Research is the Answer!

[Dusty52]

Presidents Oaks recently stated that "research is not the answer"
I would argue that it is part of the answer, if you a non-member investigating the church research becomes part of that process, you need to find out what kind of church you are joining!
Once a member of that church, reading, studying and researching is part of learning and increasing your testimony, research is integral
Does the church want blind obedient automatons or do they want well informed, reasoned and intelligent believers?
Research gets you to the truth?
The church should be more proactive in this regard by encouraging members to carry out research!

[abijah]

Ultimately revelation is the answer. At best research serves as a contributing factor to help facilitate this.

Personal experiences with God are what mark out the path to salvation, and nothing less. “This is eternal life, that they might know thee...”

[Dusty52]

I agree
Research gets you to the proper answer which you've discovered for yourself, you are not having to rely upon anyone else's view or on "borrowed light" it's yours, you've earned it and taken ownership of it for yourself!

[drtanner]

Presidents Oaks recently stated that "research is not the answer"
I would argue that it is part of the answer, if you a non-member investigating the church research becomes part of that process, you need to find out what kind of church you are joining!
Once a member of that church, reading, studying and researching is part of learning and increasing your testimony, research is integral
Does the church want blind obedient automatons or do they want well informed, reasoned and intelligent believers?
Research gets you to the truth?
The church should be more proactive in this regard by encouraging members to carry out research!

From another writer and I would agree, it is always important to understand context:

“President Oaks is speaking to members of the Church who are spending their Saturday night at a devotional. Maybe even members who are there without their spouse, because their spouse couldn’t or didn’t want to be there. Maybe members who are struggling with faith differences in their marriage. In context, we read that he is responding to a non-doubting spouse asking the question, “How do I respond to conflicts with my spouse over Church history and doctrinal issues?”

He suggests that even though these faithful members can find responses to their spouse’s questions, and he even gives places where they can find these answers, he acknowledges that those answers are not going to be the answers the doubting spouse needs. It’s not going to help. Maybe it will help the non-doubting spouse have a better understanding, but it won’t help resolve the conflict.

These answers won’t resolve the conflict because it is extremely difficult to convince a spouse in faith crisis that he or she is wrong, just as it’s unlikely that he or she is going to be able to convince you that your beliefs are wrong. Allowing such unsolvable conflict to enter your marriage could very well be the end of it.”

[Robin Hood]

As the scriptures warn us, some can be "ever (re)searching but never come to a knowledge of the truth".

[Thinker]

Presidents Oaks recently stated that "research is not the answer"
I would argue that it is part of the answer, if you a non-member investigating the church research becomes part of that process, you need to find out what kind of church you are joining!
Once a member of that church, reading, studying and researching is part of learning and increasing your testimony, research is integral
Does the church want blind obedient automatons or do they want well informed, reasoned and intelligent believers?
Research gets you to the truth?
The church should be more proactive in this regard by encouraging members to carry out research!

From another writer and I would agree, it is always important to understand context:

“President Oaks is speaking to members of the Church who are spending their Saturday night at a devotional. Maybe even members who are there without their spouse, because their spouse couldn’t or didn’t want to be there. Maybe members who are struggling with faith differences in their marriage. In context, we read that he is responding to a non-doubting spouse asking the question, “How do I respond to conflicts with my spouse over Church history and doctrinal issues?”

He suggests that even though these faithful members can find responses to their spouse’s questions, and he even gives places where they can find these answers, he acknowledges that those answers are not going to be the answers the doubting spouse needs. It’s not going to help. Maybe it will help the non-doubting spouse have a better understanding, but it won’t help resolve the conflict.

These answers won’t resolve the conflict because it is extremely difficult to convince a spouse in faith crisis that he or she is wrong, just as it’s unlikely that he or she is going to be able to convince you that your beliefs are wrong. Allowing such unsolvable conflict to enter your marriage could very well be the end of it.”

That helps put it into context. Yet, I know of more marriages that have been helped by research than have divorced because of it. Those who seem to have split because of differing biased research - seem to have had other marital issues besides religious differences. And I have come across quite a few cases. Another factor that seems to make a difference is if the spouse with the faith crisis shares with their spouse at the beginning and each step of the way - they journey together - with an already established respect for each other. And other influences - like church leaders - play a part in often shaming the spouse with the faith crisis, while siding with the other - which can exasperate interfaith marital conflict.

Even in this context, it seems that there is a lack of confidence in testing certain truth claims. Once upon a time, this was taught in our church: “If we have truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed." (-RB Clark) Now, the focus seems to be “doubting your doubts” & staying in the ship - this brand of religion - & following the leaders - no matter what. Surprising considering Oak’s legal background... imagine if a judge told both parties in a trial, “No research - it’s not the answer.” One of the basics of figuring out truth is to study (research), think and pray. And a good lawyer or judge understands that to get to the truth, you need to know both sides of the argument - so more research is needed, not less.

