Apostle re-emphasizes that not all truth is useful

Post by **_mms** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:57 am

It is only when you associate it with the methodology of apologetics many clamor against it.

Yeah, you're right, "it" should have been entirely clear.

Post by **_mms** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:03 am

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.

How about not a "communications" class, but a history class--then would everyone shake their heads in agreement? I'm pretty sure Elder Oaks was discussing our treatment of Church history in the linked article.

Post by **_moksha** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:11 am

mms wrote:
How about not a "communications" class, but a history class--then would everyone shake their heads in agreement? I'm pretty sure Elder Oaks was discussing our treatment of Church history in the linked article.

Yeah, but sometimes the truth of a statement can be tested in a differing context to find its validity. For instance, could there be a truth uncovered in archeology that was not immediately helpful. If it was mixed together with a lie, could it not lend itself to a misinterpretation of the results?

Post by **_moksha** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:14 am

mms wrote:
It is only when you associate it with the methodology of apologetics many clamor against it.

Yeah, you're right, "it" should have been entirely clear.

Or at least with sufficient meditation its clarity can become more apparent.

Post by **_mms** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:16 am

moksha wrote:
mms wrote:
How about not a "communications" class, but a history class--then would everyone shake their heads in agreement? I'm pretty sure Elder Oaks was discussing our treatment of Church history in the linked article.

Yeah, but sometimes the truth of a statement can be tested in a differing context to find its validity. For instance, could there be a truth uncovered in archeology that was not immediately helpful. If it was mixed together with a lie, could it not lend itself to a misinterpretation of the results?

Indeed. I think both defenders of the faith and offenders of the faith are guilty of this, no? But does that mean the particular truth in question should not be communicated at all, or just not when mixed with a lie?

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:30 am

moksha wrote:Yeah, but sometimes the truth of a statement can be tested in a differing context to find its validity.

Can you give me a specific example and demonstrate the effects?

For instance, could there be a truth uncovered in archeology that was not immediately helpful. If it was mixed together with a lie, could it not lend itself to a misinterpretation of the results?

Once more, will you please give me an example--hypothetical if you must--of this?

Post by **_beastie** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:12 pm

Heh. I just quoted extensively from Packer on the MMM thread, I didn't know about this one. Thanks, mms!

Of course, some defenders of the faith will pretend that the apostle was just talking about irrelevant truths or facts. Irrelevant truths wouldn't cause a loss of faith, they would simply cause a loss of interest. We all know what kind of facts cause loss of faith.

Post by **_mms** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:29 pm

This issue is pretty important to me (and probably many), as it was the discovery of truths that may not have been "appropriate to communicate" AND the discovery that the Church was intentionally NOT communicating those truths that led to the difficulties I am still dealing with re the Church.

So, I really wonder, for example, if Elder Oaks takes issue with Bushman's revelation of non-edifying truths in RSR; or if he thinks Peterson should leave non-edifying truths out of articles or papers--not because of irrelevance, but because they are not edifying.

This is probably too broad a reading of his statement, but I am hoping to get your thoughts on precisely what he means. On what occasions do you think he would suggest it would be inappropriate to reveal a non-edifying truth; or perhaps more importantly when do you think he would approve of the dissemination of non-edufying truths?

A Church History class at BYU? Class is discussing Joseph Smith's statements and activities re translating ancient records. Is it appropriate to bring up the Kinderhook plates?

Post by **_truth dancer** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:12 pm

Of course not ALL truth is useful. I mean seriously, how useful is it for y'all to know I lost a tooth when I was seven years old?

No one is going to debate that not all truth is useful.

What is at question here is what is or is not useful truth.

I for one think that prior to a person joining an organization, (for an example, an organization that demands one give all their time, talents and energy, not to mention 10% of ones income for the rest of their lives), one should be able to know important information that may help a person decide if the organization is honest, if it aligns with their personal moral compass, if it agrees with their sense of goodness or rightness.

Presenting an unrealistic, inaccurate, or even dishonest picture of the organization, by not disclosing truth that may impact their decision to join does not seem appropriate in my opinion.

~dancer~

Post by **_Who Knows** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:22 pm

Oaks actually gives some really good advice (almost):

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Quorum of the Twelve Friday instructed members to be skeptical when reading media stories about church history.

Skepticism is always good! Now, if he could just drop the last part of the sentence, I think we'd be making some headway.