Kenngo1969 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think the latter. From Edward Kimball's excellent article, "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood": This is the meeting which culminated in the 1978 revelation (it makes for some fascinating reading). No indication here, I think, that Pres. Kimball had connived to keep Elder Petersen from the proceedings. Elder Petersen was contacted about this one week later, on June 8. His response . . . So, yeah. Not much of a story. Oh, hush. Don't harsh the narrative, brah! -Smac Hah! I beat the venerable Smac97 to the punch! http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69667-scrutinizing-general-conference/?do=findComment&comment=1209763302 Edited October 10, 2017 by Kenngo1969 1 Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) Shakespeare wrote a play with a title that applies to this contrived controversy. Something about much ado. Edited October 10, 2017 by Bernard Gui 2 Link to comment
Meerkat Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) On 10/2/2017 at 9:41 AM, stemelbow said: I wish there was more "we're in this together" sentiment. But the battle wages in the hearts of those who want sides, want fighting I guess its in the eye of the beholder. As one with two loved ones outside, and their devastated families, the meme is truly ironic, descriptive and a welcome break from sadness. No offense, Stem, I take the meme as from one who IS "We're in this together." It's not us who want sides and fighting. They can leave the Church, but they can't leave it (or us) alone. Edited October 10, 2017 by Meerkat 2 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 5 hours ago, llama said: The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached! https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng unanimity= revelation Would you apply that same definition of revelation when say all the cardinals and pope agree on something? How about a corporate board room? What is it when they all agree to something, but later change their minds? Are both of those decisions revelation? I am not trying to cause a problem. And I can see how you came to that conclusion. But I am curious how you apply that kind of thought process in similar areas. Link to comment
Meerkat Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) On 10/2/2017 at 10:44 AM, Jeanne said: ..I didn't know the real history. Why did I not know? It is my fault isn't it? Maybe some of it is your fault. I've read the controversies over the past 40 plus years and was not surprised by any of it (except the Book of Abraham, which doesn't bother me.) I didn't see the importance of discussing much of the anti information out there with my children. When they were confronted with it, two relied more on the authors' interpretation of the history than other possible scenarios and left the Church. I now see my mistake. I believe the Church (led by human beings who also continue to learn line upon line, precept by precept,) has reached the same conclusion. Hence, the Church emphasis on the Joseph Smith Papers, Church white papers, transparency and acknowledging our mistakes. Edited October 10, 2017 by Meerkat 2 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 8 hours ago, smac97 said: Right. You are relentlessly hostile to the LDS Church, and have come to this board to anonymously purvey triple hearsay gossip from some other unidentified and anonymous "source" about what he claims to have heard from Bro. Wilkins. No, that's not cagey at all. Right. 'Cuz nothing bespeaks honesty more than a relentlessly hostile and anonymous critic of Mormonism peddling gossip from purportedly another anonymous source claiming to be a friend of a dead Mormon about that dead Mormon, with the apparent purpose of undermining or otherwise tearing down the dead man's religion. Yes. This is how Truth is found. Or something. Yes, I gathered that. Says the relentlessly hostile and anonymous critic of Mormonism, who has no competency to tell us one way or the other whether his anonymous "source" is "repeating what he heard" or is just making it up whole cloth. This is rather the problem with hearsay. You cannot credibly tell us what was said in "that conversation" because you weren't there. An anonymous critic of Mormonism quotes an anonymous "source" about what yet another person said. All in an effort to impeach the credibility of Elder Oaks' description of how the Proclamation came to be. Golly! With this caliber of evidence, who wouldn't be convinced? Again, you cannot credibly tell us what your anonymous "source" witnessed. You weren't there. Thanks, -Smac And so the Mormon defeats his opponent by name calling rather than addressing what was actually written. If you don't believe his source does that necessitate calling him names in order to assert the disbelief? 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted October 10, 2017 Author Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, california boy said: And so the Mormon defeats his opponent by name calling rather than addressing what was actually written. If you don't believe his source does that necessitate calling him names in order to assert the disbelief? Oh, it’s not name-calling. It’s impeccable logic, incisive analysis and common sense. Edited October 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2 Link to comment
