Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard "Face to Face" Event: Dealing with doubts


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I wonder how Elder Ballard would interpret Elder Snow's words?

"I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information. But the world has changed in the last generation—with the access to information on the Internet, we can’t continue that pattern; I think we need to continue to be more open."

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-14-number-3-2013/start-faith-conversation-elder-steven-e-snow

 

I was more surprised they had a convert of 2 months being one of the interviewers! that's a dropkick into the deep end! I wonder how she got picked?

I will hazard a guess that Elder Snow is not speaking specifically of the First Vision accounts. Also, Elder Ballard is speaking in the present tense 4 years after Elder Snow's comment. Also, not being open is not necessarily the same as hiding.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“The facts are we don’t study; we don’t go back and search what has been said on the subject. For example, Dr. James B. Allen of BYU in 1970 produced an article in the Church magazines explaining all about the different versions of the First Vision.”

He added, “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”

 

I think the issue here is controlling the narrative, not hiding the facts.
If you have to go back to 1970 to find a comparison of the First Vision accounts in a Church magazine that's a problem.  (But that alone isn't a smoking gun).  And I'm betting there have even been a few other accounts in Church publications in the last 40 years.
But how do they measure up against the repeated and reprinted official PoGP version?  Did any of the information readily available to the saints in 1970 make it into any of the curriculum that covers the First Vision?

Is that hiding information?  No, it was available.  Is that tightly controlling what the average member knows about the First Vision, and therefore the narrative around it?  You bet.

But he's right.  The average member doesn't study.  They don't go back.  I don't understand that myself, but clearly the Church has no problem with members sticking to the Sunday School version of history.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the issue here is controlling the narrative, not hiding the facts.
If you have to go back to 1970 to find a comparison of the First Vision accounts in a Church magazine that's a problem.  (But that alone isn't a smoking gun).  And I'm betting there have even been a few other accounts in Church publications in the last 40 years.
But how do they measure up against the repeated and reprinted official PoGP version?  Did any of the information readily available to the saints in 1970 make it into any of the curriculum that covers the First Vision?

Is that hiding information?  No, it was available.  Is that tightly controlling what the average member knows about the First Vision, and therefore the narrative around it?  You bet.

But he's right.  The average member doesn't study.  They don't go back.  I don't understand that myself, but clearly the Church has no problem with members sticking to the Sunday School version of history.

I don't see that as tightly controlling the narrative and what the members know (I find the term "average member" dehumanizing and feel there is no such thing anyway) . I see the canonical version of the First Vision as offering the clearest common starting point (the same page), recognizing our agency to branch out from there at our own pace and interest. I don't think his comment about about not studying further is a criticism; he states it as a fact of human nature and that some people, notably scholars, do study and find what's out there to be found. I think he is showing, in line with Elder Oaks' remarks,  that some can use that interest to leverage doubts instead of good questions warranting further exploration and study.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nurturing doubt exacerbates doubt and leads to further doubt. Engaging in questioning leads to greater light and understanding. 

Elder Oaks is spot on. 

 

Doubt often sparks questioning which can be the driving force to research and find answers.  It is all good.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I will hazard a guess that Elder Snow is not speaking specifically of the First Vision accounts. Also, Elder Ballard is speaking in the present tense 4 years after Elder Snow's comment. Also, not being open is not necessarily the same as hiding.

Well said. 

Context matters. Elder Snow’s context is the past accessibility of records from the Church History Department. Elder Ballard’s context is the openness and transparency with which the Brethren address the people they speak to in the course of their ministry. 

And both men are saying there is openness and transparency today. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Doubt often sparks questioning which can be the driving force to research and find answers.  It is all good.

This misses the point of Elder Oaks’s definitions. Doubt implies rejection and distrust, which the scriptures condemn as pertaining to gospel truths (watch the replay of the broadcast; he gave several compelling passages). 

