Daniel Peterson wrote:You really want to try to defend the propositions that all truths are (equally) useful and that all truths deserve equally to be communicated?
Not at all. I'd gladly omit truthful information if necessary in order to protect a Jew turning him or herself into the Nazis, especially if they did not appreciate the gravity of their decision. Would you do the same to prevent a person from falling into the hands of Satan? It's a far worse fate. If the answer is no on account of an appeal to respecting free will, is that equally true of your stance on the letting a Jew walk into the ovens?
Phaedrus Ut wrote:What a crock of BS this article is. As you can tell it's a not so subtle way to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of members regarding outside information.
That's clearly what it is. Hear some damning information about the Church's teachings? Well, 1, 2, 3...
Daniel Peterson wrote:You really want to try to defend the propositions that all truths are (equally) useful and that all truths deserve equally to be communicated?
Hello, Dr. Peterson. I certainly have no trouble with the idea that "there is a time and a place." However, are there truths that should simply NEVER be communicated because they are not "edifying"? Meaning, for example, if a faithful member of the Church is writing a book about Joseph Smith, are there certain truths that should be withheld because they are not "edifying"?
Or, say that you know of a fact or five that damages some of your apologetic arguments and could seriously undermine the testimonies of some, and you knew that the "unfaithful" did not have access to these truths, would you withhold these truths even if relevant to the debate and discussion (and possibly articles you write, interviews you do, etc.)? (Are you withholding any of these truths? :)
Would be interested in Dr. P's responses to this.
Don't hold your breath. There are some issues DCP is terrified of addressing forthrightly, and this is one of them.
Daniel Peterson wrote:You really want to try to defend the propositions that all truths are (equally) useful and that all truths deserve equally to be communicated?
If course not all truths deserve equal time and disclosure. Who cares what you had for breakfast or whether Elder Oaks had a bad headache and took Tylenol before he gave the talk. Also it is not useful for a bishop to disclose confidences given to him in the private interview to the entire ward membership. The fact that I got a D+ in my high school algebra course seems pretty irrlevant since when in college I graduated with the highest honors my college granted.
But the truths he was referring to, it seem, and the ones often discussed here are those of historical significance in the establishment of the LDS Church that IF they were disclosed would and could have influence on the determination of whether those claiming the supernatural interventions from God and angles are really true. Such things as how Joseph acted in many situations, such as how polygamy was handled do reflect on his character. The way the Book of Commandments came forth and then the D&C and the facts related to the founding events and apparent adding or editing of major events that are related to the founding events may also be useful. The list could go on.
So it is truths that have bearing on the truth claims and the truth claimant that seem critical. And the Church has and is not as forthcoming on many of these things and leaves lots out. The member or investigator typically has to go beyond Church sources and missionaries to ferret out some od such information.
moksha wrote:Easy enough. Truths: In the past Samoan men liked to wear flowers and were good dancers. Add to that a lie: They like to cruise for men from Tonga. Synthesis: There could be many erroneous conclusions drawn from this information.
Okay, so what you and Elder Oaks are saying is that we need to suppress the facts that Samoan men liked to wear flowers and were good dancers--simply because somebody, somewhere might add the random lie that they like to cruise for men from Tonga?
In that case, isn't it okay to reveal the truth that Samoan men liked to wear flowers and were good dancers, just as long as no lies were added (meaning that Elder Oaks is wrong)?
Or, should all truths on all subjects always be suppressed, just to make sure nobody can possibly add any lies or draw any false conclusions (meaning that history should never be written)?
It was just an example. by the way, don't repeat this around any big Samoans or Tongans, who may not appreciate a hypothetical example of this sort.
Thanks Moksha, but I respectfully request that you answer the actual questions.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
5. Truths and half-truths. "A lie is most effective when it can travel incognito in good company, or when it can be so intermarried with the truth that we cannot determine its lineage." True facts can even be used unrighteously, when they are severed from their context, where they can convey an erroneous impression.
Also, some things that are true are not edifying or appropriate to communicate, Elder Oaks said. Members should rely on the Holy Ghost, which if used, will not allow them to be mislead by lies and half-truths.
I kind of thought the Church was beyond making these kinds of statements. What does he mean, do you think, by stating that "some things" are not "appropriate to communicate." What truths should not be communicated and why should they not be? I would like to see further justification for this position so I can consider the arguments. Anyone?
In so far over the the proverbial head it takes one's breath away.
Astounding.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Yeah, Droopy, what do you mean? When I suggested that I thought the church was beyond these kinds of statements, I intended to convey that now that the Church seems to have realized that it was being demolished on the internet, and now that it has told all of its members to get on the internet and shout their beliefs to the world, it also realized that it can no longer keep "non-edifying truths" from its members, as such are on hundreds of websites. Thus, I thought maybe the Church was advancing toward a different strategy--one that did not instruct others to withhold truths, but that sought the presentation of truths in a context helpful to its goals. Accordingly, when I read that Elder Oaks has again stated that some truths should not be communicated at all, I was surprised, thinking we were beyond this approach--the very approach that has helped lead so many to a "crisis of faith".
Now, how is this an "astounding" view demonstrating being in over "the proverbial head"?
I think we can all agree, critic and apologist, that this is simply Dallin Oaks's opinion. Take it or leave it. His statements were not presented to the First Presidency for approval. They were not sustained by the membership in General Conference. They have as much doctrinal authority as Joseph Smith's moon-man comments. Comments made by an apostle in the Mormon Times is hardly worth taking seriously.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks