We are a question asking people

[Arc]

The key word in Arc's rant, of course, is "seem".

However it might appear to Arc and his fellow zealots, the reality is quite different.

His use of the tired old "the thinking has been done" chestnut is ample evidence that his position is based on deliberate distortions and innuendo, rather than the actual statements of Church members and their leaders.

selek,

The "thinking has been done" quote is not a distortion or innuendo. It comes directly from The Improvement Era, an official Church magazine:

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seer, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. Lucifer...wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking"....

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan - it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. (The Improvement Era, June 1945, page 354)

This little nugget of wisdom has been quoted to me by Church leaders on more than one occasion. You can call it an old chestnut, but it appears to be a pertinent and oft-used chestnut as well.

And why did you chose to characterize my response to the question about Nietzsche as a rant? I felt that was a reasoned response based, as I have demonstrated above, on published statements of Church policy.

[Arc]

Pulling out that old canard? In the first place we are talking about questions regarding doctrine or teachings, which is quite different from "questioning" leaders. There is however a process for that and I know of Bishops or Stake Presidents and even General Authorities who have been removed when people have legitimate issues and go through proper channels.

There is a difference between questioning something and openly rebelling against the church, and as Brenda has indicated it is a matter of attitude and pride. Contrary to what the apostates like to announce, no one is excommunicated for questioning belief. It is when that person actively begins to proselyte their own belief which is contrary to the church's teachings that a problem arises. And even then the leaders will give every opportunity to step back and review what it is one is doing. And why would someone who openly opposes the church choose to remain a member in any case?

Interesting interpretation when the church is openly publishing the original historical documents without interpretation for all to review. The sources I have found for answers haven't been any interpretations but the actual scriptures or personal prayer. Yes, I've read many sources, both church related and anti, but in the end it comes down to what do the scriptures say and what answers do I get via personal revelation. And yes I do love listening to the scholars who have studied the historical context of the scriptures and can add insights to what is being said in the scriptures.

Deborah,

I guess the difference between you and me (and my wife and me) is that where you rely on subjective "personal revelation", I rely on objective, physical, reproducible, verifiable evidence, and the relative weight of such evidence, in decision-making.

A part of the process of questioning is the analysis and interpretation of the information obtained. Without "personal revelation", and in the cold light of logic and weight of evidence considerations, the final answers to many of the hard questions about Church doctrine and policy, and Church history, would be very different.

I trust we can agree on that.

[Jeff K.]

Objectivity and evidence are not very good standards since evidence is slanted and can be used by all parties involved for their own desires and purposes. Matters of policy are never resolved by "evidence", if that were true there would only be one political party in the world.

Matters of doctrine on the other hand, exist only on the basis of faith. If you do not have faith, the question of doctrine becomes moot, regardless of the decision made. The confirmation itself must exist on faith, our church in a manner is unique in that the faith is not, must not be placed simply upon the leaders whom we have pledged to support, rather that doctrine must be confirmed individually through out own discourse with the spirit, with God. It is how our church was founded, and it is the basis by which we continue to exist. Should that cease to exist, our faith in God will be replaced with our faith in a man claimed to be led by God. I think this is an important distinction.

Now in response to the "the thinking is done" statement. We can look at this forum and see that if it were not so, the thinking would never be done. How many times have we gone over the same policies again and again, for years even. When I hear "the thinking has been done" I look at the context. The context is that great thought had gone into the process, that input has been taken, that things have been studied out in the minds to a great extent. The Lord has been consulted, it has been prayed about, all seriousness and due considerations have been made. In other words, thinking has been done. To continue the debate ad infinitum is to never do anything. This forum more than anything else reflects how a paralysis of doctrine and policy can occur.

Now when we recieve the policy or if it is to be doctrine, it comes down to our thoughtful consideration and indeed prayer for confirmation that thes choice is right. It does not mean cease all thought processes and proceed with policy.

For those who hate the idea of a Mormon church, the question of "the thinking is done" would be considered low hanging fruit that is used as a club against the idea of agency. In regards to doctrine, that doctrine is of the Lord and yes, if the confirmation from the Lord regarding doctrine is placed before the membership, the thinking indeed has been done, the Lord has spoken, and it is our duty to accept or reject as the spirit and the agency dictate. However the rejection of doctrine is one that should be carefully contemplated before doing so.

At least in my view.

[Deborah]

This little nugget of wisdom has been quoted to me by Church leaders on more than one occasion. You can call it an old chestnut, but it appears to be a pertinent and oft-used chestnut as well.

