Is all truth useful?

[_charity]

BKP, and therefore you, have used the argument that not all truth is valuable because it isn't good to tell passersby they're ugly and fat. My response was that this confuses multiple issues. While it isn't good and valuable to give and receive gratuitous insults, even if these are rooted in factual information, it is good to know the truth. It's good, in fact, to know that one is overweight, since being overweight can considerably impact one's health. Whether one can be overweight and not know is immaterial to the fact that it's useful to know it--which speaks to the issue at hand.

I think we have reached the point where we are about to be in the "did not, did to" form of dialouge. So let me conclude with this. Very few "truths" are simple. Take the Kirtland Anti-Banking Society. Joseph Smith and others chartered an institution to help the Saints in a financially challenging situation. People invested in the the KABS. The KASB failed. People lost money. These are the basic "truths." Critics can take those and say, "This means Joseph wasn't a prophet, or he would have known such a thing would fail." Is that conclusions a "truith?" Certainly not. Because a lot of truths are left out. Joseph told the people that they woulc succeed IF they invested on principles of righteousness. Many of the Siants engaged in speculation hoping to get rich. Another truth is that the gift of prophecy isn't like reading tea leaves or gazing into a magic ball. So the charge that he should have known IF he was a prophet falls flat. Do you understand the positiong now?

I think I understand yours. The Church must be tested and tried against the facts of history to determine whether or not it is true? This reliance on man's logic and knowledge is not persuasive to me.

The history in question is understood just fine by those without an incentive to misunderstand or not understand.

This is the position of the critic who wants to rely on incomplete information and faulty conclusions.

[_the road to hana]

Another truth is that the gift of prophecy isn't like reading tea leaves or gazing into a magic ball.

Or a magic hat?

[_the road to hana]

He is black and really knows what he is talking about.

Spoken like a true bumpersticker.

[_charity]

To amantha

You would like that wouldn't you. No communication with you amount to a "discussion." I simply care to point that out. If you notice, I generally don't speak directly to you. I speak about the inanity of your posts. Feel free to ignore.

You mean in contrast to this response from you, which only insults?

You have never made an argument that needs refutation. There is only one thing to refute in this whole Mormonism thing and that is the "spiritual witness." Without that, everything else falls down. And I'm sure you would agree. If as you say, there is a Holy Ghost which can witness truth, you are still unable to be certain that it is a Holy Ghost which you have communed with. That label is arbitrary. It could have just as easily been the Tap Dancing Beaver that spoke to you.

Posts such as this, with ridicule and mocking, usually mean that there is some measure of envy involved. It sounds like a case of sour grapes. I am sorry if you have tried to obtain a spiritual witness and failed to do so. It isn't too late for you to change your attitude and put yourself in a position that you can know for yourself.

You are a devious and evil one aren't you. Now I am supposed to be envious of your profound skills. You already know that NO ONE takes you seriously who is not a sympathetic Mormon. You are an absolute joke and the people here who are kind enough to "discuss" things with you, do so out of the goodness of their hearts, because they know there is no real discussion going on.

Ridicule and mocking are certainly tools that people use when they have no others. Like little boys throwing rocks.

Oh, It is not too late for you to stop telling people that it is not too late, but that would just kill your fun, so by all means--go for it. But there is not a sorry or compassionate bone in your body when it comes to people who don't see the world as you do, there is only condescension and patronizing guile. You love to cunningly remind people of the punishment which you hope is in store for them, just so you can be right.

Again, keep up the good work of reminding those who come to the internet to shore up their faith, that they need look no further than your sly and deceiving words to see the convulsive death throws of the caustic ideology that is Mormonism.

I have never thought anyone deserves punishment in the eternal scheme of things. I think everyone, with maybe the exception of the Sons of Perdition (andI don't know enough about that condition to comment)will be happier than anyone can imagine right now. Everybody will be in the the condition that is traditionally understood as "heaven." And everyone will be perfectly happy to be exactly where he/she is.

It has just become plain to me that you don't understand Mormon theology at all. Is your source of knowledge about all things Mormon from "The Godmakers?"

To answer with the perfectly applicable words of Thomas Jefferson:

Quote:
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816, denouncing the doctrine of the Trinity and suggesting it to be so riddled in falsehood that only an authoritarian figure could decipher its meaning and, with a firm grip on people's spiritual and mental freedoms, thus convince the people of its truthfulness

We agree with Thomas Jefferson about the Trinity.

Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush. 21 April 1803, quoted from Roche, OIA, ed. The Jeffersonian Bible (1964) p. 348

Funny, I don't see Thomas Jefferson calling for INDIVIDUALS to be ridiculed. Did you leave something out?

