Elder Corbridge BYU devotional on “questions” - 22 Jan 2019

[hoo rider]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

“Elder Corbridge explained there are primary and secondary questions when it comes to the Church. The primary questions must be answered first, as they are the most important. They include:

• Is there a God who is our Father?
• Is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Savior of the world?
• Was Joseph Smith a prophet?
• Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth?

“In contrast, the secondary questions are unending. They include questions about Church history, polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, how the Book of Mormon was translated, DNA and the Book of Mormon, gay marriage, different accounts of the First Vision and so on.”

The problem I see is that we have been counseled to consider/review the secondary questions (I would call them issues) as a way to determine whether Joseph Smith is a prophet.  Elder Corbridge's speech seems to encourage a different tactic, namely, one should determine whether Joseph Smith is a prophet without looking too closely (or in some cases, even being aware of) of what Joseph Smith did (i.e. issues listed by Elder Corbridge including church history, polygamy, how the Book of Mormon was translated, DNA and the BOM, different accounts of first vision).   

[CV75]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Who decides what opinions are extreme?  Let me know so I can appeal to that authority for future judgement.  

I just decided that your opinion is extreme.

Now: kneel and appeal!!! LOL

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Now you’re accusing me of doing something I didn’t do, and I’ve clarified multiple times what I meant.  Not sure why.  

You said "I imagine that he would tell someone what those answers are if asked."  How am I accusing you of doing something you didn't do if I have a quote of you doing it?  You made a statement of fact (He's giving you the answers) and when I asked for a reference to support that you said that you imagine he would give answers.

You can't support a CFR with your imagination though.

[champatsch]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No Scripture has ever been authored by God.  Instead, He speaks to humans in their own language -- which reflects their own limited, imperfect understanding.  Humans do the best they can to reflect his intent and to describe his mighty works.  I have carefully followed your and Royal's work, and I agree that Joseph was not the author or translator of the BofM, but it is obvious that some human did that translation into English a couple of centuries before Joseph.  God relies on human agents to do his work here on Earth, with rare intervention by angelic messengers.

If we wish to put finer distinctions on various things, we can of course do that. Yet we could still say quite properly that the Lord is the source for the text because he was responsible for an English-language translation, and he was responsible for the words being transmitted to Joseph. The Lord views the words as his (3n2111).

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that's pretty common especially in people not familiar with how many doubts and unknowns there are in academic fields like science. They expect truth to not only be true but be complete in some sense. My experience is that it's sometimes hard to disabuse freshmen in college of this expectation. Also they tend to apply this to their prior beliefs, but never the new beliefs arising out of the doubts of their old beliefs. Again some eventually do that, but it's rare even among college students.

But I think more or less what you're saying is that he doesn't appear to be engaging with what you see as the function of doubt. Which may well be true, but I don't think invalidates what he is saying. I don't think he was trying to give an exhaustive comprehensive analysis of religious doubt.

I'd say this isn't the problem of secondary issues and primary issues. It's the problem of not knowing even the primary issues. So it seems pretty separate. That is, it's ultimately how do you lead someone to a testimony so they know. All I can say there is that no one can give you answers so you know. They can point at some general ways of coming to know, but ultimately religious knowledge comes only by direct encounter with God answering. Nothing else works.

It's interesting how your response is the opposite of Stemelbow's. I don't think they're saying you don't need to learn the other stuff. (Quite the contrary) I think they're saying that you shouldn't let your problems with the secondary stuff make illegitimately doubt the primary stuff. Again I think a lot of this has to do with expectations. After all, there's many people here who know the same things about the secondary stuff you do, yet it doesn't make them doubt the primary stuff. What's the difference? Some people will throw out something like "cognitive dissonance" or "acting as if it were true" while knowing it's not. But I don't think that characterizes most of us here. We may well be wrong, but I think most of us are being intellectually honest.

HIs wasn't the opposite of mine.  But I wanted to add, the Church has set this all up and put themselves in this situation.  The Church has nearly divinized Joseph.  Thus when people learn that he was human who made mistakes larger than most people--like lying to and breaking covenants with his wife--it's hard to put that knowledge into place when the Church is saying we should look to him as an example of some sort.  Now that members are going, "well Joseph married teenagers behind his wife's back.. that's awful and disgusting" the church is like, "well, let's give Joseph a break.  He was human."  and..."don't worry about that, put it on a shelf and it doesn't really matter because you already know the Church is the kingdom of God on earth."  This is nothing but doublespeak.  And it is a pretty shallow way to address this. 

You say you like it and prefer this method.  By all means do it.   Say things like, "well church can't be evaluated on evidence and history and it's fruits.  YOu just have to hear some personal message from God and then you'll know it's true."  How would someone know the personal spiritual messages are from God?  Or that the messages received are confirming things like the Church is the one true Church?  "Well, you'll know" comes the response.  "well I dont' know because everyone in all walks of life can receive and have claimed to receive spiritual messages from God that lead them in nearly the opposite direction of the Church".  

"well don't jump out of the boat, you'll drown.  Stay in Church, put it all on a shelf.  REmember you felt like God is real and that JOseph is a prophet.  These other things don't really matter.  In fact, the questions you raised are answered by virtue of you feeling that the Church was true at some point."

IT's just silliness, and shallowness.  

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Duncan said:

he talks about this at the 30 minute mark, he says something about you can try to eliminate everything but still never come to the truth, he said you need "affirmative proof" which comes by the Spirit , you can't prove a positive by disproving every negative

And he's foolishly mistaken as I see it.  It's not about someone needing to disapprove every negative.  No one is working that way.  People see all the negative mount up and are in need of re-evaluating where they stand.  It's a healthy practice and he's bemoaning it, it seems to me, as if we should avoid our concerns, by ignoring them, putting them on a shelf and pretending everything is ok, because we can repeat the mantra that the Church is true.  

[CA Steve]

I can't help wondering how whether or not the Book of Mormon is scripture can be considered "secondary stuff"?

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I can't help wondering how whether or not the Book of Mormon is scripture can be considered "secondary stuff"?

Where does Elder Corbridge say that?

[CA Steve]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Where does Elder Corbridge say that?

Is it one of his primary questions?

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Is it one of his primary questions?

Do you think that was meant to be an exhaustive, be-all and end-all list?

“Elder Corbridge explained there are primary and secondary questions when it comes to the Church. The primary questions must be answered first, as they are the most important. They include: "

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you think that was meant to be an exhaustive, be-all and end-all list?

“Elder Corbridge explained there are primary and secondary questions when it comes to the Church. The primary questions must be answered first, as they are the most important. They include: "

So is it a primary question or not?

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So is it a primary question or not?

What I think?

I think it ranks below knowing that we have a Savior and a Father in Heaven.  It has more importance in my mind than figuring our who should have the priesthood and reconciling first vision accounts. 

I think Elder Corbridge gave some examples.  I don't think he meant it to be the list of what was important and what was secondary.

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I can't help wondering how whether or not the Book of Mormon is scripture can be considered "secondary stuff"?

Because the four primary questions are so thoroughly addressed in "these things" (Moroni 1:3 - 7), and the purpose of "these things " (the Book or Mormon) is to testify of them (see Title Page), then the truth of the Book of Mormon can be considered more of a primary question to answer than a secondary one.

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What I think?

I think it ranks below knowing that we have a Savior and a Father in Heaven.  It has more importance in my mind than figuring our who should have the priesthood and reconciling first vision accounts. 

I think Elder Corbridge gave some examples.  I don't think he meant it to be the list of what was important and what was secondary.

Well then here is the problem I see with his list. In order to decided whether or not Joseph was a prophet and in order to decide whether or not the LDS church is the Kingdom of God here on earth wouldn't it be necessary, at least for some people, to give consideration to other questions which impact how those questions are answered? If his list was not meant to be comprehensive, then other questions may rightfully be considered.  For some people the question of multiple first visions may indeed be a primary question and others may be concerned about the Book of Abraham and so on.

