing what year the earth was created, or when the flood took place, or even when Christ was born is interesting, but knowing any of those things does not lead to salvation.

Many things in the church are being taught on a simpler level now.  This is because the demographics of church members have changed.  More and more members of the church are converts who are still learning gospel basics.  To help them the church is focusing on foundational principles that will provide a solid foundation for growing testimonies.

President Packer's and President Oaks' remarks both speak to the need to focus on foundational principles rather than getting distracted by extraneous details.

Sound counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

I have been doing a lot of studying about the church and its theology over the past few months, particularly on some of the things that have never set right with me even when I thought myself to be totally in and 100% trusting in what the church had to say. Well, I was listening to a podcast a few days ago, and during that time I heard a man speak about this new word that has come around that basically helps people comprehend that not all truth is useful. That term is "malinformation," and the meaning of the word is typically explained or defined in this manner. The term "malinformation" refers to information that originates from the truth but is typically overstated in a way that causes people to get confused and may even put them in danger. I immediately thought of a talk that Boyd K. Packer has given in which he states that certain things that are true are not particularly useful. I had this thinking as soon as I finished reading the definition of malinformation. Also, a meme that appeared on one of my social media platforms brought up another memory for me. The image featured a quote by Dalin H. Oaks and explained that some things that are true are not very useful. And I have to admit that it does bother me a little bit that we live in a world where a word like "malinformation" may have a significant meaning in the context of something that is not religious. To tell you the truth, it doesn't bother me in the least if religious leaders have been trying to explain away the truth because the truth in religion is partly relative and can be interpreted in many different ways. One may say that the concept of truth in religion is open to as many interpretations as the followers of a given faith. Do we, as a society that hopefully places a high value on truth, want non-religious institutions to educate us how truth can mislead us and perhaps cause us harm? In my opinion, this is a very risky path to take because it is wholly debatable and entirely dependent on the person or group that is attempting to spin the facts in such a way that their information is portrayed in a more favorable light. 

 

I demand to know the truth if there is a further outbreak! I do not want a version that has been simplified by someone else because they are afraid that the actual truth may result in some kind of negative consequence for them. If we lived in a normal world, we would want the people in charge of our lifesaving organizations and other organizations to tell us the whole truth, unabridged and unfiltered, so that we could come to our own conclusions. Let's keep the concept of "milk before meat" confined to the realm of religion, where it properly belongs, and not let it seep into other institutions, who are responsible for determining such a large portion of what we do on a daily basis. 

 

Therefore, the question I'd want to pose to you is this: Is the mentality that "not all truth is useful" acceptable in religious organizations but not acceptable in organizations that are not religious, or vice versa? 

And, am I completely off base in my comparison of remarks from Boyd and Dallin to malinformation, or is this an appropriate parallel?

 

 

I think most institutions understand and embrace the "not all truth is useful" mantra.  I actually referred to this story below when discussing something with a different poster a few days ago but it's equally relevant with this topic.  It's from Dr. Joshua Sears and is him recounting his experience learning that something he was purposefully taught in high school was actually wrong.

Likewise, as a history major I learned that the feudal system that is taught to high school and middle school students in America is most likely a modern construct (and not actually a historic societal system), that is taught because it's a useful tool to help students understand parts of medieval society in the time restraints that the teachers have.

Misinformation can serve a good purpose, and actually do a lot of good, but it depends on the circumstances.  Sometimes it's harmful.

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Misinformation can serve a good purpose, and actually do a lot of good, but it depends on the circumstances.  Sometimes it's harmful.

I don't think the examples you've cited are misinformation, but simplification.  Simplification is important for beginning learners.

One of my adult daughters told me once that my answers to questions  changed over the years.  When she was small, she said, my answers were a lot for definite.  As she grew older the answers left more room for alternatives and ambiguities. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think the examples you've cited are misinformation, but simplification.  Simplification is important for beginning learners.