To the road to hana

charity wrote:
If the member comes back and says "the prophet is wrong" he/she has been listening to the wrong source. The Holy Ghost confirms truth. Or fails to give a confirming witness to something that is in error. The only comment the member can make is "I did not receive a confirmation from the Holy Ghost that this was correct."

So Joseph Smith could not have been given a witness that all other religions were wrong. He had to have fabricated that.

Small tutorial, here: There are different operations of the Spirit. The witness of the Holy Ghost is one. Revelations and vision are others. Joseph was given direct instruction by the Lord. Others of us who did not have the vision or the revelations, may seek for confirmation through a witness of the Spirit. As is used often on this board, apples and oranges.

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
the road to hana wrote, quoting examctly, "Again, however, this seems to be doublespeak, because I doubt Elder Packer is applying the same standard to the history and/or leaders of other religions."

So hana replied, "I clearly said history and/or leaders. Not just leaders."


I requested that she back up this claim. Her attempt to do so if found in this reply: "Boyd K. Packer is part of an institution that is founded on the premise that the church which Christ established became corrupt. Not just that the church itself became corrupt, but that its followers and its leaders did. That's foundational to Mormonism. The endowment ritual has in the past contained disparaging references to Christian ministers and leaders, including a reference to Satan buying up "popes and princes," which is a specific reference to clergy."

Do you see a name there? I don't. These are comments on doctrine, not on the personal lives of specific individuals.


We're tiptoeing into dead horse territory again, Charity. History and/or leaders. Is that word history invisible to you? Does the word leaders suggest to you that individual names have to be listed, and that saying that leaders are "evil" or "corrupt" or "wicked" is insufficient? Is making a specific reference in temple ritual to Catholic popes and cardinals too generic for your taste?

Are you suggesting that there were no leaders in the past history of the Catholic Church or the Lutheran or others, who were evil, corrupt and wicked? We are commanded to teach that there was an apostacy. But we don't go around telling Lutherans that Martin Luther hated Jews. We don't send our missionaries to knock on people's doors and ask people have they heard the latest scandal about some televangelist gone wrong. There is a difference.

By that logic, it should be acceptable to say that LDS temple worship is false doctrine, that God was once a man is false doctrine, that baptisms for the dead are false doctrine, and as long as no one is saying anything disparaging about an LDS leader, past or present, it doesn't matter how much someone criticizes the doctrines or practices.
Indeed, to say that the LDS Church is a false and apostate religion, born of the devil and filled with evil, should be all right.
If that's your standard.

For anti-Mormons, I expect that. Those who fight against the Church will say those kinds of things.

What kinds of things? Those are exactly the "kinds of things" that leaders of the LDS Church have said regarding other churches, but according to you, it's really all right because no individual leaders are being disparaged in the process. Does that make you, or the church, "anti-Christian?"

God will decide who is right and who isn't. I am confident of His judgement.

You missed the temple reference? You missed the "corrupt," "evil" and "wicked" references?

You are inserting specific names into what you remember the temple ceremony used to be, I guess. But I can testify, there weren't any.

You want evidence of an Ensign article that disparages leaders or history of other religions?

Address to CES Educators, 6 February 2004, Salt Lake Tabernacle

"The world and the Christian churches have discarded the Old Testament."

Statement of fact.

Ensign, November 1992

Quote:
There are some among us now who have not been regularly ordained by the heads of the Church and who tell of impending political and economic chaos, the end of the world—something of the “sky is falling, chicken licken” of the fables. They are misleading members to gather to colonies or cults.

Those deceivers say that the Brethren do not know what is going on in the world or that the Brethren approve of their teaching but do not wish to speak of it over the pulpit. Neither is true. The Brethren, by virtue of traveling constantly everywhere on earth, certainly know what is going on, and by virtue of prophetic insight are able to read the signs of the times.

Do not be deceived by them—those deceivers. If there is to be any gathering, it will be announced by those who have been regularly ordained and who are known to the Church to have authority.

Come away from any others. Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.

Names? Denominations? You have not supplied a single one, in all your attempts to do. Discussions of the FACTS of the apostacy, yes. Personal attcks, no. You keep missing the differences.

Charity has also badly misread D&C 9, in which Oliver Cowdery is told how to identify confirmation and disconfirmation, not merely the absence of confirmation. A "stupor of thought" by definition is not merely the absence of a "burning in the bosom." Rather, it is an experience of disconfirmatory witness on Mormonism that Providence perpetually provides to noxious online apologists.

