DiscussMormonism.com

One common complaint amongst observers of the LDS church is that the LDS church does not tell the complete truth about its history to its members.

And one of the most common defenses of this lack of instruction is summarized by stemelbow on another thread:

stemelbow wrote:Perhaps, at least part of the reason some of these details are not discussed is because people aren't interested. I can't get too many people to be interested enough to discuss some of these details myself, however much I try.

In other words, the apologists, new order Mormons, bloggernacle Mormons etc. would love to tell the truth in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society meetings, but gosh darnet, the plebs who populate those classes just wouldn't like it! So, we just dish out the pablum because that's what they want, it's really just us informed people being charitable and patient with our dumb brothers and sisters, God bless 'em.

As you can tell from the previous paragraph, I think the sentiment is incredibly condescending. So I have three set of questions for people who like to trot out the "We would tell them, but Joe-Sixpack-of-root-beer Mormon would fall asleep before we even mentioned anything controversial" excuse.

1) If these people are so impatient and unable to handle any details whatsoever, why does the church insist on making them attend 2 hours of boring as hell adult education classes every Sunday? Really, so you think your fellow saints can endure 2 hours of droning and repetition, but they would just fall asleep at the mention of polyandry? If your fellow saints are really this stupid and incurious, why not just cut church down to the absolute minimum of sacrament, 2 songs, and 1 talk?

2) Just how long do you think it takes to mention something controversial? Seriously, how long would it take to say in a lesson on the Book of Abraham: "If you are wondering how these facsimiles match up with Egyptology, they don't in any way." Or how long would it take to say as a historical preface to teaching D&C 132: "Joseph Smith married around 33 wives. Some were already married to other men, which is called polyandry. Some were teenage girls."

3) How in the hell do you even think that something like polyandry is boring to the average person? So your fellow stupid saints probably watch stuff like Jersey Shore, Survivor, talk shows, and Twilight, but polyandry would just bore them to tears huh? I think you have to try and make polyandry boring. And I think that's the real problem. It's not that it's boring, it's that you can't figure out a way to teach a lesson on the subject in such a way that your fellow saints are bored into thinking it's no big deal.

Man, if people were as uninterested as they claim, there's no way they'd be able to sit through the three hours of pap they're enduring now.

Aristotle Smith wrote:One common complaint amongst observers of the LDS church is that the LDS church does not tell the complete truth about its history to its members.

And one of the most common defenses of this lack of instruction is summarized by stemelbow on another thread:

stemelbow wrote:Perhaps, at least part of the reason some of these details are not discussed is because people aren't interested. I can't get too many people to be interested enough to discuss some of these details myself, however much I try.

In other words, the apologists, new order Mormons, bloggernacle Mormons etc. would love to tell the truth in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society meetings, but gosh darnet, the plebs who populate those classes just wouldn't like it! So, we just dish out the pablum because that's what they want, it's really just us informed people being charitable and patient with our dumb brothers and sisters, God bless 'em.

As you can tell from the previous paragraph, I think the sentiment is incredibly condescending. So I have three set of questions for people who like to trot out the "We would tell them, but Joe-Sixpack-of-root-beer Mormon would fall asleep before we even mentioned anything controversial" excuse.

1) If these people are so impatient and unable to handle any details whatsoever, why does the church insist on making them attend 2 hours of boring as hell adult education classes every Sunday? Really, so you think your fellow saints can endure 2 hours of droning and repetition, but they would just fall asleep at the mention of polyandry? If your fellow saints are really this stupid and incurious, why not just cut church down to the absolute minimum of sacrament, 2 songs, and 1 talk?[/quote]

It has nothing to do with with stupid. People aren't interested merely because they aren't. They have enough to worry about. The classes are not so much designed to teach history, as much as to teach spiritual lessons--lessons to apply to every day life. Now, I agree that the Church can do better at providing better materials to teach from--can instruct to teach a better more accurate history.

2) Just how long do you think it takes to mention something controversial? Seriously, how long would it take to say in a lesson on the Book of Abraham: "If you are wondering how these facsimiles match up with Egyptology, they don't in any way." Or how long would it take to say as a historical preface to teaching D&C 132: "Joseph Smith married around 33 wives. Some were already married to other men, which is called polyandry. Some were teenage girls."

