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

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

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.

I'm a big fan of truth and transparency, but I think it's naive to say "the truth is always better" when there are plenty of situations where telling the truth will result in real, predictable harm. Which means it isn't always better. 

 

Quote

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? 

I wasn't talking about church leaders. I was talking about instances where it seems obvious that telling the truth would fail to produce the best outcome.

If you think that church leaders are hiding the truth, please feel free to state the same and then provide us with some examples of what you are talking about - assuming that's something you are actually interested in talking about and aren't just throwing bombs.

 

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If you think that church leaders are hiding the truth, please feel free to state the same and then provide us with some examples of what you are talking about - assuming that's something you are actually interested in talking about and aren't just throwing bombs.

@Sara H, Amulek's idea sounds helpful to the discussion.  Can you give some examples of where church leaders are hiding the truth that we can talk about?

[Sara H]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

@Sara H, Amulek's idea sounds helpful to the discussion.  Can you give some examples of where church leaders are hiding the truth that we can talk about?

Sure! Let's find out more about this. So we don't get lost, let's handle each situation on its own before moving on to the next. 

I'll admit that I don't like the search function on the church's official website all that much, but I can't find a talk Boyd K. Packer gave during the priesthood session on October 2, 1976. Again, I could be wrong, but has that talk been taken away? If it hasn't, I'm sorry. But if it has, do you think that would be considered hiding the truth?

 

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Sure! Let's find out more about this. So we don't get lost, let's handle each situation on its own before moving on to the next. 

I'll admit that I don't like the search function on the church's official website all that much, but I can't find a talk Boyd K. Packer gave during the priesthood session on October 2, 1976. Again, I could be wrong, but has that talk been taken away? If it hasn't, I'm sorry. But if it has, do you think that would be considered hiding the truth?

 

Are you talking about the "To Young Men Only" address?

It was never published in the church's magazine like most Priesthood session talks were, but I think that's because the church actually made it into a pamphlet that was available until 2016.  That's the year the pamphlet was discontinued (probably because the teachings in it regarding lgtbq+ were outdated).

What truths contained in the talk/pamphlet do you believe are being hidden by it no longer being available?  Sincere question and not a trap, as I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically and it would be useful to know before discussing further.

[Sara H]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you talking about the "To Young Men Only" address?

It was never published in the church's magazine like most Priesthood session talks were, but I think that's because the church actually made it into a pamphlet that was available until 2016.  That's the year the pamphlet was discontinued (probably because the teachings in it regarding lgtbq+ were outdated).

What truths contained in the talk/pamphlet do you believe are being hidden by it no longer being available?  Sincere question and not a trap, as I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically and it would be useful to know before discussing further.

Yes.

It seems to have been taken down from the church's website in 2018. Why take the movie out of the line-up for the 1976 priesthood session? It doesn't matter what the talk or video say; what matters is that the video was taken down. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Sara H said:

Yes.

It seems to have been taken down from the church's website in 2018. Why take the movie out of the line-up for the 1976 priesthood session? It doesn't matter what the talk or video say; what matters is that the video was taken down. 

What truth in the video do you believe is being hidden by the video being taken down?

Or are you saying that the truth that's being hidden is the video's existence?

[webbles]

58 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Sure! Let's find out more about this. So we don't get lost, let's handle each situation on its own before moving on to the next. 

I'll admit that I don't like the search function on the church's official website all that much, but I can't find a talk Boyd K. Packer gave during the priesthood session on October 2, 1976. Again, I could be wrong, but has that talk been taken away? If it hasn't, I'm sorry. But if it has, do you think that would be considered hiding the truth?

 

 

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you talking about the "To Young Men Only" address?

Here's a cached version of the pamphlet - https://web.archive.org/web/20151021234056/https://www.lds.org/manual/to-young-men-only/to-young-men-only

And yes, it existed up until ~2016 and then was removed from the site and no longer published.

[Sara H]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What truth in the video do you believe is being hidden by the video being taken down?

Or are you saying that the truth that's being hidden is the video's existence?

If someone looks up General Conference talks on the church's website and gets to the year 1976 and starts reading through the talks, they won't see the talk if they don't know that it's been taken down. 99% of the people who look at the schedule for the 1976 Conference are going to think that it is a full list of all the talks that were given at that conference. Doesn't that bother you a little bit? 

[Sara H]

3 minutes ago, webbles said:

 

Here's a cached version of the pamphlet - https://web.archive.org/web/20151021234056/https://www.lds.org/manual/to-young-men-only/to-young-men-only

And yes, it existed up until ~2016 and then was removed from the site and no longer published.

That doesn't bother you? It's part of our history!

[bluebell]

Just now, Sara H said:

If someone looks up General Conference talks on the church's website and gets to the year 1976 and starts reading through the talks, they won't see the talk if they don't know that it's been taken down. 99% of the people who look at the schedule for the 1976 Conference are going to think that it is a full list of all the talks that were given at that conference. Doesn't that bother you a little bit? 

Ok, I think I understand your concern now, and it's that people won't know that the video ever existed.  

Personally it doesn't bother me because I don't think there's anything in the video that we are missing out on by not having access to it now.  But I can understand why it would bother others, who are concerned that the church is hiding it's existence.

I've said before that I do wish the church was more open about it's changed teachings and how some things from the past are seen differently today.  I think it would be useful, even though I don't view them as hiding the truth by not doing that.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Sara H said:

That doesn't bother you? It's part of our history!

If the church's website existed to teach and preserve it's history, then it would bother me.  Because I view the purpose of the website to teach the doctrines and teachings and policies of Christ and the church, it doesn't bother me when incorrect teachings or outdated policies are removed from the website.  It actually makes a lot of sense to me.

