DiscussMormonism.com

From Mormon Times Saturday: http://mormontimes.com/WC_headquarters.php?id=1663

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?

mms wrote:From Mormon Times Saturday: http://mormontimes.com/WC_headquarters.php?id=1663

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?

He has earned the title of Dallin Hoax many times.

You really want to try to defend the propositions that all truths are (equally) useful and that all truths deserve equally to be communicated?

mms wrote:What truths should not be communicated and why should they not be?

Any truth that makes Mormonism look bad should not be communicated. This is because it, well, makes Mormonism look bad.

I would like to see further justification for this position so I can consider the arguments. Anyone?

The justification is that if Mormonism looks bad, then fewer people will be willing to join it and fewer members will continue to pay tithing.

Dr. Shades wrote:

mms wrote:What truths should not be communicated and why should they not be?

Any truth that makes Mormonism look bad should not be communicated. This is because it, well, makes Mormonism look bad.

I would like to see further justification for this position so I can consider the arguments. Anyone?

The justification is that if Mormonism looks bad, then fewer people will be willing to join it and fewer members will continue to pay tithing.

That's gonna leave a mark!

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 you accept the warrior mindset, and believe that we are locked in battle with diabolical foes who will decieve and corrupt by any means in order to destroy freedom and enslave, then yes there are truths that should be suppressed for the greater good.

Are we talking about the so-called "war on terror"?

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? :)

If someone outside of the Mormon Church were to make such observations, perhaps in a communications class, everyone would pretty much shake their head in agreement. It is only when you associate it with the methodology of apologetics many clamor against it.

moksha wrote:If someone outside of the Mormon Church were to make such observations, perhaps in a communications class, everyone would pretty much shake their head in agreement. It is only when you associate it with the methodology of apologetics many clamor against it.

Little confused here. Which "observations" and what is "it"?

mms wrote:

moksha wrote:If someone outside of the Mormon Church were to make such observations, perhaps in a communications class, everyone would pretty much shake their head in agreement. It is only when you associate it with the methodology of apologetics many clamor against it.

Little confused here. Which "observations" and what is "it"?

The quotation from the opening post. Generally if you have to ask what it is, you don't get it.*


* this can undoubtedly be traced to something, somewhere....