Elder Oaks Settles The Matter Of The History Presented

[jwhitlock]

I'm not quite sure, but I believe we have live audio of mms's response being formulated.

The sound isn't the best, and the whole thing seems (like most of his posts) to be vaguely choreographed from the outset, but you never know.

MMS's response

And his general opinion of MAD&B:

MAD&B

Ah well. At this point, I've got to bail out to catch my flight for the conference, so I'll have to pick this back up (if there's anything to pick up) when I get out to Eutaw (actual street name in Baltimore, MD).

[selek]

Ah well. At this point, I've got to bail out to catch my flight for the conference, so I'll have to pick this back up (if there's anything to pick up) when I get out to Eutaw (actual street name in Baltimore, MD).

I too, have to go.

I'll make you a bet, jwhitlock. By this time tomorrow night, we still won't have a satisfactory answer from mms.

What kind of cream pie do you like? Those are my stakes (to be delivered at the Conference on Friday).

[mms]

Still no specifics, huh? Sorry that you feel so backed into a corner that all you can do is call names, but that comes with an untenable position.

Any time you'd like to respond with specifics, please feel free. I've given you plenty to respond to.

You guys are hilarious. Accuse me of calling names and then use sound effects. Seriously classic.

Backed into a corner? Please. It is clear that DHO's statements have caused you and others a significant increase in blood pressure. The FAIR Conference should be just the thing to return it to normal and re-arm you for your tireless battle against the evil trolls (e.g., active questioning High Priests) on this board. Maybe those at the conference can explain what DHO "really meant to say."

[mms]

By this time tomorrow night, we still won't have a satisfactory answer from mms.

Indeed, you will not, because no answer will SATISFY you unless it disregards reason in order to make the "truth" more palatable (although it is entirely unclear at this point, just what questions you actually have (as opposed to those intended to make some rhetorical point).

[mms]

I'm not quite sure, but I believe we have live audio of mms's response being formulated.

The sound isn't the best, and the whole thing seems (like most of his posts) to be vaguely choreographed from the outset, but you never know.

MMS's response

And his general opinion of MAD&B:

MAD&B

As an aside, I, no doubt, would be suspended from the board for a week for doing what Selek does, here. But, alas, it is Selek the great defender against the evil trolls.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Indeed, you will not, because no answer will SATISFY you unless it disregards reason in order to make the "truth" more palatable (although it is entirely unclear at this point, just what questions you actually have (as opposed to those intended to make some rhetorical point).

For what it's worth, mms, you still haven't answered my questions, either.

[mms]

For what it's worth, mms, you still haven't answered my questions, either.

I think you mean "question" (singular), and I have addressed it multiple times. Next time you are going to suggest I have not, please quote all of my responses to it, so as not to mislead. Thanks.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think you mean "question" (singular), and I have addressed it multiple times. Next time you are going to suggest I have not, please quote all of my responses to it, so as not to mislead. Thanks.

I say this with all due respect: have you ever belonged to a message baord before? You seem to have trouble following the conversation.

See this post, just right up the page a little:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208230997

[Daniel Peterson]

For what it's worth, my introduction to FARMS Review 19/1 (2007), hot off the press, focuses on Mormon historiography and how it ought to be approached:

Daniel C. Peterson, "Reflections on the Reactions to Rough Stone Rolling and Related Matters."

[mms]

I say this with all due respect: have you ever belonged to a message baord before? You seem to have trouble following the conversation.

See this post, just right up the page a little:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208230997

"I say this with all due respect," there is no question in the link that you just provided. Rather, the post seems to be trying to explain why you asked the single question that you did ask in a post before it, which I addressed in multiple posts. Look before you leap.

[LifeOnaPlate]

"I say this with all due respect," there is no question in the link that you just provided. Rather, the post seems to be trying to explain why you asked the single question that you did ask in a post before it, which I addressed in multiple posts. Look before you leap.