One of my adult daughters told me once that my answers to questions  changed over the years.  When she was small, she said, my answers were a lot for definite.  As she grew older the answers left more room for alternatives and ambiguities. 

It could be looked at that way, but being taught something is true, when it's actually false, is more than 'simplification' in my opinion.   

The definition of 'misinformation' is information that is false or inaccurate.  The Bohr model is an inaccurate model and not just a simplified one.  The feudal system as a cultural system of medieval times is false and not just simplified. 

But both simplification and misinformation are useful tools.  They are also both temporary (in school and in religion) as well, as long as the person continues their education and spiritual learning.  Eventually everything will be corrected and/or explained in completely accurate ways, if the person 'stays in the boat' (to borrow the phrase).  The simplification and misinformation are not meant to deceive.  Like you said, they are just meant to make learning easier in the beginning. 

And that's an important distinction.

[Raingirl]

6 hours ago, Sara H said:

I have been doing a lot of studying about the church and its theology over the past few months, particularly on some of the things that have never set right with me even when I thought myself to be totally in and 100% trusting in what the church had to say. Well, I was listening to a podcast a few days ago, and during that time I heard a man speak about this new word that has come around that basically helps people comprehend that not all truth is useful. That term is "malinformation," and the meaning of the word is typically explained or defined in this manner. The term "malinformation" refers to information that originates from the truth but is typically overstated in a way that causes people to get confused and may even put them in danger. I immediately thought of a talk that Boyd K. Packer has given in which he states that certain things that are true are not particularly useful. I had this thinking as soon as I finished reading the definition of malinformation. Also, a meme that appeared on one of my social media platforms brought up another memory for me. The image featured a quote by Dalin H. Oaks and explained that some things that are true are not very useful. And I have to admit that it does bother me a little bit that we live in a world where a word like "malinformation" may have a significant meaning in the context of something that is not religious. To tell you the truth, it doesn't bother me in the least if religious leaders have been trying to explain away the truth because the truth in religion is partly relative and can be interpreted in many different ways. One may say that the concept of truth in religion is open to as many interpretations as the followers of a given faith. Do we, as a society that hopefully places a high value on truth, want non-religious institutions to educate us how truth can mislead us and perhaps cause us harm? In my opinion, this is a very risky path to take because it is wholly debatable and entirely dependent on the person or group that is attempting to spin the facts in such a way that their information is portrayed in a more favorable light. 

 

I demand to know the truth if there is a further outbreak! I do not want a version that has been simplified by someone else because they are afraid that the actual truth may result in some kind of negative consequence for them. If we lived in a normal world, we would want the people in charge of our lifesaving organizations and other organizations to tell us the whole truth, unabridged and unfiltered, so that we could come to our own conclusions. Let's keep the concept of "milk before meat" confined to the realm of religion, where it properly belongs, and not let it seep into other institutions, who are responsible for determining such a large portion of what we do on a daily basis. 

 

Therefore, the question I'd want to pose to you is this: Is the mentality that "not all truth is useful" acceptable in religious organizations but not acceptable in organizations that are not religious, or vice versa? 

And, am I completely off base in my comparison of remarks from Boyd and Dallin to malinformation, or is this an appropriate parallel?

 

 

I don’t understand why you would think that”milk before meat” is only a religious concept.  With anything that one learns, one needs to know the basics before going on to learn and understand more advanced concepts.  This is applicable to pretty much everything. It is not unique to religion. 

[JLHPROF]

Or to be more precise

 

[california boy]

Am I the only one who wants the truth more than some made up answer that is false just because it is easier to understand a falsehood?  Heck, I even want the truth when I don't understand it.  I want the truth so it can lead me to further knowledge and not down some path built on a sandy foundation.  

This is one of the big faults of Mormonism in my opinion.  How many years have members been fed falsehoods because those in charge didn't think members could handle the truth?  How has that worked out in the end?  