Meerkat Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) On 10/2/2017 at 11:34 AM, Jeanne said: I will of course take some responsibility...in hindsight, I wish that I had asked more questions..especially in Seminary. I thought though that all I needed to know was what I was taught..an to believe and live it. That is a good encapsulation. My experience has been exactly that-- believe and live it, and enjoy a relatively happy life. The blacks and the priesthood issue, for example, never bothered me. I always saw all races as my brothers and sisters. A black friend I baptized told me "I don't know why I can't hold the priesthood. All I know is the Book of Mormon is true and I have the assurance that, someday, my family and I will enjoy all the Temple blessings as anyone else." About two years later, he and his family were sealed in the Seattle Temple. I was content looking for ways that issue (and others,) could fit into my world view. Christ taught that the Gospel would be taken first to the Jews, then the Gentiles. Remember the woman in scriptures who wanted the Gospel, but her time hadn't come yet? I saw the blacks falling into that category. Turns out I was wrong. But the Brethren, for whatever reason (revelatory or societal,) corrected it. I trust them to continue to do the right thing as they become aware of it. In the mean time, I was able to prove many other principles to my satisfaction and enjoy (what seems to me) a very happy and purpose filled life. Edited October 10, 2017 by Meerkat 4 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted October 10, 2017 Author Share Posted October 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Shakespeare wrote a play with a title that applies to this contrived controversy. Something about much ado. Speaking of contrived controversies, I wonder if one could characterize an anti-Mormon uproar about the presence of a word of French origin in the English translation of the Book of Mormon as much ado about “adieu.” I hear the Bard was big on puns. Do you suppose he would enjoy that one? 2 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Oh, it’s not name-calling. It’s impeccable logic, incisive analysis and common sense. It's name calling and unnecessary for someone to make his point unless that is all you have to say. Others are perfectly capable of evaluating Johnny Cakes credibility all by themselves. I find much of what SMAC has written as very interesting and adds his perspective and opinion on what is being discussed.. But the name calling? Not so much. Edited October 10, 2017 by california boy Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 3 hours ago, california boy said: Would you apply that same definition of revelation when say all the cardinals and pope agree on something? Since, as an article of faith, they lack the priesthood authority as is vested in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, the answer would be "no." 3 hours ago, california boy said: How about a corporate board room? Again, no. For the same reason as above. 3 hours ago, california boy said: What is it when they all agree to something, but later change their minds? Are both of those decisions revelation? I am not trying to cause a problem. And I can see how you came to that conclusion. But I am curious how you apply that kind of thought process in similar areas. The "thought process" about how revelation is sought and received by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve? The only quorums of prophets, seers and revelators with authority from God to preside over the LDS Church? It's a rather singular process, one not found in board rooms or the Sistine Chapel during a papal conclave. Thanks, -Smac 2 Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: It's name calling and unnecessary for someone to make his point unless that is all you have to say. Others are perfectly capable of evaluating Johnny Cakes credibility all by themselves. I find much of what SMAC has written as very interesting and adds his perspective and opinion on what is being discussed.. But the name calling? Not so much. I don't recall "name calling." I've called Johnnie by his online handle. I've called is anonymous source his "buddy," which is pretty innocuous. I have characterized Johnnie as a "critic" and "hostile to Mormonism." Sounds apt and descriptive, not an epithet. I'm "hostile to elective abortion," but I wouldn't construe that as "name calling." Thanks, -Smac Edit to Add: I also called Johnnie and his purported "source" "gossipmongers." Yes, I'll own that as namecalling. And I apologize for it. Edited October 10, 2017 by smac97 2 Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said: Ironically, I'm the one who posted some of Wilkins comments, I'm just willing to be be open to the possibility that there is truth on both sides So am I. But I'm also willing to actually proceed with examining the purported evidence and reach a reasoned and informed conclusion as to the craptastic quality of the dreck being presented by Johnnie and his purported "source." As, apparently, are you, since you said "I think we can now lay that claim of Wilkin's having written the proclamation to rest as just another church critic's attempt to undermine the church." No need to sit on the fence for this one, IMHO. It's not even a close call. Critics can certainly come up with pointed and valid criticisms of the Church. That's part of why I've been on this board for so long. I find some value in examining some aspects of my faith in an adversarial construct, as it gives me the opportunity to re-examine what I believe and why. As Hugh Nibley put it: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes." That said, there are times when critics need to be called out for presenting crap. This thread is just such an instance. Gossipy triple hearsay peddled by an anonymous hostile source and presented as evidence for the proposition that "{G}od didn't author {the Proclamation}," and that there was an "utter lack of revelation" in its origins? And this is supposed to be noteworthy? Gimme a break. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 10, 2017 by smac97 2 Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Speaking of contrived controversies, I wonder if one could characterize an anti-Mormon uproar about the presence of a word of French origin in the English translation of the Book of Mormon as much ado about “adieu.” I hear the Bard was big on puns. Do you suppose he would enjoy that one? You mean, the final word in Jacob's book in the Book of Mormon is ... much adieu about nothing? (Seriously, in case someone is wondering whether it really is much adieu about nothing, see here (last accessed October 10, 2017): https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Language/"Adieu".) Sorry, couldn't resist! Link to comment
rockpond Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Meerkat said: Maybe some of it is your fault. I've read the controversies over the past 40 plus years and was not surprised by any of it (except the Book of Abraham, which doesn't bother me.) I didn't see the importance of discussing much of the anti information out there with my children. When they were confronted with it, two relied more on the authors' interpretation of the history than other possible scenarios and left the Church. I now see my mistake. I believe the Church (led by human beings who also continue to learn line upon line, precept by precept,) has reached the same conclusion. Hence, the Church emphasis on the Joseph Smith Papers, Church white papers, transparency and acknowledging our mistakes. “Anti Information” is now the gospel topics essays. And, who has acknowledged mistakes? I don’t think our leaders have acknowledged any mistakes made by the church, and its leaders, in the past. 1 Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted October 10, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: “Anti Information” is now the gospel topics essays. And, who has acknowledged mistakes? I don’t think our leaders have acknowledged any mistakes made by the church, and its leaders, in the past. Nephi acknowledged his own weaknesses. The author of the Title Page to the Book of Mormon (presumably Moroni) acknowledged "faults" and "mistakes." Joseph Smith repeatedly acknowledged his own flaws. The Gospel Topics essays about "Race and the Priesthood" and the "Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints" acknowledge errors by members and leaders. Pres. Uchtdorf acknowledged mistakes made by members and leaders in an October 2013 General Conference address. God Himself appears to have acknowledged the flaws and mistakes of His people in D&C 1:31. Latter-day Saints are frequently reminded that they and their leaders are not infallible (that is, that they make mistakes). And on and on and on. It'll never be enough, though. That's the pernicious thing about faultfinding: You will always be able to succeed at it if you try hard enough. Always. Thanks, -Smac 7 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 39 minutes ago, smac97 said: Since, as an article of faith, they lack the priesthood authority as is vested in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, the answer would be "no." Again, no. For the same reason as above. The "thought process" about how revelation is sought and received by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve? The only quorums of prophets, seers and revelators with authority from God to preside over the LDS Church? It's a rather singular process, one not found in board rooms or the Sistine Chapel during a papal conclave. Thanks, -Smac I think you have explained very clearly exactly what is being discussed. It all comes down to whether you believe the claim of priesthood authority. I can understand that. What is a bit unclear still to me is the reluctance for these chosen leaders to declare their consensus a revelation. For example, the PoF has been around for decades, yet Elder Oaks talk is the first that I know about that has declared it a revelation. And another example would be Elder Nelson being the only one to call the Nov policy a revelation at a fireside. Do you think this is the commonly accepted belief in what a revelation is amongst church members? Perhaps my expectations are a bit higher than most members. I always considered a revelation something more than the 15 getting together and making a unanimous decision on church government. Link to comment