[The Airbender]

If research isn't the answer, is "I don't know why or how but I know it is true?"

[drtanner]

People are still misunderstanding what President Oaks is trying to communicate here.

What did people do 2000 years ago when they were very limited on what and how they could research to find and support truth? How did they access truth? That’s the point.

The problem I see with many that struggle over church history is where they get there information and looking at things through a narrow and often highly emotionally charged lens. It is very rare to find an unbiased opinion that is providing good material. I think Richard Bushman has been a good example of how this can be accomplished and although not perfect I credit him with what I see as a balanced approach in his research and an honest attempt at presenting the history as accurately as possible.

That being said I would not have someone read rough stone rollling in order to facilitate a testimony and conversion through Christ and gain an understanding of how they can be blessed in the here and now by priesthood power and authority and to find out if the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is currently the kingdom of God on the earth.

[Dusty52]

People are still misunderstanding what President Oaks is trying to communicate here.

What did people do 2000 years ago when they were very limited on what and how they could research to find and support truth? How did they access truth? That’s the point.

It's only relatively recently in this country that people could read the bible for themselves, before that they relied on others to read it to them, having the bible translated by Wycliffe and others meant it was now asccessible, this was a good thing because it meant the masses could now find out the truth for themselves!
It is easy and lazy for people to rely on others today even though they can read the scriptures for themselves, the church is clamping down on these prople now with the introduction of the new curriculum, we are also told that without your own testimony you won't be able to survive what is going to happen in the last days, a prophetic warning to one and all!
The church is now clamping down

[Dusty52]

I have started my own research into Joseph Smith and the formation of the church, but I'm not using any sources connected with any religious organisations which would of course would have a bias, I am using only historical, original primary
data.
I want to know once and for all what exactly happened, I'm tired of hearing all the stories of treasure seeking etc, I want to get to the bottom of it all!

[Robin Hood]

I have started my own research into Joseph Smith and the formation of the church, but I'm not using any sources connected with any religious organisations which would of course would have a bias, I am using only historical, original primary
data.
I want to know once and for all what exactly happened, I'm tired of hearing all the stories of treasure seeking etc, I want to get to the bottom of it all!

You won't.
There is no such thing as objective research and no such thing as an unbiased historian.

[Dusty52]

Who asked for your opinion??
I'm getting tired of your snide comments
Why don't we change the dynamics around you start a post if you feel capable, I don't think I've ever seen one, you should be called Dick Turpin not robin hood, hiding away read to pounce at any opportunity, and at the same time conceal your true identity, what a joke, you really do live up to your real name in more ways than one!

[Robin Hood]

Who asked for your opinion??
I'm getting tired of your snide comments
Why don't we change the dynamics around you start a post if you feel capable, I don't think I've ever seen one, you should be called Dick Turpin not robin hood, hiding away read to pounch at any opportunity, and at the same time conceal your true identity, what a joke, you really do live up to your real name in more ways than one!

You invited my opinion when you started the thread.
There was nothing snide about my comment at all. I was simply stating a truth.

Not that it's any of your business, but I have told you before that I use "Robin Hood" because I was born in Sherwood. I'm sure your name isn't "Dusty52". If it is, you have my sympathy.

P.S. What does "read to pounch" mean?

[Dusty52]

Who asked for your opinion??
I'm getting tired of your snide comments
Why don't we change the dynamics around you start a post if you feel capable, I don't think I've ever seen one, you should be called Dick Turpin not robin hood, hiding away read to pounch at any opportunity, and at the same time conceal your true identity, what a joke, you really do live up to your real name in more ways than one!

You invited my opinion when you started the thread.
There was nothing snide about my comment at all. I was simply stating a truth.

Not that it's any of your business, but I have told you before that I use "Robin Hood" because I was born in Sherwood.

What Sherwood forest??
I bet you're married to Maid Marion as well!

[Robin Hood]

Who asked for your opinion??
I'm getting tired of your snide comments
Why don't we change the dynamics around you start a post if you feel capable, I don't think I've ever seen one, you should be called Dick Turpin not robin hood, hiding away read to pounch at any opportunity, and at the same time conceal your true identity, what a joke, you really do live up to your real name in more ways than one!

You invited my opinion when you started the thread.
There was nothing snide about my comment at all. I was simply stating a truth.

Not that it's any of your business, but I have told you before that I use "Robin Hood" because I was born in Sherwood.

What Sherwood forest??
I bet you're married to Maid Marion as well!

Sherwood is a suburb of Nottingham. The forest is named after the place.
She was only Maid Marian while she was a maid. Once married she was no longer a maid. Hence, when I refer to her on here she is Mrs Hood.

