https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/print/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

I'm really unsure what to make of Uchtdorf. He was the one to address the doubting and leaving members at General Conference and to recognize that there are indeed truly bizarre stuff in Church history. He addressed the subject again in this talk.

I've often considered if he is aware of the weakness of the claims but loves the Church all the same and is trying to insert a little sanity in the public discourse without setting up the old hard liners, who currently are the ones really in charge.

He made a good case for us in the middle part of this talk, when he relativized truth and mentioned examples of people unable to accept facts that contradict previous experiences, even to the point of demonizing holders of different opinions. That would be us, I presume. I took that as a plead for greater tolerance and to less bigotry, literalism and fanaticism.

Then, at the end, he distorted it all up and compared people who deny the fundamental events of the restoration to people who say te moon is a hologram.

He ended insisting that truth should be our goal.

Even if I could use a good chunk of his talk to support my position, in the end, I think it was more of a bluff.

It sounds like he's trying to innoculate the young adults (the demographics more deeply affected by the recent crisis over Church history) into rejecting the argument that we have truth and facts on our side. He's using the same very technique old Joe used and bluffing his way out of the problem.

I wonder if perhaps he was the chosen to tackle the subject because of his great charisma and cool accent.

If so, he's more dangerous than the hardliners like Packer and Oaks.

Some, however, do not seek for truth so much as they strive for contention. They do not sincerely seek to learn; rather, they desire to dispute, to show off their supposed learning and thus cause contention. They ignore or reject the counsel of the Apostle Paul to Timothy: “Foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do [generate contention].”29

What the heck? It only causes contention because with Mormons they are taught not to talk about it. And it causes such cognitive diss. SO Irritating!!!

Uchtdorf is a tool, no different than any of the other big 15. He's just more appealing to look at, which translates into he's different, more honest, than the others. He is not. He is still a company rep who has been assigned to keep the customer base happy. There is no one in the big 15 who represents and supports the reasoning of those who no longer believe. He is no different than the other 15 when it comes to spewing their propaganda. When Uchtdorf speaks he speaks for the benefit of the corporation, not for the benefit of any of it's members. As long as we're waking up to the truth, let's open the eyes all the way.

I re-wrote Uchtdorf's for him last year, mainly using his own words. The talk he should have given.

You can read it here http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,838286,1280960#msg-1280960

For one thing, truth cannot contradict itself.

Truth (supposedly from God's own lips) cannot say that polygamy is approved and can be practiced - and at the same time say that polygamy is NOT approved and should NOT be practiced.

God (supposedly) said both of these contradictory things at the same time to Joseph Smith Jr. One version was hidden for years.

Two editions of the Doctrine and Covenants give opposite rules governing polygamy. The old and new versions have God contradicting himself. The old version persisted even into Brigham Young's day and made no sense at that time.

The new D&C replaced the old "revelation" with what we now have as Section 132.

Truth requires that black cannot be white - and white cannot be black.

Compare both the original and current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

IIRC it was all of this talk about the importance of truth and how people should be skeptical of sources that say they have the truth...especially those online. "Don't believe everything you hear. Don't trust everyone one who claims to have the truth."

Dieter then proceeds to say however that the membership can trust the Brethren. "Trust us. We're different. We actually DO have the truth."

The double standard is so painfully obvious that it baffles me that anyone would buy this BS. In fact though I suspect there are tons of LDS faithful who can't see the blatant and self-serving lapses in logic.

(See Informal Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading)

They use the same "truth" crap in lower level science classes at BYU and try and lump religion and science together. This, of course, is totally wrong and does not work, but people buy it hook, line and sinker.

If something conflicts with your religion, stick with the religious "truth" and someday (i.e, conveniently for them when we die) we will know the real "truth." There really is a Kolob, there was a flood and God zapped Adam and Eve into existence. You will see The Dieter is right - but only after you die. He can't lose.


Science is not about "truth" its about using the data to find the best explanation possible, but it all gets wrapped together in a lower level BYU science class.