It would really be helpful in a discussion to know the definiton of a word. Stupor is defined in terms of LACK, APATHY. These are absences of other stimulation. Stupor is not a positive condition.



To beastie

Charity and other believers -

I'm assuming you're all familiar with the story of Jim Jones and his People's Temple.

If Jim Jones had taught his followers that it is wrong to criticize the leaders of People's Temple, (and he probably did) would you defend it?

I never defend lies.

If Jim Jones taught his followers that not all truth is useful, so pay no attention to anything other than his preaching that taught how to attain salvation, would you defend it?

Truth may be misapplied. We are given spiritual discernment, if we use it.

If, in fact, a leader of any religion other than your own taught their followers to not criticize the leaders of that religion, and to not pay attention to 'truths' other than the basic plan to salvation they each teach, would you defend it?

I would certainly defend a Lutheran telling his congregation not to criticize Martin Luther. I would certainly defend any minister telling his congregation to believe the basic plan of salvation. If they do that, they will be prepared to receive further truths which will eventually lead them to the whole truth.

[_the road to hana]

Charity has also badly misread D&C 9, in which Oliver Cowdery is told how to identify confirmation and disconfirmation, not merely the absence of confirmation. A "stupor of thought" by definition is not merely the absence of a "burning in the bosom." Rather, it is an experience of disconfirmatory witness on Mormonism that Providence perpetually provides to noxious online apologists.

It would really be helpful in a discussion to know the definiton of a word. Stupor is defined in terms of LACK, APATHY. These are absences of other stimulation. Stupor is not a positive condition.

Charity, you have mistakenly attributed the above statement to me, and I did not make it.

I'd like to suggest that rather than trying to respond to several posters on a single post, you separate your responses to individual posters. That should make it less likely that you'll misattribute quotes.

[_amantha]

To amantha

amantha wrote:


You would like that wouldn't you. No communication with you amount to a "discussion." I simply care to point that out. If you notice, I generally don't speak directly to you. I speak about the inanity of your posts. Feel free to ignore.



You mean in contrast to this response from you, which only insults?

You deserve nothing less than derision and ridicule for the willing deception which you, against all common sense and decency, persist in lying forth.



amantha wrote:


You have never made an argument that needs refutation. There is only one thing to refute in this whole Mormonism thing and that is the "spiritual witness." Without that, everything else falls down. And I'm sure you would agree. If as you say, there is a Holy Ghost which can witness truth, you are still unable to be certain that it is a Holy Ghost which you have communed with. That label is arbitrary. It could have just as easily been the Tap Dancing Beaver that spoke to you.




Posts such as this, with ridicule and mocking, usually mean that there is some measure of envy involved. It sounds like a case of sour grapes. I am sorry if you have tried to obtain a spiritual witness and failed to do so. It isn't too late for you to change your attitude and put yourself in a position that you can know for yourself.

Post it again just so you can take another chance at threatening people with eternal suffering in your cunning way. You really are evil incarnate. You have learned well from your authoritarian culture how to use words to threaten others--only it doesn't work so well anymore. Your rhetoric has past its prime.

Again, you may now stop threatening people with imaginary deadlines.


amantha wrote:

You are a devious and evil one aren't you. Now I am supposed to be envious of your profound skills. You already know that NO ONE takes you seriously who is not a sympathetic Mormon. You are an absolute joke and the people here who are kind enough to "discuss" things with you, do so out of the goodness of their hearts, because they know there is no real discussion going on.


Ridicule and mocking are certainly tools that people use when they have no others. Like little boys throwing rocks.


Little boys huh? And you say you never insult--jab, jab, punch, punch--you go girl. Of course you will never agree that you ever have and this is why ridicule is the only thing you deserve.

Little boys...how about old ladies with more handicaps than they are aware of or will admit to? I ridicule because this is what the situation calls for. You have no arguments. The only argument you have is your personal witness which is no argument at all.




amantha wrote:

Oh, It is not too late for you to stop telling people that it is not too late, but that would just kill your fun, so by all means--go for it. But there is not a sorry or compassionate bone in your body when it comes to people who don't see the world as you do, there is only condescension and patronizing guile. You love to cunningly remind people of the punishment which you hope is in store for them, just so you can be right.

Again, keep up the good work of reminding those who come to the internet to shore up their faith, that they need look no further than your sly and deceiving words to see the convulsive death throws of the caustic ideology that is Mormonism.



I have never thought anyone deserves punishment in the eternal scheme of things. I think everyone, with maybe the exception of the Sons of Perdition (andI don't know enough about that condition to comment)will be happier than anyone can imagine right now. Everybody will be in the the condition that is traditionally understood as "heaven." And everyone will be perfectly happy to be exactly where he/she is.

