From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:41:35 GMT

In article <parsons.703317754@harry.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>
>>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>> 
>>> True - I am relying on the Sackets research.
>>> 
>
>> Could they be....biased?  Would it be too much to ask of you to get
>>some more information from a different (and I might add more reliable) source? 
>
>Now here's an intelligent statement, but unfortunately one that could
>never produce fruit.  Why?  Due to the secrecy of the Mormon practices
>in question, no one in the Mormon commuinity would volunteer any information
>to confirm or deny the exact truth or untruth of the practices in question.
>Sure, we have Jay telling us what the "party line" is on doctrine, but
>there is no independent confirmation.  No one but a Mormon is allowed to
>participate, fine.  No one but a Mormon is allowed to know any of the
>"secrets," fine.  Ask a Mormon about the ceremonies and they say, "Sorry, 
>that's confidential."  Or we get the reply, "That's inaccurate," but 
>not the explanation as to how true or false the claim is.  This is all
>well and good, but all this does is perpetuate anti-Mormon sentiment 
>and leaves questions unanswered with no possibility of resolution.
>
There is a solution here.  There is a large "black market" here in SLC
and the rest of Utah for forged temple recommends.  It is possible to 
obtain your own personalized copy that will get you in the door and through 
the whole thing. Many, many people have done this to "find out for 
themselves."  I think this is the wrong approach.  Also, someone who
does this would be instantly discredited as "biased" or unreliable, etc.
The scripts and descriptions of the temple cerimonies are highly accurate,
and are trustworthy no matter what anyone thinks about the people who
publish them.  No one has ever said these are wrong, only that the sourse
is biased (does this tell you anything?).  When the church changed it's
cerimonies in 1990, they sent out press releases telling in surprising
detail what was changed.  Is this biased too?


>Let me state here that I don't mean to imply that the Mormons here on
>the net are intentionally deceiving us as to the actual content of the
>ceremonies or other aspects of their religion.  However, as an outsider,
>I must say that when faced with evasiveness and secrecy under any guise
>(and that is how I truly view it) I assume the worst.  Is that my fault
>or is that Mormon public relations fault?
> 
Humans are basically curious.  If you tell a child no, doesn't he
do exactly the opposite?  If there is something I'm told I can't know,
then that just fires my desire to know it.  If the LDS church published
the temple script, and described it, then no one would even care.  They
are in fact published, but by "biased" sources.  This does not mean
they are inaccurate.

>
>This is a classic example of a Mormon response that begs the question.
>Without full disclosure the issue of "What exactly is Mormonism?" is not
>going to be solved in a Protestant's eyes.  In the meantime, more myth
>and conjecture fly without adequate response from the Mormons, though
>I suppose it seems adequate to a Mormon.
>
>This is all IMHO, of course.
>
I'll second it



-- 
| Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com        |
| Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then |
| Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.               |

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc