Is all truth useful?

[_beastie]

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

It could be useful in many ways. First and foremost, it could have been useful during the actual time period of the ban. When certain members agitated for this to be changed, they were treated as rabblerousers or worse. In reality, they apparently were simply one step ahead of the rest of the pack.

And today, it can be useful to fully admit and incorporate the idea that prophets can and do teach things that are false in order to allow for a climate in which believers can more successfully work to prevent this sort of problem occurring again.

You act as if nothing church leaders do or say has any possible negative impact on the lives of real people. The reality is the exact opposite.

[_charity]

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

It could be useful in many ways. First and foremost, it could have been useful during the actual time period of the ban. When certain members agitated for this to be changed, they were treated as rabblerousers or worse. In reality, they apparently were simply one step ahead of the rest of the pack.

And today, it can be useful to fully admit and incorporate the idea that prophets can and do teach things that are false in order to allow for a climate in which believers can more successfully work to prevent this sort of problem occurring again.

You act as if nothing church leaders do or say has any possible negative impact on the lives of real people. The reality is the exact opposite.

COULD have been useful in the past is a totally dead subject. We can't change the past. Are you also in favor of a current tax to provide reparations for the descendants of slaves? How about a lump sum payment to each of us who had a Cherokee ancestor who suffered on the Trail of Tears? I will be in that line.

Really. Trying to re-engineer the past is a useless activity. And that is what the subject is. HISTORY. Nothing anyone can do or say TODAY can change one little thing about what happened years ago.

Believers have already been given the keys and the responsibility to determine what is reveleation for themselves. Whatever the prophet says, we are held accountable for searching out and confirming on our own. That has been within the Church from the beginning. If anyone does not do that, the resonsibility lies on his/her own shoulders.

I should hope that what the church leaders do and say have an impact on the lives of real people. That is the whole purpose. Now, whether that is negative or positive is entirely up to the person him/herself.

For a small example. President Hinckley has said that women should limit earrings to one per ear, males to none at all. This should have an impact. Can that have a negative impact on someone? Sure. She can get all hot under the collar, accuse the prophet of meddling, think he's just an old man who doesn't understand modern things, add another earring or two just to show how independent she is, get angry when the bishop speaks to her about it in a temple recommend interview (under the sustaining the leaders question), mutter and grumble and harbor ill feelings against the bishop, start to complaining to other people about the bishop, become critical of other things to bolster her own feelings of resentment, etc.

Now, did President Hinckley cause that? No. She did it all herself. At the judgement bar, she is not going to be able to point any fingers at anyone else causing her to act the way she did. AGENCY. We all h ave the ability to choose.

[_Jason Bourne]

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?

If you are really comparing the fat ass and bastard comments with Elder Packers comments about truth then I think you have a problem with comprehension.

[_beastie]

We LEARN from history, charity.

Or, actually, it would be helpful if we learned from history. Even when history is "allowed" to be discussed and probed, we often don't learn from it. So you can imagine when it's taboo to discuss and probe certain historical truths, that even less learning from history occurs. If members are never supposed to criticize how leaders handled certain historical issues, like the priesthood ban, (much less how the leaders handle current issues) no learning will occur, and no positive changes can occur, either.

So I guess that, in the past, members who were punished for agitating for the lifting of the priesthood ban, or the possible converts who were influenced in their evaluation of the "one true church" by the ban and turned away from the church, or black members who lived under the ban are all to blame for the negative affects of the ban. They just needed an attitude readjustment. Certainly the leaders can't be blamed for the negative affects of the ban.

(and I could have guessed you would have used the earring issue to trivialize)

[_Moniker]

The earring issue is actually quite interesting to me. Why in the world would God care if women wear more than one pair of earrings? THIS trivializes God!

How about something that will actually impact people? What in the world is God thinking? Is he going to smite those crazy radicals with multiple holes?

IT IS ABSURD!!!!

I'm glad Charity brought it up! If this is "truth" then it is indeed not useful!!!!!

[_malkie]

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

It could be useful in many ways. First and foremost, it could have been useful during the actual time period of the ban. When certain members agitated for this to be changed, they were treated as rabblerousers or worse. In reality, they apparently were simply one step ahead of the rest of the pack.

And today, it can be useful to fully admit and incorporate the idea that prophets can and do teach things that are false in order to allow for a climate in which believers can more successfully work to prevent this sort of problem occurring again.

You act as if nothing church leaders do or say has any possible negative impact on the lives of real people. The reality is the exact opposite.

COULD have been useful in the past is a totally dead subject. We can't change the past. Are you also in favor of a current tax to provide reparations for the descendants of slaves? How about a lump sum payment to each of us who had a Cherokee ancestor who suffered on the Trail of Tears? I will be in that line.

Really. Trying to re-engineer the past is a useless activity. And that is what the subject is. HISTORY. Nothing anyone can do or say TODAY can change one little thing about what happened years ago.

