Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
Some thoughts re Mormons & "embarrassing facts/history" & Boyd Packer--looking for your thoughts
I'm a lifelong agnostic. For several years I've engaged in discussions of various aspects of politics and Mormonism with my friend R., a convert to Mormonism 40 or 50 years ago.
We were discussing something in Mormonism--I know forget just what it was, exactly.
My friend referred me to a page in Fairwiki. I thought about the silly (and anti-education/anti-learning/anti-intellectual) remark by Boyd Packer about how knowledge of (or studying?) certain "negative" aspects of Mormon history can erode faith.
I told him that I would learn nothing useful or true from the page, given Packer's remarks. This organization practically by definition is engaged in "faith-building propaganda", not "truth".
Three ideas then occurred to me.
First, clearly the church as an organization has no dispute with Packer; if it did, it would have repudiated Packer.
Second, the obvious extension of Packer's beliefs is outright lying about Mormonism. What's to stop the church, or some leader, to engage in flat-out lying, in the interests of "promoting faith"?
Third, given the emphasis by church leaders on promoting faith over teaching what is true (gee, did these guys never hear the idea of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?), how can anyone have any confidence whatsoever in any material about current practices, or history, if that info comes from some church-approved source?
For that matter, how can Mormons themselves have any confidence that they know the truth? I imagine that a TBM might see it as a sign of doubt or disloyalty to check some independent source.
I would appreciate any observations about these comments that anyone has.
I'm a lifelong agnostic. For several years I've engaged in discussions of various aspects of politics and Mormonism with my friend R., a convert to Mormonism 40 or 50 years ago.
We were discussing something in Mormonism--I know forget just what it was, exactly.
My friend referred me to a page in Fairwiki. I thought about the silly (and anti-education/anti-learning/anti-intellectual) remark by Boyd Packer about how knowledge of (or studying?) certain "negative" aspects of Mormon history can erode faith.
I told him that I would learn nothing useful or true from the page, given Packer's remarks. This organization practically by definition is engaged in "faith-building propaganda", not "truth".
Three ideas then occurred to me.
First, clearly the church as an organization has no dispute with Packer; if it did, it would have repudiated Packer.
Second, the obvious extension of Packer's beliefs is outright lying about Mormonism. What's to stop the church, or some leader, to engage in flat-out lying, in the interests of "promoting faith"?
Third, given the emphasis by church leaders on promoting faith over teaching what is true (gee, did these guys never hear the idea of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?), how can anyone have any confidence whatsoever in any material about current practices, or history, if that info comes from some church-approved source?
For that matter, how can Mormons themselves have any confidence that they know the truth? I imagine that a TBM might see it as a sign of doubt or disloyalty to check some independent source.
I would appreciate any observations about these comments that anyone has.
To steal a favorite from the apologists--"bullseye!"
Wasnt it Boyd KKK himself who said, "all truth is not useful"?
if the church was as true as it is said to be, then all truth would be extremely useful.
I believe it was Packer who said that.
What a curious remark! What a revealing remark (about the minds of the men at the top of this club).
What a curious remark! What a revealing remark (about the minds of the men at the top of this club).
Remember: TRUTH IS ANTI-MORMON.