So, either his list is comprehensive which is troublesome in that it leaves out some very important questions in my opinion, or it wasn't meant to be comprehensive and leaves it up to the individual to decide which other questions are important. If the latter is true I am not even sure what his point would be then. Either way I think it is problematic.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I strongly suspect that the primacy of certain questions is related to how well they teach us to hear and recognise the voice of God.

Nailed it!

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You said "I imagine that he would tell someone what those answers are if asked."  How am I accusing you of doing something you didn't do if I have a quote of you doing it?  You made a statement of fact (He's giving you the answers) and when I asked for a reference to support that you said that you imagine he would give answers.

You can't support a CFR with your imagination though.

I clarified what I meant by that statement in my last couple responses to you, so whatever misunderstanding was created by my original statement has been closed, answered, and clarified.  If you ask someone for clarification on what they mean, then it would be good etiquette to accept the clarification and move on.  Saying that I "imagined" something feels insulting and I would appreciate it if you would be more respectful.  

Also, I went back through the entire thread and I can't find any formal CFR from you.  We seemed to be having a pleasant exchange earlier, and now it seems to me that your tone towards me has changed, which is unfortunate.  

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Nailed it!

I listened to the whole devotional last night. And he mentions becoming born again. And how the answers can flow etc. or I may have gotten this from your post on prayer. And previous to this, I listened to a woman coming out of Mormonism's experience with becoming born again and feeling closer than ever with the Lord and getting that voice from God. So my question for Elder Corbridge, why is the COJCOLDS the only vehicle when others are experiencing the same thing or actually maybe a lot more in the world then the LDS do. And we need to get in line!

He asks where people who doubt will go, and that's laughable to me. Maybe they will learn for themselves what that relationship can be and not be led by a middleman. I hope I'm not sounding angry, or maybe it's needed. The church feels threatened by so many of those doubting that they needed to have these messages for the youth now. But they don't have them for the older crowd much. They don't seem to give a darn about those that are over the hill. I've seen firsthand of this non-concern, from a former bishop turned stake president, then another bishop that took his place and now a new bishop in a new area, they have zip concern for me. And I understand that I'm supposed to go to them, and this new bishop, I did it first thing. And he is absolutely silent with people like me. They want us to go away. 

Sorry for the rant Pogi..

[ksfisher]

29 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

or it wasn't meant to be comprehensive

Right.  Which is why he said "they include" when talking about the primary questions.

I guess it's up to you to decide how far from the gospel center your questions are.

 

[ksfisher]

Just now, Tacenda said:

So my question for Elder Corbridge, why is the COJCOLDS the only vehicle when others are experiencing the same thing or actually maybe a lot more in the world then the LDS do

All people can feel the Spirit of God in their lives.  All people can be influenced by the Holy Ghost for good.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, is the only institution on earth that has the authority to perform the ordinances necessary for salvation in the name of Christ.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, hoo rider said:

The problem I see is that we have been counseled to consider/review the secondary questions (I would call them issues) as a way to determine whether Joseph Smith is a prophet.  Elder Corbridge's speech seems to encourage a different tactic, namely, one should determine whether Joseph Smith is a prophet without looking too closely (or in some cases, even being aware of) of what Joseph Smith did (i.e. issues listed by Elder Corbridge including church history, polygamy, how the Book of Mormon was translated, DNA and the BOM, different accounts of first vision).   

I agree, it seems like this model is a departure from the scriptures that we should study things out in our mind, and that we can know truth in our mind and heart.  The Elder Corbridge model seems to devalue the intellectual component. 

Think about this in another example.  Lets say that someone is looking into Scientology.  Should a person just ignore all the bad things they hear about Scientology and just trust the good things being promoted directly by the institution?  Should a person just avoid researching the negatives and just rely on the positives and their answers to prayer about the truth of Scientology?  Many people all over the world have spiritual experiences related to their practice of religion.  