Since I guess I missed your answer I'll just be frank, and hope you afford me the same blessing:

What do you believe is the proper, scripturally based, spirit based way to develop a testimony, and how should that testimony, once gained, be shared?

Dan- how much is the latest FARMS review?

NM i found the price. Will it be sold at the FAIR conference?

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan- how much is the latest FARMS review?

NM i found the price. Will it be sold at the FAIR conference?

I'm not sure.

I hope so.

If FAIR doesn't have any on order, I would be happy -- if they want me to -- to carry some copies up on either Thursday or Friday.

But somebody will have to tell me soon.

[mms]

Since I guess I missed your answer I'll just be frank, and hope you afford me the same blessing:

What do you believe is the proper, scripturally based, spirit based way to develop a testimony, and how should that testimony, once gained, be shared?

Dan- how much is the latest FARMS review?

NM i found the price. Will it be sold at the FAIR conference?

I hope I get this one right. Study it out, pray and listen. Then, ask others to study it out, pray and listen.

Of course, just what and how much they should study is subject to differing opinions, it appears. Indeed, over time, the Church's view on this has changed, as the teaching materials have changed. I am suggesting it change to incorporate some efforts to educate on difficult issues so that the enemy does not get the first chance to frame the issues. Not a terribly sophisticated strategy, but as Elder Oaks said, the Church may be "lagging" behind the times a bit.

[gtaggart]

You guys are hilarious. Accuse me of calling names and then use sound effects. Seriously classic.

Backed into a corner? Please. It is clear that DHO's statements have caused you and others a significant increase in blood pressure. The FAIR Conference should be just the thing to return it to normal and re-arm you for your tireless battle against the evil trolls (e.g., active questioning High Priests) on this board. Maybe those at the conference can explain what DHO "really meant to say."

mms, two quotes from you (emphasis supplied by me):

First, you were adamantly saying this:

he admitted that "within the Church" only "adoring history that doesn't deal with anything that's unfavorable" has been presented. Period.

Then you finally came around to this:

It appears that you simply cannot accept the fact that Oaks clearly understands that nearly all church history has been written adoringly by the Church, and did not deal with unfavorable matters, as he stated very clearly (no need to replace the literal words here).

In short, you changed his "literal words" much like I suggested you should. Now you seem to be backtracking. What is it? Should we take the word "everything" as literal or as hyperbole?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm not sure.

I hope so.

If FAIR doesn't have any on order, I would be happy -- if they want me to -- to carry some copies up on either Thursday or Friday.

But somebody will have to tell me soon.

Bring one and it's a guaranteed sale, DCP. I'll be at the conference on Friday.

[mms]

mms, two quotes from you (emphasis supplied by me):

First, you were adamantly saying this:

Then you finally came around to this:

In short, you changed his "literal words" much like I suggested you should. Now you seem to be backtracking. What is it? Should we take the word "everything" as literal or as hyperbole?

Note that I simply quoted him and now you have quoted me, quoting him (to what end, I am not sure). I think it is clear from his statement that he believes the Church has not been as "forthright" as it could have been and that the Church sought to present an "adoring" history AS OPPOSED TO a "warts and all" history. I think he intended what he actually said, but I allow for the likelihood that "anything" was intended to make the point that the Church is willing to take responsibility, without considering whether there was a single page in a 1981 (was it?) institute manual that addressed a controversial subject (but I would wager it did so "adoringly").

DHO is willing to call a spade a spade and take some responsibility for the obvious (as one put it, he was "disarmingly candid" in that particular remark). Others are not. I understand that his disagreement with many on this board causes some cognitive dissonance and they will just have to find some way to make it all fit their paradigm. Hey, whatever gets them through the day.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Note that I simply quoted him and now you have quoted me, quoting him (to what end, I am not sure). I think it is clear from his statement that he believes the Church has not been as "forthright" as it could have been and that the Church sought to present an "adoring" history AS OPPOSED TO a "warts and all" history. I think he intended what he actually said, but I allow for the likelihood that "anything" was intended to make the point that the Church is willing to take responsibility, without considering whether there was a single page in a 1981 (was it?) institute manual that addressed a controversial subject (but I would wager it did so "adoringly").