Popular Post Calm Posted October 10, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 10, 2017 4 hours ago, california boy said: And so the Mormon defeats his opponent by name calling rather than addressing what was actually written. Where did he not address what was actually written? One needs to look at all his posts as it would be unwieldy and unreasonable to repeat the same analysis in each post on a subject. 5 Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted October 10, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 50 minutes ago, california boy said: I think you have explained very clearly exactly what is being discussed. It all comes down to whether you believe the claim of priesthood authority. I can understand that. What is a bit unclear still to me is the reluctance for these chosen leaders to declare their consensus a revelation. And I am unclear as to the apparent "magic word" requirement. It comes across as kinda sorta pharisaical ("Hey, General Authorities! I am going to disregard the Proclamation until and unless you specifically and emphatically use the 'R' word and present it for canonization!"). Let me illustrate further: I am an attorney, having been admitted to the bar in 2004. I recall a realization early on that I had a latent expectation that judges, when rendering a decision in a case, had to bang the gavel as a sort of ceremonial exclamation mark. After having attended a few dozen hearings and having observed judges rendering decisions, I realized that I had never seen a judge use a gavel. Not once. Apparently it's just not a thing for judges in Utah (for both state and federal judges). So my expectation of how judges behave turned out to have been a little off. But does that mean that these judges . . . aren't judges? Because they aren't doing something that I had expected them to do? Nope. It's not them, it's me. My expectations needed to be adjusted. So it is, I think, with our expectations regarding General Authorities. I think some folks tell themselves that until and unless General Authorities use some sort of special phrasing/wording ("Thus Saith the Lord..." or "The following is a 'Revelation'..."), then their statements can be sidestepped and ignored. I just don't think that's the way of things. I think there is an ongoing expectation from God that we "sustain" His servants. To me, that means we listen to them when they speak to us in their official capacities, and we do so with the expectation and presumption that they are being guided by the Spirit. By the gifts of prophecy and revelation. No super-specific wording is required. We should just listen and confirm that they are adhering to previously-revealed principles, and we should also seek confirmation from the Spirit, as may be necessary, that what they are saying is from God. In legal parlance, I think this would be called a "rebuttable presumption." That is, we presume that General Authorities who are speaking in their official capacity are doing so according to the Spirit. However, that presumption is rebuttable if what they are saying substantially deviates from previously-revealed truths, or is out of harmony with the Spirit, or is couched as a personal opinion, etc. I actually had a personal experience with this process while I was serving as a missionary. Quote For example, the PoF has been around for decades, yet Elder Oaks talk is the first that I know about that has declared it a revelation. It was presented as "a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history." As Latter-day Saints, we believe these "doctrines" and such are from God. Are revelation. You seem to be insisting on some sort of specific invocation of the word "revelation" as being a necessary thing. I don't think it is. Quote And another example would be Elder Nelson being the only one to call the Nov policy a revelation at a fireside. But he wasn't "the only one." He was speaking in his capacity as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve. During an official Church function. Being broadcast to the entire world. Again, you seem to be insisting on some sort of special and precise wording, the absence of which means that President Nelson was only speaking for himself personally. I don't think that's right. Quote Do you think this is the commonly accepted belief in what a revelation is amongst church members? I think "revelation" is a broad concept in the Church, and encompasses a spectrum from "revelation" at the individual level about whether my daughter should spend a year as an exchange student in Italy, to "revelation" about my family as a whole, to "revelation" about my calling in the Church and about those