 

 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Am I the only one who wants the truth more than some made up answer that is false just because it is easier to understand a falsehood?  Heck, I even want the truth when I don't understand it.  I want the truth so it can lead me to further knowledge and not down some path built on a sandy foundation.  

This is one of the big faults of Mormonism in my opinion.  How many years have members been fed falsehoods because those in charge didn't think members could handle the truth?  How has that worked out in the end?  

 

 

The leaders that did that lacked the faith that a member might be able to stand on their own feet and hear the truth, come what may. Many compare themselves to the Truman show when they wake up and learn the real/hard truth of their church and that's when their faith has to be tested whether to stay or jump out of the boat. But in large way until they do jump out they won't have their own faith will they? They have someone else's faith/truth or that's been my experience. And what a journey to find my own it's been. 

[Chum]

19 hours ago, Sara H said:

Let's keep the concept of "milk before meat" confined to the realm of religion, where it properly belongs, and not let it seep into other institutions, who are responsible for determining such a large portion of what we do on a daily basis. 

MBM teaching is to accommodate human tendencies. People are people, inside or outside of a faith.

[Nofear]

There is a quaint little analog to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. "The more true something is the harder it is to understand. The easier it is to understand the less true it is." Obviously, this is not exactly a hard and fast rule. Still, there are times when it is applicable.

I try to humbly acknowledge the difficult position the Lord is in when trying to communicate fundamental truths to His prophets. Example: Abraham was taught about some things about the cosmos but his worldview about the universe was so incredibly limited (he probably had a firmament model, not even a geocentric model) that trying to be entirely "truthful" about the universe would have been utterly confusing and counterproductive to the pragmatic lessons being conveyed. Similarly, Joseph Smith had no conception or even the possibility of conceiving of quantum mechanics. Trying to be "truthful" about the nature of matter or spirit matter (what the heck does more pure and refined mean anyway?) would have led to utter confusion. Thus we see, many times in the past and even today, the Lord tries to teach us truths within in the context of what we are able to understand and which are not overtly false (though we might try to take what was said, use our limited understanding and extrapolate to false conclusions).

Within this framework, the idea of "milk before meat" has all kinds of pragmatic relevance. And we could bring up Jacob 4:14 for a different aspect of this whole discussion.

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, Sara H said:

Do we, as a society that hopefully places a high value on truth, want non-religious institutions to educate us how truth can mislead us and perhaps cause us harm?

But isn't it actually the case that "truth can mislead us an perhaps cause us harm?" If so, then shouldn't you want those institutions who educate people to inform them about that truth?

 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

But isn't it actually the case that "truth can mislead us an perhaps cause us harm?" ...

Or perhaps sometimes harm to the truth-teller (more than a few times such has happened in the past (e.g. Pythagoras)).

Quote

"On May 23, 1843, I listened to a discourse preached in the Nauvoo temple, which was then only partially finished.  Brother Joseph was talking on the pre-existence of our spirits, and our relations to God in the spirit world, and our standing in the family circle of our Father.  Now I am telling the truth, and I remember that while thus talking he suddenly turned around to the Apostles sitting on the stand and said in effect: 'Brethren, if I were to rell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.' "  Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, Vol. 55, No. 36, Sept. 4, 1893, p. 585)

 

[mfbukowski]

The only way we have to justifiably call a statement "true IS its utility.

The proof is in the pudding 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The proof is in the pudding 

Pudding, yum!

[Sara H]

19 hours ago, Amulek said:

But isn't it actually the case that "truth can mislead us an perhaps cause us harm?" If so, then shouldn't you want those institutions who educate people to inform them about that truth?

 

Like what?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 8/18/2023 at 3:00 AM, california boy said:

Am I the only one who wants the truth more than some made up answer that is false just because it is easier to understand a falsehood?  Heck, I even want the truth when I don't understand it.  I want the truth so it can lead me to further knowledge and not down some path built on a sandy foundation.  