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I clarified what I meant by that statement in my last couple responses to you, so whatever misunderstanding was created by my original statement has been closed, answered, and clarified.  If you ask someone for clarification on what they mean, then it would be good etiquette to accept the clarification and move on.  Saying that I "imagined" something feels insulting and I would appreciate it if you would be more respectful.  

Also, I went back through the entire thread and I can't find any formal CFR from you.  We seemed to be having a pleasant exchange earlier, and now it seems to me that your tone towards me has changed, which is unfortunate.  

You used the phrase "I imagine..." when I asked for support of your statement.  I don't know how the word could be described as insulting or disrespectful when you chose it to describe your process.  If you dislike it I will refrain from using the word in the future, unless you use it again to describe how you determined what Elder Corbridge is saying.

The CFR I'm speaking of comes from this exchange:

HFT- "Elder Corbridge is not really telling people to explore the primary questions for answers.  He already has the answers to the primary questions for all of us.  He figured those out, so you don't have to ask those questions at all, he's giving you the answers: " 

Me-"Can you provide the reference where he says that?"

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The Church has nearly divinized Joseph.  Thus when people learn that he was human who made mistakes larger than most people--like lying to and breaking covenants with his wife--it's hard to put that knowledge into place when the Church is saying we should look to him as an example of some sort.

I'm not at all convinced that's true. Although I certainly agree the Church should point out Joseph's flaws more and humanize them.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Now that members are going, "well Joseph married teenagers behind his wife's back.. that's awful and disgusting" the church is like, "well, let's give Joseph a break.  He was human."  and..."don't worry about that, put it on a shelf and it doesn't really matter because you already know the Church is the kingdom of God on earth."  This is nothing but doublespeak.  And it is a pretty shallow way to address this. 

I disagree. But I certainly do think we should directly engage this issues more. But if someone has a revelation on the truth of the scriptures, Joseph as a prophet, and most importantly Christ they should recognize that is an answer. Finding out things that don't fit their expectations doesn't mean that revelation wasn't real. Rather it means that they should evaluate their expectations of what that means. Instead I think what frequently happens is that they question the revelation rather than their expectations.

Do I think the Church should help people not have unrealistic expectations? Certainly. Do I think that means it's fine that people question the revelation rather than the expectations? No.  So Corbridge's devotional (which I've not heard in full) may not address everything. But that doesn't mean what he did address was not accurate.

Quote

 

You say you like it and prefer this method.  By all means do it.   Say things like, "well church can't be evaluated on evidence and history and it's fruits.  YOu just have to hear some personal message from God and then you'll know it's true."  How would someone know the personal spiritual messages are from God?  Or that the messages received are confirming things like the Church is the one true Church?  "Well, you'll know" comes the response.  "well I dont' know because everyone in all walks of life can receive and have claimed to receive spiritual messages from God that lead them in nearly the opposite direction of the Church".  

 

I think I'm pretty forthright that the truth of the Church is significantly underdetermined by the public evidence and, given secular skepticism, the presumption is that it's not. I've said that in enough threads over the year I've been here that I assume everyone knows my position. However I certainly do think revelation can answer us. I'd not at all agree that we can't know that a revelation is a revelation. That people purport revelations says nothing about whether I can know. After all I don't know what other people have experienced.

To return to an analogy I often bring up, if I am hiking in the forest encounter an alien, see the spaceship and learn something from the experience, it really doesn't matter much if other people claiming alien visits contradict my experience nor that the public evidence is against alien visitations. It'd be silly to doubt if I have a pretty clear experience like that especially if I investigate it skeptically to try and make sure it's actually happening. (Note this is just an analogy - I personally don't think aliens are visiting the planet)

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree, it seems like this model is a departure from the scriptures that we should study things out in our mind, and that we can know truth in our mind and heart.  The Elder Corbridge model seems to devalue the intellectual component. 