within my stewardship, to "revelation" given to my ward's bishop and ward leaders, to "revelation" given to stake leaders, and regional leaders, and so on, to "revelation" given to the General Authorities to "declare" and "reaffirm" that which has been previously revealed (the Proclamation would fall into this category) to "revelation" about substantive issues needed to be addressed by the Church (the Nov. 2015 policy change would fall into this category, as would OD-1, OD-2, and others), to "revelation" of previously undisclosed truths (D&C 137, being a singular example, but still only one of many, many such instances). Consider this article about "Revelation" from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Quote Receiving personal revelation is a vital and distinctive part of the LDS religious experience. Response to personal revelation is seen as the basis for true faith in Christ, and the strength of the Church consists of that faithful response by members to their own personal revelations. The purpose of both revelation and the response of faith is to assist the children of men to come to Christ and learn to love one another with that same pure love with which Christ loves them. TYPES OF REVELATION. A dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is a series of personal revelations from God. These revelations may be direct manifestations from God, as in the following typical cases: 1. theophanies (seeing God face-to-face), as in the first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which came at the beginning of the present dispensation (JS-H 1:15-20) 2. revealed knowledge from the Father that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:13-17; see also Spirit of Prophecy) 3. visitations of angelic persons, such as the appearance of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith (JS-H 1:30-32) 4. revelations through the Urim and Thummim, by which means Joseph Smith translated the book of mormon 5. open visions, as when Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were shown the kingdoms of the hereafter (see Doctrine and Covenants: Section 76) 6. physically hearing the voice of God, as is recorded in 3 Nephi 11 7. receiving the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit, as in the experience of Elijah (1 Kgs. 19); 8. receiving the gifts of the spirit (D&C 46) 9. having a burning in the bosom as an indication of the will of God, as in the explanation given to Oliver Cowdery (D&C 9:8) 10. dreams (1 Ne. 8:2-32) 11. manifestations of the Light of Christ, by which all men know good from evil (Alma 12:31-32; D&C 84:46-48). Such direct manifestations of the mind and will of God are known as gifts and are contrasted with signs. Gifts always have a spiritual component, even when they have a physical aspect. Signs are physical manifestations of the power of God and are a form of revelation from God, though they may be counterfeited and misinterpreted. Signs may show that God is at work, but spiritual gifts are required to know how one should respond. REVELATION TO THE CHURCH. In every dispensation, God appoints his prophet to guide his people. The prophet's purpose is not to be an intermediary between God and others, though a prophet must often do so. His purpose is, rather, to assist others to receive from God the personal revelation that he, the prophet, has taught God's truth, which will show the way to Christ. The prophet as head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and all other persons who preside in the Church, including General Authorities, stake presidents, bishops, general presidencies, and parents, may receive revelation for the benefit of those over whom they preside. These revelations can be passed on to the membership of the Church through conference and other talks and in personal counsel. But each individual is entitled to know by personal revelation that these messages given through presiding authorities are truly from the Savior himself. President Brigham Young expressed concern that the Latter-day Saints would "have so much confidence in their leaders" that they would "settle down in a state of blind self-security," abandoning the responsibility to obtain their own revelation: "Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not" (JD 9:150). Presiding quorums in the Church are entitled to revelation for the Church on matters of doctrine, policies, programs, callings, and disciplinary actions, as each might be appropriate to a given quorum. Decisions of these quorums are to be made only by the personal, individual revelation of God to each member of that quorum. "And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other" (D&C 107:27). The scriptures contain the inspired writings of God's appointed prophets and are provided to others for their edification (D&C 68:2-4). By this means, people have received the inspired words recorded in the Old and New Testaments. Through revelation, the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon (see Book of Mormon Translation By Joseph Smith) and received those things set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Latter-day