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?
That's a ridiculous fallacy. No surprise.
---------------
The Mormon church is fundamentally ubiquitous on a doctrinal level, as seen by the various Mormons here that can't agree on dogma but do agree on one thing:
The Mormon Church is true.
So truth is inherently at odds with a charlatanesque sideshow that advocates magic underwear, plagiarized scriptures, polygamy, and produces some of the most vile bigots ever to grace this great nation of ours with their presence (see the comments afforded Liberals and Homosexuals). Of course truth is at odds with the Mormon church; it diligently avoids it while claiming simultaneously that its strenuously searching for it. Ha!
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 course not all truths deserve equal time and disclosure. Who cares what you had for breakfast or whether Elder Oaks had a bad headache and took Tylenol before he gave the talk. Also it is not useful for a bishop to disclose confidences given to him in the private interview to the entire ward membership. The fact that I got a D+ in my high school algebra course seems pretty irrlevant since when in college I graduated with the highest honors my college granted.
But the truths he was referring to, it seem, and the ones often discussed here are those of historical significance in the establishment of the LDS Church that IF they were disclosed would and could have influence on the determination of whether those claiming the supernatural interventions from God and angles are really true. Such things as how Joseph acted in many situations, such as how polygamy was handled do reflect on his character. The way the Book of Commandments came forth and then the D&C and the facts related to the founding events and apparent adding or editing of major events that are related to the founding events may also be useful. The list could go on.
So it is truths that have bearing on the truth claims and the truth claimant that seem critical. And the Church has and is not as forthcoming on many of these things and leaves lots out. The member or investigator typically has to go beyond Church sources and missionaries to ferret out some od such information.
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? :)
It would be nice if Elder Oaks would give a specific example of what "truths" in the media he believes are "not edifying or appropriate to communicate." Instead he just makes general statements, leaving it up to us to guess what he means. We assume he means the embarrassing historical truths. Apologists may think he is talking about irrelevant historical truths like what brand of corn flakes Joseph Smith preferred. I wish Oaks would give specific examples of what he believes the media should not be communicating.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
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?
Easy enough. Truths: In the past Samoan men liked to wear flowers and were good dancers. Add to that a lie: They like to cruise for men from Tonga. Synthesis: There could be many erroneous conclusions drawn from this information.
moksha wrote:Easy enough. Truths: In the past Samoan men liked to wear flowers and were good dancers. Add to that a lie: They like to cruise for men from Tonga. Synthesis: There could be many erroneous conclusions drawn from this information.
Okay, so what you and Elder Oaks are saying is that we need to suppress the facts that Samoan men liked to wear flowers and were good dancers--simply because somebody, somewhere might add the random lie that they like to cruise for men from Tonga?
In that case, isn't it okay to reveal the truth that Samoan men liked to wear flowers and were good dancers, just as long as no lies were added (meaning that Elder Oaks is wrong)?
Or, should all truths on all subjects always be suppressed, just to make sure nobody can possibly add any lies or draw any false conclusions (meaning that history should never be written)?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
SatanWasSetUp wrote:It would be nice if Elder Oaks would give a specific example of what "truths" in the media he believes are "not edifying or appropriate to communicate." Instead he just makes general statements, leaving it up to us to guess what he means. We assume he means the embarrassing historical truths. Apologists may think he is talking about irrelevant historical truths like what brand of corn flakes Joseph Smith preferred. I wish Oaks would give specific examples of what he believes the media should not be communicating.
Here is my guess on what, according to Oaks is not appropriate or edifying to communicate:
1. LDS doctrine that others find bizarre or horrible, ie., Jesus has God's DNA, righteous men and women will become Gods and Goddesses, God has many wives and in heaven men will have many wives as well, etc.
2. Various truths that may lead people to question whether the LDS church is led by Jesus Christ, ie., Joseph Smith "married" other women and girls besides his wife, no evidence for Book of Mormon, racism, etc.
td
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
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.
For example If I was a member, after finding out what the temples were about, I should not post (cut & paste) something like this;
The Mormon temples have nothing to do with ancient temples from what I have read. There was no silly ceremony where ancient jews got together and shook hands and wore aprons.
The concept of temples is completely a fictitious construction from the mind of Joseph Smith. The logic of temple ordinances for the dead is also mind numbing. Why would God require his living saints to waste their time on Earth doing ceremonies for people who are already dead? Why wouldn't God just allow who ever accepted the gospel into heaven without people on Earth performing ordinances. It doesn't make sense to me.
Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us if we do not concentrate with total attention on its pursuit. And even while it eludes us, the illusion still lingers of knowing it and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth is seldom pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter... But I want to stress that it comes not from an adversary but from a friend. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises, Thursday, June 8, 1978
What a crock of BS this article is. As you can tell it's a not so subtle way to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of members regarding outside information. If it doesn't agree with what the church teaches it must be wrong or some deceptive anti-mormon plot to let satan plant seeds of doubt in your mind. I like how the article talks about his 1985 CES talk.
Another source of differences in the accounts of different witnesses is the different meanings that different persons attach to words. We have a vivid illustration of this in the recent media excitement about the word salamander in a letter Martin Harris is supposed to have sent to W. W. Phelps over 150 years ago. All of the scores of media stories on that subject apparently assume that the author of that letter used the word salamander in the modern sense of a “tailed amphibian.”
One wonders why so many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning of salamander, which may even have been the primary meaning in this context in the 1820s. That meaning, which is listed second in a current edition of Webster’s New World Dictionary, is “a spirit supposed to live in fire” (2d College ed. 1982, s.v. “salamander”). Modern and ancient literature contain many examples of this usage.
A spirit that is able to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of the angel Moroni: a personage in the midst of a light, whose countenance was “truly like lightning” and whose overall appearance “was glorious beyond description” (Joseph Smith—History 1:32). As Joseph Smith wrote later, “The first sight [of this personage] was as though the house was filled with consuming fire” (History of the Church, 4:536). Since the letter purports only to be Martin Harris’s interpretation of what he had heard about Joseph’s experience, the use of the words white salamander and old spirit seem understandable.
What Oaks does show us is a great example of a "let me pull some double talk out of my ass" apologetics to explain the Hoffman affair. Taking the salamander to old spirit using a old dictionary that a salamander is "supposed to live in fire" and they saying how the letter mentioned the "house filled with fire". That's good classic stuff.