Conflict in the Quorum of 12

[David T]

David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism shows, in detail, some pretty vivid examples of heated conflict in the quorum - much of which did involve, at some level, a statement being issued without others knowing about it. It's a fantastic book, which also, interestingly enough, helped strengthen my appreciation for David O. McKay, his character, and his prophetic calling. Sort of like Rough Stone Rolling did for Joseph.

[Honorentheos]

Good find and great read- and it just shows what I said earlier- these are very human men who disagree from time to time and speak their minds on issues, but are ultimately guided by revelation.

My personal favorite in WW's journal that I've read so far is when BY asks WW Phelps what he thinks of astrology. When WW Phelps says he doesn't know what to think, BY laughs and asks WW to make sure that gets written down, as it was the first time that BY claims to have heard WW Phelps admit to not knowing something. ...and then goes on to say he (BY) believes in it.

They are men, in very deed.

On a personal note, I often hear from you and others that my beliefs are not doctrinal-- of course I disagree with that, but if anyone in authority ever told me that, I would do as Orson Pratt did in this account and correct my views post haste.

While I have read this directed at you often, I believe my stated feelings are not that what you believe is non-doctrinal. Instead, your views as stated are frequently internally inconsistent. The entire pragmatism vs. certitude about post-mortal conditions being one aspect of this.

[mfbukowski]

The entire pragmatism vs. certitude about post-mortal conditions being one aspect of this.

What do you mean by "certitude about post-mortal conditions"?

Where is the inconsistency? To be perfectly honest, I don't think you fully understand pragmatism. There is no problem with certain things "working" universally.

Gravity works, and it is pretty consistent. I have been trying to levitate myself for years to no avail. Pragmatism is by no means necessarily a relativistic position.

[Honorentheos]

What do you mean by "certitude about post-mortal conditions"?

Where is the inconsistency? To be perfectly honest, I don't think you fully understand pragmatism. There is no problem with certain things "working" universally.

Gravity works, and it is pretty consistent. I have been trying to levitate myself for years to no avail. Pragmatism is by no means necessarily a relativistic position.

I need to examine why these derails are so tempting to me. Past experience has taught me it will go nowhere, yet I want to respond so badly.

Whatever. To be fair to you, MFB, I accept that we all have inconsistent views and I feel you are sincere in your view above and are not just playing games.

BUT - I can't resist suggesting one ponder on the description by Shakespeare of death as "the undiscovered country from who's bourn no traveler returns" contrasted with your use of "universal" above. Certainly, we will all universally die, regardless of the utility of our world view. Outside of that, you're measuring the distance between stars using a plastic grade school ruler held up to the sky.

[Acris Venator]

David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism shows, in detail, some pretty vivid examples of heated conflict in the quorum - much of which did involve, at some level, a statement being issued without others knowing about it. It's a fantastic book, which also, interestingly enough, helped strengthen my appreciation for David O. McKay, his character, and his prophetic calling. Sort of like Rough Stone Rolling did for Joseph.

Must agree on the quality of this book. Very interesting stuff on McKay, and that particular time period of the church. The chapter on the priesthood ban is amazing. To learn that there were 7000 Nigerians who had basically converted to mormonism on their own without proselyting, and to read about the church's position and reaction to these conversions was astounding. My respect for McKay was non-existent before reading this book because he died before I was born. But to see him in such human terms really gave me an appreciation for his contributions to our current stature as a legitimate worldwide organization. He was very much like Hinkley in his efforts to reach out to the world and give them more refreshing expectations of our culture.

The Mormon Hierarchy: Extentions of Power by D. Michael Quinn is also interesting with regards to the clashes of recent leadership. His conclusions are questionable (hence his excommunication), but the chapter on Ezra Taft Benson and his use of general conference to forward his red scare politics alone is worth the admission price.

None of these skeletons in the closet have shaken my faith. The Lord does a miraculous job with the imperfect men that are at his disposal. He hones these fallible men into witnesses of Christ despite their weaknesses, prejudices, agendas and sometimes extreme political leanings... and he is able to do so because of their great faith.

I think the most important thing to learn from this stuff is that the GAs, even after they are called, are still on a journey to discover what it means to truly be disciples of Christ. They are still learning. Just like the rest of us. It was never intended that they be perfect men.

[russianwolfe]

I understand the prerequisites to receive revelation. My comment was assuming that the required work you described had already been done. I think by definition, if they all received revelation then there could be no disagreement.

I think that before there could be revelation that would establish new doctrine or something just as important, they would have to come to an agreement and then they could receive revelation as a quorum.

Marvin

[russianwolfe]

What I see conflicting in this is that not all members, from many whom I have spoken with, have not always received a confirmation on things said by the General Authorities. This should not automatically mean that they are not in the right place spiritually. Perhaps the Lord chooses not to confirm for all church members the 'rightness' or 'truthfulness' of what an authority states.

There is one aspect to this that you have not mentioned in your post. That is, God is willing to reveal, but we are not always willing to see. Many members of the church are not willing to go to God in prayer to receive a confirmation of what the authorities have said. It is not God who choses not to confirm, it is the member who is not willing to receive that confirmation.

Marvin

[mfbukowski]

BUT - I can't resist suggesting one ponder on the description by Shakespeare of death as "the undiscovered country from who's bourn no traveler returns" contrasted with your use of "universal" above. Certainly, we will all universally die, regardless of the utility of our world view. Outside of that, you're measuring the distance between stars using a plastic grade school ruler held up to the sky.

You do not understand pragmatism at all. You really don't. You are stuck in Cartesian dualism.

That's ok, we can be friends- but someday it would be nice to be able to actually talk to you about something other than making stupid accusations.