Saints anticipate that more prophetic scripture will yet be revealed and that scripture written by past prophets but now lost to the world will be restored (2 Ne. 29:11-14; D&C 27:6; see also Scriptures: Forthcoming Scripture). The true meaning of all scripture is to be revealed by the power of the Holy Ghost to the individual reader or hearer (2 Pet. 1:20; D&C 50:17-24). PERSONAL REVELATION. After baptism and confirmation, each member has the right, when worthy, to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost (see Gift of the Holy Ghost). Through that companionship all the gifts of the Spirit are revealed to faithful individuals, who accomplish their mortal works in righteousness through the gifts and power of God revealed to and through them (Moro. 10:25). The challenges of living by personal revelation include (1) distinguishing revelation from God through his Holy Spirit from personal thoughts and desires, and from the influences of Satan (see Devils); (2) following the teachings and directions of the living prophet of God; and (3) living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4; John 3:5-8; D&C 50:13-24;98:11-13; Deut. 8:3). As you can see, "revelation" is a broad term. It applies more than to just what is canonized, or to statements that have some sort of special wording ("Thus saith the Lord..." and the like). Quote Perhaps my expectations are a bit higher than most members. Perhaps your expectations are a bit more removed from the actual teachings of the LDS Church. As noted above, I had an "expectation" about judges banging gavels. The fact that they don't do this didn't make my expectation "higher." It just made my expectation . . . inaccurate. Quote I always considered a revelation something more than the 15 getting together and making a unanimous decision on church government. Quite so. Revelation must come from God. But I suspect that's not what you mean. You seem to be alluding to some vague expectation about special wording or ceremonial flourish. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 10, 2017 by smac97 5 Link to comment
rockpond Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 55 minutes ago, smac97 said: Nephi acknowledged his own weaknesses. The author of the Title Page to the Book of Mormon (presumably Moroni) acknowledged "faults" and "mistakes." Joseph Smith repeatedly acknowledged his own flaws. The Gospel Topics essays about "Race and the Priesthood" and the "Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints" acknowledge errors by members and leaders. Pres. Uchtdorf acknowledged mistakes made by members and leaders in an October 2013 General Conference address. God Himself appears to have acknowledged the flaws and mistakes of His people in D&C 1:31. Latter-day Saints are frequently reminded that they and their leaders are not infallible (that is, that they make mistakes). And on and on and on. It'll never be enough, though. That's the pernicious thing about faultfinding: You will always be able to succeed at it if you try hard enough. Always. Thanks, -Smac Acknowledging fallibility is not the same as acknowledging THE mistakes (as in what those mistakes were so they can be corrected). And apparently even raising the issue of past mistakes gets one branded as a “faultfinder” which should give us an idea of how open we are about our mistakes. For me, your response is indicative of how we are currently handling past mistakes in our church: preaching theoretical fallibility while trying to silence anyone who attempts to discuss the mistakes. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted October 10, 2017 Author Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, california boy said: I think you have explained very clearly exactly what is being discussed. It all comes down to whether you believe the claim of priesthood authority. I can understand that. What is a bit unclear still to me is the reluctance for these chosen leaders to declare their consensus a revelation. For example, the PoF has been around for decades, yet Elder Oaks talk is the first that I know about that has declared it a revelation. And another example would be Elder Nelson being the only one to call the Nov policy a revelation at a fireside. Do you think this is the commonly accepted belief in what a revelation is amongst church members? Perhaps my expectations are a bit higher than most members. I always considered a revelation something more than the 15 getting together and making a unanimous decision on church government. Sister Bonnie Oscarson in the April 2015 general women’s session of general conference, called it a “revelatory document.” That is precisely what I understand it to be, and the sense I get is that many if not most faithful members do as well. And yes, the prophets and apostles routinely receive revelation following or in the course of a period of deliberation and discussion. That you think this is not consistent with the receipt of revelation is your own odd notion to which others are not bound. Edited October 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2 Link to comment