Wallowing in constant doubt doesn’t bring resolution or enlightenment any more than wallowing in self-pity brings happiness. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nurturing doubt exacerbates doubt and leads to further doubt. Engaging in questioning leads to greater light and understanding. 

Elder Oaks is spot on. 

 

I can question all day long and it still doesn't provide answers, just truth. Truth doesn't always have an answer, it's anybody's guess. The only way you can make it work is have faith that the Lord will answer. But if your instinct is that it was a wrong practice than I think we need to trust our intutions and find a faith that feels correct or right. Sometimes things don't pass the smell test and we're told to just believe. I think that is super cultish. 

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Doubt often sparks questioning which can be the driving force to research and find answers.  It is all good.

It can also lead to debilitating bias which clouds judgment and limits perspective.  It is not “all good”.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I can question all day long and it still doesn't provide answers, just truth. Truth doesn't always have an answer, it's anybody's guess. The only way you can make it work is have faith that the Lord will answer. But if your instinct is that it was a wrong practice than I think we need to trust our intutions and find a faith that feels correct or right. Sometimes things don't pass the smell test and we're told to just believe. I think that is super cultish. 

Questioning can open the way to ascertaining and discovering truth.  I disagree that questioning never yields answers. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

That's still not very specific.  The essays cover a range of topics and then each hits on a lot of points within each topic. 

Joseph Smith's wives ages and marrying already married women and that an angel with a drawn sword threatened JS. Why? Why would God/Jesus take someone's free agency and there are no answers for him marrying married women. And seriously, why for instance do the essays say Helen Mar Kimball was just shy of her 15th birthday. Why not just say she is 14? They can't bring themselves to admit it? And the essays are just shy of saying the PH ban was fully racist.

 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nurturing doubt exacerbates doubt and leads to further doubt.

Or when I ask my bishop some questions and he admits to not knowing the answers, but that he is sure that we will learn the answers to those questions in the next life.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Joseph Smith's wives ages and marrying already married women and that an angel with a drawn sword threatened JS. Why? Why would God/Jesus take someone's free agency and there are no answers for him marrying married women. And seriously, why for instance do the essays say Helen Mar Kimball was just shy of her 15th birthday. Why not just say she is 14? They can't bring themselves to admit it? And the essays are just shy of saying the PH ban was fully racist.

 

 

Now, those indeed are specific questions.  Did you want to talk about them, or were you more wanting to express your frustration here?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Oaks:

“The facts are we don’t study; we don’t go back and search what has been said on the subject. For example, Dr. James B. Allen of BYU in 1970 produced an article in the Church magazines explaining all about the different versions of the First Vision.”

Does anyone have a link to the 1970 article?  What church magazine was it in?  I am interested in reading it.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the issue here is controlling the narrative, not hiding the facts.
If you have to go back to 1970 to find a comparison of the First Vision accounts in a Church magazine that's a problem.  (But that alone isn't a smoking gun).  And I'm betting there have even been a few other accounts in Church publications in the last 40 years.
But how do they measure up against the repeated and reprinted official PoGP version?  Did any of the information readily available to the saints in 1970 make it into any of the curriculum that covers the First Vision?

Is that hiding information?  No, it was available.  Is that tightly controlling what the average member knows about the First Vision, and therefore the narrative around it?  You bet.

But he's right.  The average member doesn't study.  They don't go back.  I don't understand that myself, but clearly the Church has no problem with members sticking to the Sunday School version of history.

A great deal of what you say here is true, but it lacks perspective:  All religious organizations try to adopt standard versions of their history and pass that on.  It is impractical to do it in any other way, and that is true of Judaism and Christianity generally.  Naturally, scholars will try to find out as much as possible about what lies behind those standard, versions using specialized techniques.  That can be very confusing to those who don't understand how histories are written, and miss the basic purpose of any religious movement.

Indeed, in many respects, the Brethren are no better informed about the technical nature of history than the ordinary member.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...