I cannot help but wonder, then, why Elder Packer did not simply say: "Don't teach church history - it's not very useful."

[_charity]

We LEARN from history, charity.

We don't, as you admit in the next paragraph.

Or, actually, it would be helpful if we learned from history. Even when history is "allowed" to be discussed and probed, we often don't learn from it. So you can imagine when it's taboo to discuss and probe certain historical truths, that even less learning from history occurs. If members are never supposed to criticize how leaders handled certain historical issues, like the priesthood ban, (much less how the leaders handle current issues) no learning will occur, and no positive changes can occur, either.

It is not surprising that you are on the exact opposite side of the fence. NOTHING good comes from cirticizing the leaders of the Church. This is not a bottom up organization. The Lord's Church has always been top down. Which is the way it is supposed to be. And where you and others have made your big mistake is in thinking that the membership drives doctrine. God does that.

So I guess that, in the past, members who were punished for agitating for the lifting of the priesthood ban, or the possible converts who were influenced in their evaluation of the "one true church" by the ban and turned away from the church, or black members who lived under the ban are all to blame for the negative affects of the ban. They just needed an attitude readjustment. Certainly the leaders can't be blamed for the negative affects of the ban.

1. Members were disciplined for breaking commandments and laws of God.
2. Possible converts are held accountable for whatever influence of the Spirit they felt. No matter what they chose to do with that witness.
3. Black members who lived during the time of the ban were blessed for their faithfulness.
4. Everyone is responsible for him/herself. AGENCY. We don't have a victim mentality in the Church.
You should listen to Darios Clark speak about the ban.

The earring issue is actually quite interesting to me. Why in the world would God care if women wear more than one pair of earrings? THIS trivializes God!

People respond to us in the way we chose to appear to them. Being sure that as Christ's representatives on earth we present ourselves well is a part of follwoing Christ. It isn't just about earrings. It is about vanity.

How about something that will actually impact people? What in the world is God thinking? Is he going to smite those crazy radicals with multiple holes?

We get all kinds of grief when the prophet relays to us God's will about the important things. How about this? Homosexuality is a sin.

IT IS ABSURD!!!!

I'm glad Charity brought it up! If this is "truth" then it is indeed not useful!!!!!

How about showing that we are willing to be obedient. We can throw off our vanity. Those are useful truths.

[_Jason Bourne]

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?

It bears directly on how reliable and credible those who say that God is directing them really are.

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.

But BY made a a priori assumption that the LDS gospel IS true. Personal issues do matter when trying to decide whether the character of the person that says God is talking to him can be truster.

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.

Yes it really does. Joseph says that God speaks to him. The only way we can really know is to trust Joseph. The way we can trust him is to look to what he does in other areas of his life. If these are overtly bad then we may have reason to question whether God is really talking to him.

[_charity]

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?

It bears directly on how reliable and credible those who say that God is directing them really are.

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.

But BY made a a priori assumption that the LDS gospel IS true. Personal issues do matter when trying to decide whether the character of the person that says God is talking to him can be truster.

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.

Yes it really does. Joseph says that God speaks to him. The only way we can really know is to trust Joseph. The way we can trust him is to look to what he does in other areas of his life. If these are overtly bad then we may have reason to question whether God is really talking to him.

We aren't supposed to look to men to determine if God speaks to them or not. We get that information from God.

[_Moniker]

The earring issue is actually quite interesting to me. Why in the world would God care if women wear more than one pair of earrings? THIS trivializes God!

People respond to us in the way we chose to appear to them. Being sure that as Christ's representatives on earth we present ourselves well is a part of follwoing Christ. It isn't just about earrings. It is about vanity.

I agree completely! People do indeed respond to us in how we present ourselves. I like you Charity, and think you are genuine and sincere even though you, at times, make me cringe. Do you think how you choose to appear to the people on this bulletin board is as a representative of Christ? I, personally, would rather be thought of as I do. Looks are superficial, works and deeds speak to who the person is.

How about something that will actually impact people? What in the world is God thinking? Is he going to smite those crazy radicals with multiple holes?

We get all kinds of grief when the prophet relays to us God's will about the important things. How about this? Homosexuality is a sin.

Yah, well I think that was sort of thought of as a "sin" before the Prophet relayed that little nugget, no? Wow! That was really pushing the envelope with a new directive from God, eh?

IT IS ABSURD!!!!

I'm glad Charity brought it up! If this is "truth" then it is indeed not useful!!!!!

How about showing that we are willing to be obedient. We can throw off our vanity. Those are useful truths.

I would rather be obedient to the teachings of Christ (which do actually compel me) than to a directive that IS ABOUT VANITY! God telling us that we should look spiffy seems rather vain to me???

Matter of fact I intend to wag my pierced tongue at all those that think appearance (VANITY??!!), apparently, is as important to God as what WE DO!