As Jeff K points out you misunderstand the context of the "thinking has been done." That doesn't mean we automatically accept but rather we study it out in our minds and pray about it to get our own confirmation. When the thinking has been done it means that each member of the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 has carefully discussed and reviewed the doctrine or policy put forth. If there is anyone who feels uncomfortable the item is tabled until more review and discussion is done. No negative feelings are ignored. When a policy/doctrine is presented to the church it is only after each individual member of the Quorum has received confirmation and all are unanimous. Any dissenting vote and the matter is held for future discussion. So when we receive such counsel we can be assured that it has been thoroughly reviewed and prayed about and the thinking has been done on the part of those presenting it. To openly oppose such counsel in that case is to risk apostasy. That doesn't mean one can't privately disagree but it would be wise to study the issue and pray about it and see if indeed the wisdom is not sound.

[Arc]

As Jeff K points out you misunderstand the context of the "thinking has been done." That doesn't mean we automatically accept but rather we study it out in our minds and pray about it to get our own confirmation. When the thinking has been done it means that each member of the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 has carefully discussed and reviewed the doctrine or policy put forth. If there is anyone who feels uncomfortable the item is tabled until more review and discussion is done. No negative feelings are ignored. When a policy/doctrine is presented to the church it is only after each individual member of the Quorum has received confirmation and all are unanimous. Any dissenting vote and the matter is held for future discussion. So when we receive such counsel we can be assured that it has been thoroughly reviewed and prayed about and the thinking has been done on the part of those presenting it. To openly oppose such counsel in that case is to risk apostasy. That doesn't mean one can't privately disagree but it would be wise to study the issue and pray about it and see if indeed the wisdom is not sound.

Deborah,

This is pretty much what I was taught in Church as well. So we agree on what the Church says.

Would it be your belief that this procedure was used to approve the inconvenient pronouncements and policy actions of Boyd K. Packer over the years?

[jwhitlock]

This is pretty much what I was taught in Church as well. So we agree on what the Church says.

Actually, it doesn't appear that you agree at all. The Improvement Era quote has long been discredited as the writing of an overzealous staff member - and is not an official Church "policy".

Would it be your belief that this procedure was used to approve the inconvenient pronouncements and policy actions of Boyd K. Packer over the years?

"Inconvenient" is a purely subjective term here. Are you interested in discussing things in an honest manner, or are you just going to engage in drive-by sniping like this?

[Jeff K.]

Deborah,

This is pretty much what I was taught in Church as well. So we agree on what the Church says.

Would it be your belief that this procedure was used to approve the inconvenient pronouncements and policy actions of Boyd K. Packer over the years?

No

[Deborah]

Would it be your belief that this procedure was used to approve the inconvenient pronouncements and policy actions of Boyd K. Packer over the years?

What "inconvenient" pronouncements and policy actions are you referring to?

[Arc]

Actually, it doesn't appear that you agree at all. The Improvement Era quote has long been discredited as the writing of an overzealous staff member - and is not an official Church "policy".

"Inconvenient" is a purely subjective term here. Are you interested in discussing things in an honest manner, or are you just going to engage in drive-by sniping like this?

According to your stated view on the subject Improvement Era quotation, perhaps "unfortunate" would be a more appropriate term than "inconvenient". Whatever you wish to call it, and no matter how discredited you say the statement is, if you were my age you would have heard it numerous times from the pulpit and in meetings. Can't speak for others, but I know the effect that hearing it had on me.

If you don't mind, I would rather not respond to this further since it appears that you did not read the post on which you are commenting and have instead accused me of being a "drive-by sniper" even though I have four posts on this thread.

[Jeff K.]

I have read the posts, but you seem to be ignoring the context. Why would you do that?

[Arc]

What "inconvenient" pronouncements and policy actions are you referring to?

Deborah,

Since I have been accused of drive-by sniping, I should probably not continue with specifics. Certainly you realize that BKP is considered a controversial figure because of a number of statements he has made and materials that he has written for use by the Church.

Jeff K. has answered my question in the negative. That's good enough for me.

[Brenda]

Certainly you realize that BKP is considered a controversial figure because of a number of statements he has made and materials that he has written for use by the Church.

What?!

[Jeff K.]

I don't see Packer as being controversial. He is adamant from his standpoint, but that by its nature is not controversial. Of course if you disagree with an opinion you can of course call it controversial, but that seems to be more of a maneuver to demean rather than discuss.

[Brenda]

I don't see Packer as being controversial. He is adamant from his standpoint, but that by its nature is not controversial. Of course if you disagree with an opinion you can of course call it controversial, but that seems to be more of a maneuver to demean rather than discuss.

I like his direct and blunt manner.

[Deborah]

Certainly you realize that BKP is considered a controversial figure because of a number of statements he has made and materials that he has written for use by the Church.

I realize that when I was a youth he was our favorite speaker, probably because he didn't beat around the bush. It is only the critics who take his statements out of context and then make something out of them that was never intended. I still love his talks and I find it amusing that those who are not longer in the church find him offensive.

[jwhitlock]

According to your stated view on the subject Improvement Era quotation, perhaps "unfortunate" would be a more appropriate term than "inconvenient". Whatever you wish to call it, and no matter how discredited you say the statement is, if you were my age you would have heard it numerous times from the pulpit and in meetings. Can't speak for others, but I know the effect that hearing it had on me.