This is one of the big faults of Mormonism in my opinion.  How many years have members been fed falsehoods because those in charge didn't think members could handle the truth?  How has that worked out in the end?  

 

 

Really, you mean that our leaders were flawed men, made many mistakes, and at times made them worse by trying to rewrite, or retelling those mistakes. You want absolute truth, God only calls flawed men, and women, because there is no one who is flawless. Exposing every mole or wart, will only leave everyone naked, and stumbling around in the dark. This goes for every author of every book in the Bible, or and so-called “Holy Text”. May God help us all from the thought police, those who can only find happiness by tarring every down. But, that leads by the my first comment, “everyone is flawed”, so I will not tare them down, least my own flaws are made bare. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Really, you mean that our leaders were flawed men, made many mistakes, and at times made them worse by trying to rewrite, or retelling those mistakes. You want absolute truth, God only calls flawed men, and women, because there is no one who is flawless. Exposing every mole or wart, will only leave everyone naked, and stumbling around in the dark. This goes for every author of every book in the Bible, or and so-called “Holy Text”. May God help us all from the thought police, those who can only find happiness by tarring every down. But, that leads by the my first comment, “everyone is flawed”, so I will not tare them down, least my own flaws are made bare. 

I think you missed the point of my post.  My point was not to dump on Church leaders but that we should seek the truth always. I don't think that the truth should be covered up intentionally and another story told just because someone thinks members can't handle the truth.  In the end, truth will always win out.  When that trust to tell the truth is broken, it is hard to win that trust back.  When it keeps happening, it is almost impossible to trust again.  This is the fallout that I was referring to.  And yes, I do believe that every false belief should be exposed to the light of truth.  If it is false, it should be cast aside.  If you believe in false stories, you are still in the dark.  The difference is, you don't know that you are in the dark.  You are building your faith on a foundation of sand.

And yes, there are parts of the Bible that are flawed as well.  Stories that people used to explain the universe or justifying slavery, even murder and other sins were passed off as the word of God when I doubt He had much to do with a lot that is in the Bible.  The flaw is not with the men that wrote their thoughts and beliefs.  The flaw is perpetuating this belief that everything written in the Bible came from God.  The flaw is staying in the dark with every mole and wart and still believing you are following a path of light and truth.  

 

[Amulek]

On 8/19/2023 at 6:10 AM, Sara H said:

Like what?

Like, when can the truth cause harm? Plenty of times.

Say, for example, you are a couples therapist and one of your patients admits to being currently engaged in an extra martial affair. The partner happens to suffer from clinical depression and has recently become unemployed and has also lost a close family member. Telling this person the truth about their spouse's infidelity may very well cause them to kill themselves. Seems pretty harmful to me.

Or maybe you're a labor / delivery nurse and you've got a patient under extreme duress. Upon delivery the child has to be rushed away for immediate lifesaving measures, but if you tell the mother the truth about how much danger her child is really in she will freak out and potentially crash herself. So you delay the truth until she is in a state where her body can take it (p.s. I've got a family member working in this field who tells me this is surprisingly common).

Or maybe you've got Anne Frank in your attic, and somebody asks if you know the location of any Jews.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

[CV75]

This term originated in Fertile Crescent Bedouin societies, when the herds had to be milked before any meetings, according to a recently discovered inscription, "in an effort to simplify and improve products, processes, and policies to save time and resources while encouraging a work-life balance."

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Like, when can the truth cause harm? Plenty of times.

Say, for example, you are a couples therapist and one of your patients admits to being currently engaged in an extra martial affair. The partner happens to suffer from clinical depression and has recently become unemployed and has also lost a close family member. Telling this person the truth about their spouse's infidelity may very well cause them to kill themselves. Seems pretty harmful to me.

Or maybe you're a labor / delivery nurse and you've got a patient under extreme duress. Upon delivery the child has to be rushed away for immediate lifesaving measures, but if you tell the mother the truth about how much danger her child is really in she will freak out and potentially crash herself. So you delay the truth until she is in a state where her body can take it (p.s. I've got a family member working in this field who tells me this is surprisingly common).