It has just become plain to me that you don't understand Mormon theology at all. Is your source of knowledge about all things Mormon from "The Godmakers?"

BS. You deliberately and maliciously threaten all the time using subtlety. Then you call yourself "charity" and would like people tp believe that you want the best for them. E tu brute?

amantha wrote:


To answer with the perfectly applicable words of Thomas Jefferson:

Quote:
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816, denouncing the doctrine of the Trinity and suggesting it to be so riddled in falsehood that only an authoritarian figure could decipher its meaning and, with a firm grip on people's spiritual and mental freedoms, thus convince the people of its truthfulness



We agree with Thomas Jefferson about the Trinity.

Of course you agree with the part that has nothing to do with your own unintelligible propositions.


amantha wrote:


Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush. 21 April 1803, quoted from Roche, OIA, ed. The Jeffersonian Bible (1964) p. 348



Funny, I don't see Thomas Jefferson calling for INDIVIDUALS to be ridiculed. Did you leave something out?

Obfuscation. The quintessential tool of the apologist. Nothing, I have said, applies to you directly charity, you are merely a moniker on a website who stands vicariously in the place of all people in your religion who agree with you. I ridicule you in proxy, for and in behalf of, the living and dead who have been deceived by your callous arrogance.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Skippy the Dead posted: If someone has a fat ass, and we call them a "fat ass", it is not insult BECAUSE IT'S TRUE! Or if someone is born of an unwed mother, and we call them a "bastard", it's not an insult BECAUSE IT'S TRUE! See how silly this position is?

I answered: Do I see this as a tacit admission that "not all truth is useful?" Maybe people will back off castigating Elder Packer for saying that when they see how much common sense is contained in that sentence.

Skippy came back with: Apples and oranges. Apples and oranges.

My question is: What is the difference? Is it really apples and oranges or is it more like Gravensteins and MacIntosh?

Awe Man. I got excited. I thought you meant is ALL truth usefull. But you meant is it usefull to be honest all the time. I was thinking we don't have the ALL truth so we won't know if it is usefull. Infact it is most likely to do damage. But I agree. There is no need to call someone a fat ass if they really are. Im sure they will already know that. Also to point it out is rude and demeaning and can only be intended to insult. Nothing other. My reason for this is simply that society know that such things are insults and use them as insults, therefore one cannot argue as to say that it is merely the truth. Therefore truth in such cases is not at all necesary. However one might also argue that it is even good to LIE in some cases, such as telling someone they are pretty when they are not really all that pretty. It is a matter of which produces greater happiness for individuals you might care about.

Pirate. You know if you miss the P in this name it says irate. that's cool. HAAAA

[_charity]

Charity, you have mistakenly attributed the above statement to me, and I did not make it.

I'd like to suggest that rather than trying to respond to several posters on a single post, you separate your responses to individual posters. That should make it less likely that you'll misattribute quotes.

I am sorry to have misattributed a quote to you.

The reason I don't make separate posts is it boosts my posting count too much. It seems with at least some threads, that I get "piled" on. Many posters addressing me specifically. They get one post added to their count, but if I answer each one separately,I get 10 added to my count.

But I will try to be more careful. Sometimes the posts within posts within posts do get confusing. Sorry about that.

[_the road to hana]

Charity, you have mistakenly attributed the above statement to me, and I did not make it.

I'd like to suggest that rather than trying to respond to several posters on a single post, you separate your responses to individual posters. That should make it less likely that you'll misattribute quotes.

I am sorry to have misattributed a quote to you.

The reason I don't make separate posts is it boosts my posting count too much.

I wouldn't worry about that on this board. You don't have a Queen Bee guarding her beehive here. Post away.

[_Yoda]

Charity, you have mistakenly attributed the above statement to me, and I did not make it.

I'd like to suggest that rather than trying to respond to several posters on a single post, you separate your responses to individual posters. That should make it less likely that you'll misattribute quotes.

I am sorry to have misattributed a quote to you.

The reason I don't make separate posts is it boosts my posting count too much. It seems with at least some threads, that I get "piled" on. Many posters addressing me specifically. They get one post added to their count, but if I answer each one separately,I get 10 added to my count.

But I will try to be more careful. Sometimes the posts within posts within posts do get confusing. Sorry about that.

Why are you worried about posting count? As a Moderator here, I can assure you that there is nothing to worry about as far as posting counts. We encourage large posting counts here. There is no problem with that at all. :D