I have no certitude whatsoever in a scientific sense regarding post-mortal events. That is for what we call "faith". But I do have absolute certitude about my experiences. And millions of others verify my "observations"

The question is- does your faith work better than mine, for each of us, or mine better than yours? You have faith in dualism, I have faith in religious experience. Which is better?

Neither and both. But we cannot prove each other wrong until after we die.

[mfbukowski]

There is one aspect to this that you have not mentioned in your post. That is, God is willing to reveal, but we are not always willing to see. Many members of the church are not willing to go to God in prayer to receive a confirmation of what the authorities have said. It is not God who choses not to confirm, it is the member who is not willing to receive that confirmation.

Marvin

Amen Brother!

I just said that above in a different way

[mfbukowski]

Honorentheos

Let me just ask one question:

How do you know about anything outside of what you and all humans have experienced?

What if I was to tell you that the pool of human experience was all that one could say (NOTE THE WORD "SAY") "exists?"

Why do you persist in thinking there are, and we can speak of "things" which no human has ever experienced?

And what would you say to all the philosophers who would disagree with you?

[Honorentheos]

You do not understand pragmatism at all. You really don't. You are stuck in Cartesian dualism.

Odd. I don't believe I have made a statement that strongly demonstrates a dualistic view.

Regardless, whether you feel that I do or not really doesn't matter. We've been down this rabbit hole too many times for me to care to recall. I could script this one out if we chose to further derail this thread in a meaningless personal exchange that no one else wants to read. It will go something like this -

We'll go back and forth on the details of what you stated above because, ultimately, we agree on your statements in theory. In practice, however, we have differing views in what it actually means and how far it is fair to extend this. We'll argue about these details, with you making similar statements of frustration about me "not getting it" while I make equally frustrated comments about you over-extending your arguments to realms where they do not belong. After some sparing on this, somehow or other the notion of individual identity will come up; you'll accuse me of solipsism; and then, in a last ditch effort to make a point in the discussion that has gone way off track I'll focus a last-ditch post on the bigger picture without the details of practice as either of us choose to apply them. You'll express frustration that after "post after post of not getting it" I suddenly post something that is right on. The thread, now long scorched and salted earth, will die from mutual boredom/fatigue.

Your family can thank me later for the time this just saved us. The dualism comment was a nice curveball, though, as I really feel like arguing it with you. But really, all it will do is annoy everyone else on the board and create some public ill will. If you are seriously interested in discussing it, you can PM me and I'll consider it.

But we cannot prove each other wrong until after we die.

Using philosophy to discuss what is wrong in this statement is why we fundamentally never get anywhere.

[mfbukowski]

Odd. I don't believe I have made a statement that strongly demonstrates a dualistic view.

Regardless, whether you feel that I do or not really doesn't matter. We've been down this rabbit hole too many times for me to care to recall. I could script this one out if we chose to further derail this thread in a meaningless personal exchange that no one else wants to read. It will go something like this -

We'll go back and forth on the details of what you stated above because, ultimately, we agree on your statements in theory. In practice, however, we have differing views in what it actually means and how far it is fair to extend this. We'll argue about these details, with you making similar statements of frustration about me "not getting it" while I make equally frustrated comments about you over-extending your arguments to realms where they do not belong. After some sparing on this, somehow or other the notion of individual identity will come up; you'll accuse me of solipsism; and then, in a last ditch effort to make a point in the discussion that has gone way off track I'll focus a last-ditch post on the bigger picture without the details of practice as either of us choose to apply them. You'll express frustration that after "post after post of not getting it" I suddenly post something that is right on. The thread, now long scorched and salted earth, will die from mutual boredom/fatigue.

Your family can thank me later for the time this just saved us. The dualism comment was a nice curveball, though, as I really feel like arguing it with you. But really, all it will do is annoy everyone else on the board and create some public ill will. If you are seriously interested in discussing it, you can PM me and I'll consider it.

Using philosophy to discuss what is wrong in this statement is why we fundamentally never get anywhere.

Maybe I will let someone else take up the banner.

Just make your responses to the same arguments offered on Pragmatism on this thread:

[mfbukowski]

Honorentheos

Let me just ask one question:

How do you know about anything outside of what you and all humans have experienced?

What if I was to tell you that the pool of human experience was all that one could say (NOTE THE WORD "SAY") "exists?"

Why do you persist in thinking there are, and we can speak of "things" which no human has ever experienced?

And what would you say to all the philosophers who would disagree with you?

Answer this, and it will expose your dualism.

Nothing can be said to exist outside of the pool of all of what humans have experienced. You feel there is a world "out there" to which propositions "correspond"

Your correspondence theory of truth is what shows your dualism.

What "actually happens" after death is unknowable objectively (same observation by multiple people under experimental conditions at the same time) because it is beyond objective observation. Subjective experience cannot tell us anything objective unless it is verified by another person- yet we can "know" we have had subjective experiences, which knowledge can give us adequate certainty regarding what we believe- subjectively. Subjective experience can verify subjective truth- beliefs internal states etc.

One last try. Perhaps that will ring a bell. It is frustrating that you cannot tell me what is in your opinion, wrong with my opinions, but I suppose I will just have to let go of that. I really don't know why I care.

I think it is because on of my goals is to be able to explain this to everyone- and it seems you are the only one who does not understand what I am saying. Or at least has the gumption to stand up and say so.

In practice, however, we have differing views in what it actually means and how far it is fair to extend this. We'll argue about these details, with you making similar statements of frustration about me "not getting it" while I make equally frustrated comments about you over-extending your arguments to realms where they do not belong.

This is the heart of the issue and I don't have a clue what you are talking about. To which "realms" does pragmatism

"not belong"?