Or maybe you've got Anne Frank in your attic, and somebody asks if you know the location of any Jews.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

I find personal issues completely different than institutional dishonesty.  It really isn't the same thing especially when what the institution is not being truthful about can affect people in all kinds of different ways.  For example claiming proof of weapons of mass destruction in order to justify a war gets people killed.  A person should have the truth when deciding whether to sacrifice his own life.  Covering up Church history because leaders think members can't handle the truth can cause a loss of faith and trust.  It is not the same as telling an untruth to save someone's life.  On a personal level, telling me to just marry a woman and I won't be gay any longer and reassuring me that is what God wanted had devastating affects not only on my own life but my families as well.  

When an institution is not truthful because they feel it is in their best interest and maybe not the interest of those they are telling the untruth to, it isn't an altruistic misrepresentation. It is a selfish interest to manipulate those that have trust in that institution to do what they want the people to do.  There is no justification for that kind of dishonesty.  Maybe you can justify these kinds of deceit.  I personally can't.  The consequences are just too impactful on a mass scale.

 

 

[Sara H]

11 hours ago, Amulek said:

Like, when can the truth cause harm? Plenty of times.

Say, for example, you are a couples therapist and one of your patients admits to being currently engaged in an extra martial affair. The partner happens to suffer from clinical depression and has recently become unemployed and has also lost a close family member. Telling this person the truth about their spouse's infidelity may very well cause them to kill themselves. Seems pretty harmful to me.

Or maybe you're a labor / delivery nurse and you've got a patient under extreme duress. Upon delivery the child has to be rushed away for immediate lifesaving measures, but if you tell the mother the truth about how much danger her child is really in she will freak out and potentially crash herself. So you delay the truth until she is in a state where her body can take it (p.s. I've got a family member working in this field who tells me this is surprisingly common).

Or maybe you've got Anne Frank in your attic, and somebody asks if you know the location of any Jews.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Telling the person the truth could also keep them from getting a disease that is passed from person to person through sexual contact. As a therapist, you might want to think about what would happen if the partner didn't know about the affair. What if the husband of the person your patient is cheating with calls the partner of your patient? What if the patient gets the other person pregnant because they know you know but won't say anything, so they keep having the affair?

I don't know if you realize it or not, but the fact that you had to come up with three extreme examples to explain why sometimes it's better not to tell the truth kind of proves the point of those who say saying the truth is always better. In your first case, if the therapist doesn't tell the depressed person that their partner is having sex with someone else, they might be putting them in danger. In your second case, don't you think the nurse probably told the father and maybe a grandparent or a sister what was going on with the baby? In your third example, I think you were trying to be funny, which I like. However, do you not think it's a little silly to use not telling the Nazis the truth about Anne Frank hidingg in the attic as an example to explain why church leaders might hide the truth? 

[teddyaware]

8 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Telling the person the truth could also keep them from getting a disease that is passed from person to person through sexual contact. As a therapist, you might want to think about what would happen if the partner didn't know about the affair. What if the husband of the person your patient is cheating with calls the partner of your patient? What if the patient gets the other person pregnant because they know you know but won't say anything, so they keep having the affair?

I don't know if you realize it or not, but the fact that you had to come up with three extreme examples to explain why sometimes it's better not to tell the truth kind of proves the point of those who say saying the truth is always better. In your first case, if the therapist doesn't tell the depressed person that their partner is having sex with someone else, they might be putting them in danger. In your second case, don't you think the nurse probably told the father and maybe a grandparent or a sister what was going on with the baby? In your third example, I think you were trying to be funny, which I like. However, do you not think it's a little silly to use not telling the Nazis the truth about Anne Frank hidingg in the attic as an example to explain why church leaders might hide the truth? 

The Book of Mormon prophet Alma sets forth very good reasons why God commands his prophets to “hide the truth.”

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12)