Let's not get silly. I did not say the only reason these details aren't discussed in classrooms at church are because people aren't interested. I would also suggest going that route would cause all sorts of concern and dissension--mostly because these topics are disputed and argued, whether right or wrong. If someone brought up the problems with the Book of Abraham in SUnday School we'd have all sorts of people fighting about details.

3) How in the hell do you even think that something like polyandry is boring to the average person?

Goll-y. I don't think I can be any more clear. I did not suggest every topic is boring to the average person.

So your fellow stupid saints probably watch stuff like Jersey Shore, Survivor, talk shows, and Twilight, but polyandry would just bore them to tears huh? I think you have to try and make polyandry boring. And I think that's the real problem. It's not that it's boring, it's that you can't figure out a way to teach a lesson on the subject in such a way that your fellow saints are bored into thinking it's no big deal.

That's probably true too. there will always be people who object to something as controversial as polyandry. Some will remain faithful saying the Church was wrong in that regard, and think it will never be practiced again. Some will not. The point is, its controversial, there are plenty of varied ideas about it. Its not our spiritual concern right now, to say the least. No one wants to discuss it because it makes everyone uncomfortable. Church isn't for that. its for worship.

No Stem, you didn't just say...

Its not our spiritual concern right now, to say the least.

If it's not of concern spiritually for you, why are you here discussing this type of stuff?

No one wants to discuss it because it makes everyone uncomfortable. Church isn't for that. its for worship.

When you say 'no one' who are you speaking on behalf of.
You?
Your ward?
Your Stake?
The whole Church?

If Church is for worship, why are there lessons - the same lessons that get repeated year in and year out?

stemelbow wrote:
That's probably true too. there will always be people who object to something as controversial as polyandry. Some will remain faithful saying the Church was wrong in that regard, and think it will never be practiced again. Some will not. The point is, its controversial, there are plenty of varied ideas about it. Its not our spiritual concern right now, to say the least.

Whether or not Joseph Smith was faithful to the Lord's commands in D&C 132 is not our spiritual concern right now?

That assertion seems to conflict with what Jesus told the Nephites.


17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.

3 Nephi 14

Should the church make full disclosure of the points of all sides?

Or isn't it enough that it just tell its side of the story?

Robert D. Crockett of Latham & Watkins wrote:Should the church make full disclosure of the points of all sides?

Or isn't it enough that it just tell its side of the story?

I think for most members it would be enough if the Church just told its side of the story truthfully.

Yahoo Bot wrote:Should the church make full disclosure of the points of all sides?

Or isn't it enough that it just tell its side of the story?

Depends on whether we take the adversarial legalistic view, perhaps?

Might another possibility be to consider full disclosure as a requirement for informed consent?

Yahoo Bot wrote:Should the church make full disclosure of the points of all sides?

Or isn't it enough that it just tell its side of the story?

When Missionaries are teaching people about the Book of Mormon why do they tell them it was translated using a Urim & Thummim?

Why aren't they instructed to tell the 'truth' about how it was done?
This would seem a good time to cover it.

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:

Yahoo Bot wrote:Should the church make full disclosure of the points of all sides?

Or isn't it enough that it just tell its side of the story?

I think for most members it would be enough if the Church just told its side of the story truthfully.

Well, that just links it to your highly subjective view.

I represent a couple of the largest religious organizations in the world. They put out their own publications, and one of them has their own version of general authorities. Both religions are subject to substantial criticism but when the publish their public relations material the think they are telling the truth.

Anybody can make mistakes, but demanding that the church tell its side of the story truthfully is just a handwave of an argument.

When Missionaries are teaching people about the Book of Mormon why do they tell them it was translated using a Urim & Thummim?

Why aren't they instructed to tell the 'truth' about how it was done?
This would seem a good time to cover it.

The missionaries and many in the Church believe that the gold plates were translated with the help of the U & T. I mean, all one has to do is read the Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith never contradicted that view with anything he wrote.

Sure, others say it differently. Most of you degenerate apostates rely (you probably don't realize it) upon the statements of David Whitmer after he was long out of the church. David describes one way of translation -- the hat; the seer stone etc. But that doesn't rule out the U&T. Really know, this is a trivial dispute. There are much more weighty and controversial topics than this stuff.