[drtanner]

I have started my own research into Joseph Smith and the formation of the church, but I'm not using any sources connected with any religious organisations which would of course would have a bias, I am using only historical, original primary
data.
I want to know once and for all what exactly happened, I'm tired of hearing all the stories of treasure seeking etc, I want to get to the bottom of it all!

Dusty, read very carefully what Elder Corbridge recently said about this. This is also what President Oaks is trying to communicate.

Begin by answering the primary questions. There are primary questions and there are secondary questions. Answer the primary questions first. Not all questions are equal and not all truths are equal. The primary questions are the most important. Everything else is subordinate. There are only a few primary questions. I will mention four of them.
1. Is there a God who is our Father?
2. Is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Savior of the world?
3. Was Joseph Smith a prophet?
4. Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth?

By contrast, the secondary questions are unending. They include questions about Church history, polygamy, people of African descent and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, how the Book of Mormon was translated, the Pearl of Great Price, DNA and the Book of Mormon, gay marriage, the different accounts of the First Vision, and on and on.

If you answer the primary questions, the secondary questions get answered too, or they pale in significance and you can deal with things you understand and things you don’t and things you agree with and things you don’t without jumping ship altogether.

There are some who are afraid the Church may not be true and who spend their time and attention slogging through the swamp of the secondary questions. They mistakenly try to learn the truth by process of elimination, by attempting to eliminate every doubt. That is always a bad idea. It will never work. That approach only works in the game of Clue.

Life, however, is not nearly as simple. There are unlimited claims and opinions leveled against the truth. Each time you track down an answer to any one antagonistic claim and look up, there is another one staring you in the face. I am not saying you should put your head in the sand, but I am saying you can spend a lifetime desperately tracking down the answer to every claim leveled against the Church and never come to a knowledge of the most important truths.

Answers to the primary questions do not come by answering the secondary questions. There are answers to the secondary questions, but you cannot prove a positive by disproving every negative. You cannot prove the Church is true by disproving every claim made against it. That will never work. It is a flawed strategy. Ultimately there has to be affirmative proof, and with the things of God, affirmative proof finally and surely comes by revelation through the spirit and power of the Holy Ghost.

To His disciples, Jesus asked:
Whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
. . . Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.25

The Church of Jesus Christ is grounded on the rock of revelation, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. We are the Church. You and I are the Church. We must be grounded on the rock of revelation, and although we may not know the answer to every question, we must know the answers to the primary questions. And if we do, the gates of hell shall not prevail against us and we will stand forever.

[Dusty52]

If its the truth we claim to have then all primary and secondary questions should lead one to the truth it doesn't matter how we arrive at that knowledge

[iWriteStuff]

If its the truth we claim to have then all primary and secondary questions should lead one to the truth it doesn't matter how we arrive at that knowledge

I'm not sure I'd agree on this point exactly. Consider the first two books of Nephi. Is there as much value in reading Laman and Lemuel's side of the story? Or are you safer sticking with Nephi's version? They are different perspectives on the same story, but only Nephi tells you how God saw the matter.

Maybe that's important.

[Juliet]

I use the spirit to know what is true and then see if research backs it up. When I do this, I usually do find research to back up what the spirit tells me, however the bias in it stands out.

For example, the holy spirit told me stevia lowers blood sugar. So I research it, and sure enough, the whole leaf stevia lowers blood sugar so well that the FDA won't approve it to be sold as a sweetener. How dangerous to provide a population where two thirds of us have pre diabetes a sweetener that can cure us. All is well, the processed compound of stevia is allowed to be sold as a sweetener so as to make sure no one's stevia interferes with their much needed insulin.

If that was one example it wouldn't be a problem. But I agree with Robinhood that everything is biased.

In case you are curious, here is the article:

A study published in Planta Medica in 2005 found that there was a dose-dependent effect of stevioside on blood sugar levels, with stevioside lowering blood glucose levels and decreasing insulin resistance in rats with diabetes. However, this research is preliminary, and the FDA-approved forms of stevia for use in food don't contain stevioside, so most of the stevia products you can buy in the baking section in grocery stores won't have this effect on your blood sugar levels.

https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/stevia ... -7359.html

[Dusty52]

If its the truth we claim to have then all primary and secondary questions should lead one to the truth it doesn't matter how we arrive at that knowledge

I'm not sure I'd agree on this point exactly. Consider the first two books of Nephi. Is there as much value in reading Laman and Lemuel's side of the story? Or are you safer sticking with Nephi's version? They are different perspectives on the same story, but only Nephi tells you how God saw the matter.

Maybe that's important.

By reading both accounts and perspectives you gain a better understanding and a richer, fuller explanation, if the Lord didn't want us to read L&L account I'm sure it wouldn't be in the book! It's in there for a purpose

[iWriteStuff]

If its the truth we claim to have then all primary and secondary questions should lead one to the truth it doesn't matter how we arrive at that knowledge

I'm not sure I'd agree on this point exactly. Consider the first two books of Nephi. Is there as much value in reading Laman and Lemuel's side of the story? Or are you safer sticking with Nephi's version? They are different perspectives on the same story, but only Nephi tells you how God saw the matter.