DHO is willing to call a spade a spade and take some responsibility for the obvious (as one put it, he was "disarmingly candid" in that particular remark). Others are not. I understand that his disagreement with many on this board causes some cognitive dissonance and they will just have to find some way to make it all fit their paradigm. Hey, whatever gets them through the day.

Has Church history been perfectly written? Probably not.

[gtaggart]

Note that I simply quoted him and now you have quoted me, quoting him (to what end, I am not sure). I think it is clear from his statement that he believes the Church has not been as "forthright" as it could have been and that the Church sought to present an "adoring" history AS OPPOSED TO a "warts and all" history. I think he intended what he actually said, but I allow for the likelihood that "anything" was intended to make the point that the Church is willing to take responsibility, without considering whether there was a single page in a 1981 (was it?) institute manual that addressed a controversial subject (but I would wager it did so "adoringly").

DHO is willing to call a spade a spade and take some responsibility for the obvious (as one put it, he was "disarmingly candid" in that particular remark). Others are not. I understand that his disagreement with many on this board causes some cognitive dissonance and they will just have to find some way to make it all fit their paradigm. Hey, whatever gets them through the day.

You still don't get it, do you? My argument is not with Elder Oaks and what he said. I agree with him. My argument is with your rigid interpretation of what he meant when he used the word "everything," nothing more. Do you really think I'm some sort of naive babe in the woods when it comes to Church history and those warts you are so fond of?

My point is and always has been that he was being hyperbolic, that he was well aware that some of those warts have been written about in prior history--polygamy, Mountain Meadows, Kinderhook, First Vision, and the like--but he was also aware that we as a Church could do more. It is also very important to read things in context, the immediate context of the statement and the more expansive context of his other writings and the fact that is evidence that contradicts his hyperbolic use of the word "everything." Anything less is not truth seeking in my book.

The only reason I brought this up in the first place is because I think it's unfair of you to claim that you were blind sided because of some sort of Church cover-up. I wasn't, and I didn't have to read anti material to avoid being blind sided.

Oh, and thanks for using the term cognitive dissonance. Paradigm was a nice touch as well. Though I have never questioned that you were a High Priest, I have to tell you that your crediblity took a big hit when I read those terms in your post. (Just so you know, there's no cognitive dissonance involved in disagreeing with your interpretation of what Elder Oaks said.)

By the way, I'm confident that there is more than one page in the Doctrine and Covenants manual I referred to. I was only looking to see what was said on Section 132. Kind of snarky and little bit deceitful of you to act as if that "single page" was all I mentioned of the many things the Church has published on the warts of Church history prior to Elder Oaks' statement.

Finally, pray tell: How would you tell the story of Joseph's polygamy and polandry to the membes of the Church? Would it include the possibility that he had a voracious sexual appetite; that he instituted the practice to satisfy his lusts?

[gtaggart]

DHO is willing to call a spade a spade and take some responsibility for the obvious (as one put it, he was "disarmingly candid" in that particular remark). Others are not. I understand that his disagreement with many on this board causes some cognitive dissonance and they will just have to find some way to make it all fit their paradigm. Hey, whatever gets them through the day. (emphasis mine)

I just caught this. To repeat: You don't get it. Nobody on this board disagrees with Elder Oaks. They--certainly I--disagree with your interpretation of what Elder Oaks meant. Can you not understand that we are discussing differing interpretations of what he said, that your interpretation is only one of a least two, and that any disagreement is between thee and we rather than between us and Elder Oaks? To put it another way: you are not Elder Oaks. I am not Elder Oaks. Therefore, we can only talk about what we think Elder Oaks meant. We disagree with each other. Unless he's a major time waster, Elder Oaks doesn't have a clue what we're talking about.