It is likely that I have at least as much, if not more, experience than you do. The statement has been discredited; you might take a look at FAIR on it, if you really want to understand, rather than holding on to it as some kind of evidence for your rationalizations.

If you don't mind, I would rather not respond to this further since it appears that you did not read the post on which you are commenting and have instead accused me of being a "drive-by sniper" even though I have four posts on this thread.

The tone of your posts - complete with little shots, and loaded phrases - marks you as such. Are you really interested in discussing the issue, or do you just want a stage to make throw-away statements on?

By the way, "unfortunate" is still an inaccurate description.

[Deborah]

The statement has been discredited;

Many of us have said things that we later regret or perhaps didn't quite come out the way we wanted. I think faithful members of the church will give a little more leeway because perhaps they understand what was meant if not said clearly. I just know that as long as I've been a member of the church I've never been discouraged from asking questions or seeking answers.

Also I think there is a big difference between policy/doctrine from the First Presidency and articles in church magazines, even when sometimes written by GA's.

[ERMD]

Truth can be verified by a three-part test:

What do the scriptures say about it?

What do modern-day (particularly the present) prophet(s) say about it?

What does the Holy Spirit confirm in one's heart and mind?

When those three are in agreement, there is no possibility for error.

Those who reject any of these will be left to their own strength and devices.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Truth can be verified by a three-part test:

What do the scriptures say about it?

What do modern-day (particularly the present) prophet(s) say about it?

What does the Holy Spirit confirm in one's heart and mind?

When those three are in agreement, there is no possibility for error.

For good measure, I would add a final step:

What fruit does it produce when I pursue it?

[Arc]

Truth can be verified by a three-part test:

What do the scriptures say about it?

What do modern-day (particularly the present) prophet(s) say about it?

What does the Holy Spirit confirm in one's heart and mind?

When those three are in agreement, there is no possibility for error.

Those who reject any of these will be left to their own strength and devices.

What happpened to consideration of physical data or facts in evidence?

Why is consideration of the facts absent from your process for determining the validity of truth claims?

If indeed you are an ERMD (and I would guess that you are), and make decisions as you describe in your post, I hope that I never have the ocassion to meet you in a professional setting.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What happpened to consideration of physical data or facts in evidence?

Why is consideration of the facts absent from your process for determining the validicty of truth claims?

If indeed you are an ERMD and make decisions as you describe, I hope that I never have the ocassion to meet you in a professional setting.

And just what are the "facts"? Abiogenesis? The Big Bang?

[jwhitlock]

Many of us have said things that we later regret or perhaps didn't quite come out the way we wanted. I think faithful members of the church will give a little more leeway because perhaps they understand what was meant if not said clearly. I just know that as long as I've been a member of the church I've never been discouraged from asking questions or seeking answers.

Also I think there is a big difference between policy/doctrine from the First Presidency and articles in church magazines, even when sometimes written by GA's.

There's a principle at work that I think the leaders of the Church understand. It is the tendency of members to read more into their pronouncements than was intended, and to take, perhaps, a more hard-line stance than the leaders intended. I've seen it happen from time to time, when someone makes a claim that a certain process, procedure, or way of doing things is "Church policy", when there is no clear statement supporting what they're saying.

Our enemies understand that, and take great delight in misrepresenting the effect of what our leaders say because of this.

[jwhitlock]

If indeed you are an ERMD and make decisions as you describe, I hope that I never have the ocassion to meet you in a professional setting.

Still making drive-by throw-away statements?

Did you ever take the time to go over to FAIR and read what the real explanation is about your 1945 IE quote, or are you just not interested in facts (that you seem to place so much emphasis on) in your rationalizations?

[Arc]

And just what are the "facts"? Abiogenesis? The Big Bang?

Not necessarily. Any set of pertinent facts would serve to illustrate the point.

For example:

Arc is rushed from the scene of a near fatal car accident to the ER by ambulance. He is in bad shape.

ERMD is assigned to Arc's case.

EMT personnel provide ERMD with Arc's vital signs data and a brief medical history gathered from Arc on the ride to the hospital.

In order to determine the "truth" regarding Arc's condition, ERMD sets the available physical data aside and resorts to the process described in his post.

[Deborah]

In order to determine the "truth" regarding Arc's condition, ERMD sets the available physical data aside and resorts to the process described in his post.

I'm not a doctor, but I have handled medical claims for many years and am familiar with medical reports. Even with all the physical data sometimes "truth" is still a guess. Symptoms can be a result of multiple conditions and sometimes it's still a matter of intuition as to what might be the problem. Sometimes at best one can treat the symptoms but still may not have determined the cause (or gotten to the truth). I think the best doctors combine a knowledge of the science with an intuitive sense.