Maybe that's important.

By reading both accounts and perspectives you gain a better understanding and a richer, fuller explanation, if the Lord didn't want us to read L&L account I'm sure it wouldn't be in the book!

Nephi hints at their version but never gives you the blow by blow as L&L saw it. You've never read the Book of Laman because thankfully he was probably too lazy to put it down in metal plates, let alone pass it down through a thousand years of Lamanite history. But you better believe they had an entirely different set of "facts" they were working with when they taught their children to hate and kill the descendants of Nephi.

This is what I'm referring to when I caution against alternate versions of history. I've read a few myself and that was the conclusion I came to - no two sides will be possessed of the same "facts". Most of it is a matter of perspective and opinion. Same is true for most history.

[Mark]

Presidents Oaks recently stated that "research is not the answer"
I would argue that it is part of the answer, if you a non-member investigating the church research becomes part of that process, you need to find out what kind of church you are joining!
Once a member of that church, reading, studying and researching is part of learning and increasing your testimony, research is integral
Does the church want blind obedient automatons or do they want well informed, reasoned and intelligent believers?
Research gets you to the truth?
The church should be more proactive in this regard by encouraging members to carry out research!

From another writer and I would agree, it is always important to understand context:

“President Oaks is speaking to members of the Church who are spending their Saturday night at a devotional. Maybe even members who are there without their spouse, because their spouse couldn’t or didn’t want to be there. Maybe members who are struggling with faith differences in their marriage. In context, we read that he is responding to a non-doubting spouse asking the question, “How do I respond to conflicts with my spouse over Church history and doctrinal issues?”

He suggests that even though these faithful members can find responses to their spouse’s questions, and he even gives places where they can find these answers, he acknowledges that those answers are not going to be the answers the doubting spouse needs. It’s not going to help. Maybe it will help the non-doubting spouse have a better understanding, but it won’t help resolve the conflict.

These answers won’t resolve the conflict because it is extremely difficult to convince a spouse in faith crisis that he or she is wrong, just as it’s unlikely that he or she is going to be able to convince you that your beliefs are wrong. Allowing such unsolvable conflict to enter your marriage could very well be the end of it.”

Pres. Oaks said this:

“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”

From experience I strongly feel what Pres Oaks said here is spot on. Someone caught up in a feeling of betrayal can only be reached thru a pattern of love displayed and connection to the Savior's ever loving invitation to come unto Him in faith and humility. He is the great physician and healing can only come thru Him.

[Dusty52]

Take research out of the equation then what are you left with?
Is is not a desirable situation at all, you cannot rely on faith alone!

[Durzan]

I have started my own research into Joseph Smith and the formation of the church, but I'm not using any sources connected with any religious organisations which would of course would have a bias, I am using only historical, original primary
data.
I want to know once and for all what exactly happened, I'm tired of hearing all the stories of treasure seeking etc, I want to get to the bottom of it all!

You won't.
There is no such thing as objective research and no such thing as an unbiased historian.

Who asked for your opinion??
I'm getting tired of your snide comments
Why don't we change the dynamics around you start a post if you feel capable, I don't think I've ever seen one, you should be called Dick Turpin not robin hood, hiding away read to pounce at any opportunity, and at the same time conceal your true identity, what a joke, you really do live up to your real name in more ways than one!

Puts on Mod Hat

Since you two seem to be having issues with each other across multiple threads... how about you both take a chill pill. Expect PM's from me going into further detail.

Takes off Mod Hat

Now then, speaking as a regular user again...

Dusty, I think what Robin Hood is trying to say, is that history is never completely objective in nature, nor is it complete. There is going to be some Bias in everything you read, regardless of the subject. Likewise, recorded history doesn't have all the facts... just bits and pieces recorded by individuals. Individuals who are all biased in one degree or another.

When it comes to the Gospel and the Church, especially including early Church History, you will find that most information on the subjects will have some strong bias. Most of the accounts of early church history come from either faithful members or apostates and enemies of the Church. There are precious few accounts, if any, that are actually neutral... or close to it. And even with these detailed accounts, you are only going to see a small part of the whole picture.

Because of this, you can never completely "get to the bottom of this" as you put it, for you will never have a complete and unbiased knowledge of what happened in the past. It can certainly improve your understanding or build you up, but it can also destroy you if you are not careful.Remember what I said about Abyssal Doctrine? It has the same kind of effect when exploring other subjects of a contradictory nature.

[Col. Flagg]

Speaking of research into church history, Pres. BKP once declared "sometimes, the truth isn't very useful" because it isn't faith-promoting.