Hammer Away!

[_McKay Jones]

quote]

It seems to me the need to believe God commanded David Whitmer or encouraged him to separate himself from the Church in order to increase his utility as a witness is a case of special pleading.

How so? David specifically said that the voice of God told him in Far West to separate himself from the body of the Church. No other witnesses ascribed their actions to God telling them to. Most TBMs, I think, would rather that David did not say/believe this, but he did. Rather than try to explain it away (which would tend to undermine the effectiveness of his "Three Witnesses" testimony), I take him at his word and allow for the possibility that God actually did tell him to. How is that special pleading?

You would also have to apply that belief to all the witnesses that left the church for one reason or another.

Why? Wouldn't I only "have to apply that belief to" witnesses who asserted that God told them to? I'm not sure I'm understanding where you're coming from here . . .

I would also like to explore more your response regarding the use of non correlation material in a church setting. You used the term "within reason" to limit such use. Would you care to give an example of something that would be outside those limits and why?

I'll have to think about that. The example you gave is a good one, and I comment on it below. As a general rule, I would follow the Spirit, my instincts, and my personal judgment, but members of my ward have been exposed to a whole host of things in a faithful setting (because of my personality and background) that they probably wouldn't be in many other wards.

As it stands right now, we have a wonderful Tongan brother (whose son is serving as a missionary in the Washington D.C. North Mission) and a sister who alternate teaching every other week, and they do wonderful job. Neither is inclined or equipped to regularly inject erudite and recondite "extra-correlation" material, and that's fine.

For example would Joseph Smith's lying to Emma regarding polygamy be appropriate in a discussion on D&C section 132?

It would, *especially* if it were brought up. I don't know that I would go out of my way to stir the pot and "shock" people, though, just to do it.

If I were a gospel doctrine teacher teaching D&C 132, I would point the class to the section introduction (doesn't get any more correlated than that), which mentions that Joseph began receiving revelation on polygamy as early as 1831, and I would further mention that this was in response to a question from Lyman Johnson in Hiram, Ohio based on Bible polygamy (the answer at that time was that it was a true principle, but was not to be practiced at that time and not until authorized). I would then (and my ward has heard this from me before --- it's not new to them) briefly point out that Joseph's first plural wife was in 1835 and that most scholars place the total number of plural wives between 26 and 33, but that it's hard to know for sure due to the nature of the evidence. And then richtig los with the real meat of the lesson: celestial marriage and its place within the larger new and everlasting covenant.

Regarding "lying to Emma" (and others) about polygamy, I would address this if it were needed, but wouldn't go out of my way to make it a focus. One definitely should stay withi n the Stimmung of the lesson manual, and I think that you can kind of tell whether someone has potential for problems by their tendency to use extra-correlation sources and expecially the nature of these sources. I would used B.H. Roberts in CHC and Parley P. Pratt's autobiography to address "lying about polygamy," which is much different from using Todd Compton or Richard Van Wagoner. And I think it's fairly obvious what the line of demarcation is there.

I guess what I am asking is, does the term "within reason" limit the outside material to only that which agrees with the correlated material or would you be comfortable with information that is in conflict with it?

I would not allow matieral that is in conflict with correlated material. That's a pretty good gauge of what I meant by "within reason."

[_Buffalo]

There is, on the whole, no such whitewash. It's a myth. There's a concentration on the fundamentals and on things relevant to contemporary Latter-day Saints. That may result in a similar end product -- no discussions of Adam-God, no lessons on Sarah Pratt -- but for very different motives. And, since you seem to be fixated on assigning dishonest motives, that's a directly relevant fact.

This quote should be framed. DCP admits that official church history as presented to lay members amounts to whitewashing - he only disputes that it is intended that way.

And according to the lesson on honesty, whitewashing amounts to lying.

[_brade]

There is, on the whole, no such whitewash. It's a myth. There's a concentration on the fundamentals and on things relevant to contemporary Latter-day Saints. That may result in a similar end product -- no discussions of Adam-God, no lessons on Sarah Pratt -- but for very different motives. And, since you seem to be fixated on assigning dishonest motives, that's a directly relevant fact.

This quote should be framed. DCP admits that official church history as presented to lay members amounts to whitewashing - he only disputes that it is intended that way.

And according to the lesson on honesty, whitewashing amounts to lying.

Both brushing my teeth and swishing with mouthwash result in minty breath. It doesn't follow from the fact that I have minty breath that I brushed my teeth. DCP is saying that whitewashing history and focusing on essentials may result in the same type of material. It doesn't follow from the fact that we have a certain type of Church material that we have a case of whitewashing.

[_Buffalo]

Both brushing my teeth and swishing with mouthwash result in minty breath. It doesn't follow from the fact that I have minty breath that I brushed my teeth. DCP is saying that whitewashing history and focusing on essentials may result in the same type of material. It doesn't follow from the fact that we have a certain type of Church material that we have a case of whitewashing.

Inconvenient/unflattering truths are deliberately left out. Whatever the motivation, the end product is a whitewashing.

[_Jason Bourne]

But your insinuation that my choice was dishonest is unfair and deeply unjust. I believe that Level A history is true. (Haven't I said that enough yet?) I believe that Level C history is merely a more nuanced version of Level A. Teaching Level A is not dishonest.

Dr Peterson,

How would you feel if I were asking you to invest a large sum of money, or even just your annual retirement contributions into an investment vehicle but I only provided to you level A information about how wonderful this investment opportunity is?

[_Aristotle Smith]

Jason,

I also asked him about a hypothetical situation (mine was about providing level A information during a worthiness interview) and this was his response:

Sorry. I don't see those as even remotely comparable situations.

Perhaps you will also be lucky enough to receive a similarly informative response.

[_RockSlider]

I believe that Level A history is true. (Haven't I said that enough yet?)

Enough to convience yourself already I hope. Of course just keep repeating if not.

[_Buffalo]

Jason,

I also asked him about a hypothetical situation (mine was about providing level A information during a worthiness interview) and this was his response:

Sorry. I don't see those as even remotely comparable situations.

Perhaps you will also be lucky enough to receive a similarly informative response.

It's no secret that we're all expected to hold the church and its leaders to a much lower standard than the one that the church and its leaders hold the members to.

[_Buffalo]

But your insinuation that my choice was dishonest is unfair and deeply unjust. I believe that Level A history is true. (Haven't I said that enough yet?) I believe that Level C history is merely a more nuanced version of Level A. Teaching Level A is not dishonest.

Dr Peterson,

How would you feel if I were asking you to invest a large sum of money, or even just your annual retirement contributions into an investment vehicle but I only provided to you level A information about how wonderful this investment opportunity is?

Great question. Good luck getting a straight answer.

[_Fifth Columnist]

True, when the partial truth is representative of the whole truth - but that is not level A church history.

That is your opinion. Professor Kimball's opinion, like mine, is directly the opposite of yours. As I've said roughly a dozen times.

I think the evidence that I am correct is the way members react when they learn the details left out in level A history.

By the way, why do you keep telling us how many times you have repeated your opinion? Does that somehow make your opinion more authoritative?

The descriptions are dishonest because they repeatedly leave out all of the embarrassing details (head in the hat, plates no where to be found, etc.).

Mine haven't. I typically tell about the stone in the hat. (So has at least one General Conference talk of which I'm aware.) I've done so in writing and on national television.

I commend you for including those details, but you are obviously straying outside of the correlated teaching materials and I think that makes your experience unrepresentative of the Church as a whole.

By the way, who mentioned the embarrassing details in GC? I would like to read that talk since I haven't heard about it.

As to the plates: Are you suggesting that Church leaders don't really believe that the plates existed? How can they be consciously deceptive if they believe what they're saying? Are you suggesting that the Church never tells anybody that the plates cannot presently be inspected? I would be surprised if very many members of the Church are unaware of the claim that the angel took them back. Where is the deception?

No, no, no. I am referring to the fact that the plates were not used during the translation. They were off in the woods or who knows where.

Anyway, it's never seemed very important to me whether Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using one rock in a hat or two rocks in a bow. Big diff.

Great. Make that point to the correlation committee the next time they decide to revise the manuals so that the rest of the Church can be enlightened that it was no big diff.

If it was simplified to be an accurate representation of the whole truth, then you would be correct.

It is, and, therefore, I am. QED.

Thanks for the substantive reply (sarcasm). The evidence I have cited for my position is that virtually all, if not all, difficult or embarrassing aspect of Mormon history is not mentioned in the correlated lesson materials. You have admitted as much. That is not an accurate representation of the whole truth.

They lie because in doing so they fervently believe they are furthering the mission of the kingdom of God, they are saving our souls, etc.

No, they -- we -- tell the story the way we do because we believe it to be true.

So because it is true you feel obliged to leave out any mention of the difficult and embarrassing aspects? Isn't that same rationale employed by every propagandist since the beginning of time? Isn't that essentially what I said?

As you said, the end product is the same. I call it lying.

I hope, for your sake, that you won't be judged with the same harshness that you seem eager to apply to those with whom you disagree.

If I tell someone a story, ask them to base their entire life on it, require them to pay 10% of all their income based on it, and I leave out all of the difficult and embarrassing aspects of the story, then, yes, I deserve to be judged very, very harshly.

but that is cold comfort to the believing member who stumbles across "the rest of the story."

I sincerely feel sorry for such members who believe themselves to have been betrayed. I don't agree that they have been, but I understand the feeling.

If you don't think they have been betrayed, why would you have any sympathy for them or understand how they are feeling? Perhaps because you really can see why they think they were betrayed (because all the difficult and embarrassing stuff was suppressed their entire life).

My hope for them is that, eventually, they'll really learn "the rest of the story," instead of just the bits that they think constitute the full account.

And what would the rest of the story be, some extremely nuanced view of how Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets were not perfect, proclaimed doctrines that were not true, but we should still follow them. Is the rest of the story the apologetic explanation found at FARMS and MI? If that is the rest of the story, then there is little hope.