How so? I confess I don't see that but again I don't know his full talk. What in the talk specifically makes you think that?

Edited January 24, 2019 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Well then here is the problem I see with his list. In order to decided whether or not Joseph was a prophet and in order to decide whether or not the LDS church is the Kingdom of God here on earth wouldn't it be necessary, at least for some people, to give consideration to other questions which impact how those questions are answered? If his list was not meant to be comprehensive, then other questions may rightfully be considered.  For some people the question of multiple first visions may indeed be a primary question and others may be concerned about the Book of Abraham and so on.

So, either his list is comprehensive which is troublesome in that it leaves out some very important questions in my opinion, or it wasn't meant to be comprehensive and leaves it up to the individual to decide which other questions are important. If the latter is true I am not even sure what his point would be then. Either way I think it is problematic.

I don’t think Elder Corbridge’s comments were as black-and-white or as developmentally restrictive as the OP and others have tried to represent on this thread. The black-and-white question of whether his list is comprehensive or not (it both isn’t and is, depending!) is not a primary question.

Considering additional information to the teachings and testimonies that entice a person to ask the primary questions for himself is not a necessary step for he kind of learning described in the article. If that were so, proselytes would be given “secondary information” by legitimate messengers, but that is not the Master’s instruction (e.g. D&C 133:57; D&C 55:2; D&C 53:3; D&C 50:10-onward).

That a proselyte or member might consider such questions anyway is certainly their prerogative, and the either might choose to do so with or without a firm footing in the “primary information.” In any case, and for the faithful as well, the Master has inspired His servants to prepare a good deal of "secondary information" concerning matters such as multiple accounts of the First Vision and the Book or Abraham. This was done in good faith, not to supplant the primary message or divert people away from reliable sources and synthesis of scholarship on subjects of religious interest.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree, it seems like this model is a departure from the scriptures that we should study things out in our mind, and that we can know truth in our mind and heart.  The Elder Corbridge model seems to devalue the intellectual component. 

How so? I confess I don't see that but again I don't know his full talk. What in the talk specifically makes you think that?

 

Quote

There are three major methods of learning — scientific, analytical and academic — but the divine method of learning incorporates elements of the other methodologies and “ultimately trumps everything else by tapping into the powers of heaven,” Elder Corbridge said. All four methods are necessary to know truth.

So essentially all four methods are important, but the divine method "ultimately trumps everything else".  So all the scientific, academic and analytical truth in the world can never overpower his belief that he has received divine truth that trumps those other methods.  

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, hoo rider said:

The problem I see is that we have been counseled to consider/review the secondary questions (I would call them issues) as a way to determine whether Joseph Smith is a prophet.  Elder Corbridge's speech seems to encourage a different tactic, namely, one should determine whether Joseph Smith is a prophet without looking too closely (or in some cases, even being aware of) of what Joseph Smith did (i.e. issues listed by Elder Corbridge including church history, polygamy, how the Book of Mormon was translated, DNA and the BOM, different accounts of first vision).   

We have been counseled to use good scholarship from good sources on matters of religious interest, not as a means of obtaining a testimony, but of improving our facility with religious matters.

Considering additional information to the teachings and testimonies that entice a person to ask the primary questions for himself is not a necessary step for he kind of learning described in the article. If that were so, proselytes would be given this “secondary information” by legitimate messengers, but that is not the Master’s instruction (e.g. D&C 133:57; D&C 55:2; D&C 53:3; D&C 50:10-onward).

That a proselyte or member might consider such questions anyway is certainly their prerogative, and the either might choose to do so with or without a firm footing in the “primary information.” In any case, and for the faithful as well, the Church prepared a good deal of "secondary information" concerning the 'issues" you highlight. This was done in good faith, and not to supplant the primary message or divert people away from reliable sources and synthesis of scholarship on subjects of religious interest.