(If you were thinking you were Elder Oaks, I'm sorry if I just created some cognitive dissonance for you. Maybe if you shift your paradigm?)

[alex71va]

Clearly, Oaks is placing a large chunk of the blame on members who failed to adequately inform themselves.

If that's the case on what Oaks was trying to say then Oaks would be wrong. Honestly its because of the church's correlation of their curriculum to be so faith-promoting that I was in the dark on so many things. During the "two best years of my life" I was purposely kept well-correlated into just using the scriptures, discussions, missionary guide, mission handbook church magazines and standard missionary library (i.e. two Talmadge books, Truth Restored by GBH, Richards' MW&W). Why? Because that's what we were counseled to do. Had I not been taught to avoid other books and to avoid getting into things deeply then I probably would've adequately informed myself. But alas I was ill-informed on the real difficult issues.

Is anyone here suggesting that Oaks is blaming the members, and not the curriculum and counsels to not study church history in-depth, for the members not being adequately informed about their church history?

[gtaggart]

Note that I simply quoted him and now you have quoted me, quoting him (to what end, I am not sure). <snip>

Just so you're clear on the bolded portion, I was quoting you "paraphrasing" him because it was representative of what you took him to mean. Here's another example,

First, I think the statement is very straight forward and cannot be "spun" as it makes a clear and conclusive statement that the Church has avoided "anything" that is "unfavorable" and has presented an "adoring" history. What more context is necessary. However, to appease your weak request, here is a little more context.

Not3 the repetition--by you--of the word "anything."

Later you wrote

I have all of the institute manuals and they also present an "adoring" history. Do you disagree? Can you point, in these manuals, to where the difficult (possibly doubt-promoting) issues are addressed? And if they are not found here, what do you think Elder Oaks was talking about in the quote?

I'm puzzled by what you mean by adoring history. And what do you mean by warts and all history? Define your terms because I'm confused by what you mean.

[juliann]

Others are not. I understand that his disagreement with many on this board causes some cognitive dissonance and they will just have to find some way to make it all fit their paradigm. Hey, whatever gets them through the day.

Having a projection problem? You do realize that your utter inability to accept any difference of opinion and then explaining it away as somebody else's "cognitive dissonance" is cognitive dissonance....right?

[mms]

Having a projection problem? You do realize that your utter inability to accept any difference of opinion and then explaining it away as somebody else's "cognitive dissonance" is cognitive dissonance....right?

No, it would not be cognitive dissonance itself, which is the conflict, but it might be viewed by you as an attempt to "reduce" my cognitive dissonance, though (I think that is what you intended, as you may simply misunderstand the term). Strikingly, you just engaged in a bit of it (attempting to reduce your own cog diss) yourself.

Edit:

[LifeOnaPlate]

Having a projection problem? You do realize that your utter inability to accept any difference of opinion and then explaining it away as somebody else's "cognitive dissonance" is cognitive dissonance....right?

Honestly, mms doesn't seem to be looking for direction, he looks to be stirring the pot. My conversation with him has been very frustrating.

[mms]

If that's the case on what Oaks was trying to say then Oaks would be wrong. Honestly its because of the church's correlation of their curriculum to be so faith-promoting that I was in the dark on so many things. During the "two best years of my life" I was purposely kept well-correlated into just using the scriptures, discussions, missionary guide, mission handbook church magazines and standard missionary library (i.e. two Talmadge books, Truth Restored by GBH, Richards' MW&W). Why? Because that's what we were counseled to do. Had I not been taught to avoid other books and to avoid getting into things deeply then I probably would've adequately informed myself. But alas I was ill-informed on the real difficult issues.

Is anyone here suggesting that Oaks is blaming the members, and not the curriculum and counsels to not study church history in-depth, for the members not being adequately informed about their church history?

They all are. It is right in front of their faces and they cannot deal with it. The point is so completely obvious that the continued ridiculous denials simply destroy the credibility of those who deny.

Edit: But to Elder Oaks' credit, he did not deny, but stated the obvious.