Button Gwinnett Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: So am I. But I'm also willing to actually proceed with examining the purported evidence and reach a reasoned and informed conclusion as to the craptastic quality of the dreck being presented by Johnnie and his purported "source." As, apparently, are you, since you said "I think we can now lay that claim of Wilkin's having written the proclamation to rest as just another church critic's attempt to undermine the church." No need to sit on the fence for this one, IMHO. It's not even a close call. Critics can certainly come up with pointed and valid criticisms of the Church. That's part of why I've been on this board for so long. I find some value in examining some aspects of my faith in an adversarial construct, as it gives me the opportunity to re-examine what I believe and why. As Hugh Nibley put it: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes." That said, there are times when critics need to be called out for presenting crap. This thread is just such an instance. Gossipy triple hearsay peddled by an anonymous hostile source and presented as evidence for the proposition that "{G}od didn't author {the Proclamation}," and that there was an "utter lack of revelation" in its origins? And this is supposed to be noteworthy? Gimme a break. Thanks, -Smac I'm curious, when a newspaper reporter prints a quote from a source in his newspaper should we consider that Triple hearsay? I'm not being critical of you I'm merely asking a question. And yes I realize that because all of this information being claimed is coming from people who are anonymous, just like you too are anonymous, should it then be dismissed out of hand because it is coming from anonymous posters? Again I'm just trying to understand. Thanks PS: I might add that from a legal standard, much of what is posted on this board would qualify as hearsay and be inadmissible in a court of law, and from that standard Johnnie Cakes source, as it stands right now, would also be inadmissible and be stricken from the record as hearsay. But fortunately we are not held to the same standard here when judging information, which is one of the things that makes this board fun, so we have the liberty to weight information based on its merits. While I believe that you have presented a strong argument on why Bro. Cakes source should be ignored, there is something in what he has presented that feels real and honest to me. I just don't get the sense that he is trying to pull one over on us. I'm willing to factor it into what I also know about the process that gave us the proclamation rather than completely discard it as I sense you have. But that's part of my personality, I tend to trust. Edited October 10, 2017 by Button Gwinnett Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: Acknowledging fallibility is not the same as acknowledging THE mistakes (as in what those mistakes were so they can be corrected). Right. And if Mistake A is acknowledged, then the critics will discount the acknowledgment as insufficient or insincere, or else will just shift to griping about Mistake B, and then Mistake C, and so on, ad infinitum. The critics then get to become the arbiters of right and wrong. The critics enthrone themselves as judges over the Lord's servants. Again, the pernicious thing about faultfinding is that you'll always succeed at it. Thank you for so aptly demonstrating my point. 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: And apparently even raising the issue of past mistakes gets one branded as a “faultfinder” which should give us an idea of how open we are about our mistakes. So Nephi was a faultfinder? Joseph Smith? Pres. Uchtdorf? I think we can and should seek to identify and rectify errors and mistakes. Certainly. But not as our critics would have us do it. The time and place and manner in which such things are discussed and addressed matter. A lot. 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: For me, your response is indicative of how we are currently handling past mistakes in our church: preaching theoretical fallibility while trying to silence anyone who attempts to discuss the mistakes. Ah, malarky. Thanks, -Smac 2 Link to comment
Gray Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 The arguments back and forth about revelation and who wrote the proclamation to me are irrelevant. Whatever good there is in the proclamation is a revelation from God, in the sense that it's true, useful and will help us be the best people we can be. It doesn't matter if it was ghostwritten by Colonel Sanders. It's the content that makes something a revelation or not. Link to comment
rockpond Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Revelatory is defined as “revealing something hitherto unknown”. President Hinckley stated, when introducing the Proclamation, that it was a declaration and reaffirmation of what “the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history” which seemingly contradicts claims that it is revelatory. I am curious what participants here consider to be previously unknown but revealed by the Proclamation. Link to comment
Recommended Posts