DiscussMormonism.com

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?

I thought that only Antis took things out of context...

When you are discussing extremely important and relevant parts of the history of your religion, then, yes, ALL truth is useful. These are apples.

When you are discussing people, then, no. Some things might not be useful. These are oranges.

charity wrote: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?

It is true that not all truth is useful, or needs to be spoken, but what is or isn't useful is a judgement call. The problem with Packer's comment isn't that it's not true; the problem is that he means it to be self-serving.

Simply examine the truth for usefulness. If the fat person decides to change some habits in response to the weight comment, then the truth is indeed useful. If the truth is only expressed as an insult then it might actually squander its inherent usefulness. The individual will feel angry and won't change a darn thing.

The same goes for information that might challenge the faith of the saints. It might only insult, or it might be expressed in a way that makes the most use of it. Either way, Packer thinks the information is anti-mormon and not worth anybody's time, no matter how it might be expressed. (He was talking to church educators, wasn't he? How much more sympathetic can you get, and still he wants them to not talk about difficult truths. That's what I mean about "self serving".)

The Dude wrote:
The same goes for information that might challenge the faith of the saints. It might only insult, or it might be expressed in a way that makes the most use of it. Either way, Packer thinks the information is anti-mormon and not worth anybody's time, no matter how it might be expressed. (He was talking to church educators, wasn't he? How much more sympathetic can you get, and still he wants them to not talk about difficult truths. That's what I mean about "self serving".)

Well said.

Scottie wrote:I thought that only Antis took things out of context...

When you are discussing extremely important and relevant parts of the history of your religion, then, yes, ALL truth is useful. These are apples.

When you are discussing people, then, no. Some things might not be useful. These are oranges.

I would disagree with this. While reading my g-g-grandfather's journal (a polygamist and early Mormon) I read some things that were useful. I also read what he liked for breakfast. One useful, one not so useful. My brain is filled with absolutely useless information.

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Select, Start

007-373-5963

Justin Bailey

If you know what any of these mean you're a geek. :)

charity wrote: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?

It depends on whether we are talking about issues of diplomacy or dishonesty.

The Nehor wrote:

Scottie wrote:I thought that only Antis took things out of context...

When you are discussing extremely important and relevant parts of the history of your religion, then, yes, ALL truth is useful. These are apples.

When you are discussing people, then, no. Some things might not be useful. These are oranges.

I would disagree with this. While reading my g-g-grandfather's journal (a polygamist and early Mormon) I read some things that were useful. I also read what he liked for breakfast. One useful, one not so useful. My brain is filled with absolutely useless information.

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Select, Start

007-373-5963

Justin Bailey

If you know what any of these mean you're a geek. :)

So perhaps when Elder Packer made the remark that “Some things that are true are not very useful.”, he meant that Seminary & Institute teachers would be "giving equal time to the adversary" if they taught about what their g-g-grandfathers had for breakfast.

Of course not all truths are useful.

But some truths ARE useful.

Let's use two examples.

If, say, Gordon B H is ugly, and this is true, it is not a useful truth to share or discuss.

If, on the other hand, the priesthood ban was never inspired of God but rather was simply a "practice" that resulted from the basic racial bigotry of past leaders, then that "truth" is very useful.

charity wrote:My question is: What is the difference?

It's helpful to keep in mind that Boyd K. Packer made these comments (in his famous, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect") entirely in the context of the reporting of (LDS) Church history.

They were not made regarding whether someone is observing their mother-in-law is obese.

In context, his comments were these:

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

Some things that are true are not very useful.

That's really a shot across the bow regarding the life and character of Joseph Smith as much as it is anything, a way of saying that if he were a money digger, a treasure seeker, or even a philanderer or purported husband of other men's wives, it would not be "useful" in terms of the building of the kingdom or strengthening of faith of its members.

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.

Would it be important or even relevant for people to know that Martin Luther had various character flaws, or harbored sentiments that were anti-semitic? Would it be important or even relevant for people to know that some of the Catholic popes fathered illegitimate children? Would it be important or even relevant for people to know that a popular televangelist was having an extramarital affair?

Would it be important or even relevant for people to know that a religion had warts in its history?

Sure. Even Mormonism believes it's okay to look at the flaws in other religions, or their leaders, and that behavior goes to the foundation of Mormonism itself.

Just stay the heck away from their own.

beastie wrote:If, on the other hand, the priesthood ban was never inspired of God but rather was simply a "practice" that resulted from the basic racial bigotry of past leaders, then that "truth" is very useful.

Useful exactly how? Does this change anything in the past? Does it impact anything in the present? Or the future?

the road to hana wrote:
It's helpful to keep in mind that Boyd K. Packer made these comments (in his famous, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect") entirely in the context of the reporting of (LDS) Church history.

They were not made regarding whether someone is observing their mother-in-law is obese.

In context, his comments were these:


Quote:
There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

Some things that are true are not very useful.


That's really a shot across the bow regarding the life and character of Joseph Smith as much as it is anything, a way of saying that if he were a money digger, a treasure seeker, or even a philanderer or purported husband of other men's wives, it would not be "useful" in terms of the building of the kingdom or strengthening of faith of its members.

Brigham Young made a comment a lot earlier than Elder Packer did, that since the Gospel is true, it doesn't matter about the personal issues. He even said this repeating some of the worst slanders against Joseph Smith, and said even if that were all true, it made no difference to the Gospel. He then went on to say that Joseph Smith was the most moral man he knew. Just to spike the guns of those who, like a person on another message board, want to jump on Brother Brigham's words as a condmenation of the Propeht.

the road to hana wrote:
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.

Are you preparedd to provide for us any, even one, occasion where Elder Packer has taught anything about any other leader of any other religion?

This kind of statement really angers me. If you find anything Elder Packer ever said exposing any character flaw or misdeed of the leader of any other religion I will eat my words. But if you just made that up out of your own mind, you really should apologize and retract it.

the road to hana wrote:
Would it be important or even relevant for people to know that Martin Luther had various character flaws, or harbored sentiments that were anti-semitic? Would it be important or even relevant for people to know that some of the Catholic popes fathered illegitimate children? Would it be important or even relevant for people to know that a popular televangelist was having an extramarital affair?

Would it be important or even relevant for people to know that a religion had warts in its history?

Sure. Even Mormonism believes it's okay to look at the flaws in other religions, or their leaders, and that behavior goes to the foundation of Mormonism itself.

Just stay the heck away from their own.

Again, road to hana, you have made a completely false charge against the Church. You have conflated the Apostacy with history and leaders of other religions.

To say that the doctrine of child baptism is a false doctrine is not the same as saying Pope Somebody had illegitimate children. You will not find one Church book, pamphlet, one Ensign article, one General Conference talk, where a General Authority has talked about pope's murdering their predecessors, or about Martin Luther's anti-semitism or about any modern Protestant's infidelity.