Especially since we know that this part of our history is still available and well preserved through other sources.

[Tacenda]

I believe the church has hidden things, maybe because at one time Joseph Fielding Smith, prophet and church historian, found things to not be a good reason to be transparent. Wanted to protect his family since he is the son of Joseph F. Smith, son of Hyrum Smith, and supposedly hid a torn page out of a book written by Joseph Smith of a different version of the First Vision. That's one, and I believe the head in the hat and Joseph's Smith's polygamy may not have been hidden hidden, but hidden enough that members that don't pay attention to history and don't deep dive miss things. 

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, Sara H said:

That doesn't bother you? It's part of our history!

Oh, I would love a place to view all historical things about everything.  The fact that the internet exists and I can do a lot of that through things like archive.org is awesome.  If I was in charge, I'd move things like this to a different section of the site and put maybe a header saying it is no longer taught, but I'd leave them around.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, webbles said:

Oh, I would love a place to view all historical things about everything.  The fact that the internet exists and I can do a lot of that through things like archive.org is awesome.  If I was in charge, I'd move things like this to a different section of the site and put maybe a header saying it is no longer taught, but I'd leave them around.

That would be really cool.  I hope it happens some day.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I believe the church has hidden things, maybe because at one time Joseph Fielding Smith, prophet and church historian, found things to not be a good reason to be transparent. Wanted to protect his family since he is the son of Joseph F. Smith, son of Hyrum Smith, and supposedly hid a torn page out of a book written by Joseph Smith of a different version of the First Vision. 

Can you share a reference for that story?  (Not calling you out, sincerely wanting to know).

[webbles]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Can you share a reference for that story?  (Not calling you out, sincerely wanting to know).

https://mormonr.org/qnas/kMuNM/multiple_accounts_of_the_first_vision has a bunch of the details:

Quote

But didn't Joseph Fielding Smith hide the 1832 account from the public by locking it up?

Possibly. There is circumstantial evidence that Joseph Fielding Smith may have intended to keep the 1832 account private.

The account was torn out from the letterbook it was originally written in at some point between 1930 and 1965.[43] Amateur historian LaMar Petersen[BIO] recounted a meeting with Elder Levi Edgar Young[BIO] during the 1950s in which Young made mention of a "strange account" of the First Vision that was "unused, unknown"[44] and "concealed for 120 years in a locked vault."[45] The details of the "strange account" seem to match Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision.[46] This has led some to argue that Joseph Fielding Smith[BIO] (who was Church Historian and Recorder at the time)[47] had the account locked away from public eyes.[48]

Petersen told the story to the Tanner's who printed it.  That appears to have prompted the church leaders to move the papers out of the vault and made it available to Paul Cheesman who then published it for the first time in the 1965 as part of his master thesis.

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 minutes ago, Sara H said:

It doesn't matter what the talk or video say; what matters is that the video was taken down.

Actually, the content does matter. Keeping it available on the Church's website is essentially an endorsement of its contents (especially when it comes from a General Authority). If the Church no longer wants to endorse the things in the talk, this is one way to deal with it. And in this case, there has been a lot of discussion about this particular talk in published material - it seems likely to me (I am not party to these decisions) that the Church decided that some of the criticism it has received over this issue is deserved. The Church routinely removes content when policies change. You won't find any of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign videos either. The thing is that usually the Church receives the most grief when it makes adjustments when dealing with controversial topics.

I think that this willingness to do this is a good thing. I wouldn't be opposed to an archive of older material - where the Church could make a formal statement that the documents are not considered representative of current doctrinal beliefs and practices. But, I think that it is more important to prevent people from using it as a basis for understanding and a justification for action than it is to worry about subsequent claims of hiding things ...

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you share a reference for that story?  (Not calling you out, sincerely wanting to know).

Here's a link that isn't from an apologist or church site, so it may be filled with some holes: https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/firstvision

Then there's the quote from Brigham Young about the blacks not getting the priesthood until all the whites do, but church usually leaves part of that statement out. 

https://wasmormon.org/brigham-youngs-racist-remarks-on-slaves-seed-and-priesthood-doctrines/

Edited August 21, 2023 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Actually, the content does matter. Keeping it available on the Church's website is essentially an endorsement of its contents (especially when it comes from a General Authority). If the Church no longer wants to endorse the things in the talk, this is one way to deal with it. And in this case, there has been a lot of discussion about this particular talk in published material - it seems likely to me (I am not party to these decisions) that the Church decided that some of the criticism it has received over this issue is deserved. The Church routinely removes content when policies change. You won't find any of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign videos either. The thing is that usually the Church receives the most grief when it makes adjustments when dealing with controversial topics.

I think that this willingness to do this is a good thing. I wouldn't be opposed to an archive of older material - where the Church could make a formal statement that the documents are not considered representative of current doctrinal beliefs and practices. But, I think that it is more important to prevent people from using it as a basis for understanding and a justification for action than it is to worry about subsequent claims of hiding things ...

I can get behind that.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Here's a link that isn't from an apologist or church site, so it may be filled with some holes: https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/firstvision

Then there's the quote from Brigham Young about the blacks not getting the priesthood until all the whites do, but church usually leaves part of that statement out. 

https://wasmormon.org/brigham-youngs-racist-remarks-on-slaves-seed-and-priesthood-doctrines/

Thanks!

[MustardSeed]

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

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

Off topic, but for the record, I could lose my license for telling someone that my client is having an affair. Unless I have reason to believe there actually is an STD involved, I cannot “tell the truth”.  It would only serve to destroy peoples’ trust in the safety of the therapy room.  It’s best to hide that truth. 
 

But for what it’s worth, I wish the church were more transparent and accountable for flaws and weird / outdated stuff.