Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[Yep]

I have seen a number of apologists deride various past Church authorities' works when someone uses them as a support for some position or other. I do not always understand where this comes from. I am starting this thread to discuss this. John A. Widtsoe and B.H. Roberts are two. I have also seen statements by Talmage as held in contempt as well. Not to mention the huge amount of this occuring with BY. I am wanting to understand this better.

If there is a particular authority you view in this manner, or know of one that others view in this manner, I am interested in the reasoning behind such a view. The same goes for an authority's specific work if it is only a specific work that is critiqued in this manner.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Yep

[ERayR]

I have seen a number of apologists deride various past Church authorities' works when someone uses them as a support for some position or other. I do not always understand where this comes from. I am starting this thread to discuss this. John A. Widtsoe and B.H. Roberts are two. I have also seen statements by Talmage as held in contempt as well. Not to mention the huge amount of this occuring with BY. I am wanting to understand this better.

If there is a particular authority you view in this manner, or know of one that others view in this manner, I am interested in the reasoning behind such a view. The same goes for an authority's specific work if it is only a specific work that is critiqued in this manner.

While I think that some in responsible positions in the Church say things that I do not agree with I don't agree with this practice. In fact I find it offensive and a bit arrogant.

[Yep]

While I think that some in responsible positions in the Church say things that I do not agree with I don't agree with this practice. In fact I find it offensive and a bit arrogant.

I agree, but such still occurs. I am hoping for some form of support for the positions though. If the critique holds validity it would be nice to understand. Especially if the critique's validity is based in statements by more recent authorities.

[DBMormon]

Not exactly sure what your asking but I will take a stab at it. My false paradigm of what the church is and what it isn't was in part set up by General Authroities who shared their opinion as if they were absolutely certain it was Doctrine. Since they were sure and they were prophets and apostles I also believed said statements and invested (wrongly I admit) my testimony in them. Then one day I Saw through the glass "less" darkly and it was a different picture and my world collapsed. So I have empathy for those who are frustrated with this experience and take out that frustration (wrongly I admit when done in a mean spirited way) on the leaders who stated opinion as doctrine.

[ALarson]

I have seen a number of apologists deride various past Church authorities' works when someone uses them as a support for some position or other.

I've seen this too and I don't agree with this type of tactic. One should be able to disagree without deriding someone's opinion or conclusions. This has always bothered me as well. I'm not sure it will ever stop though as years pass, new information comes out or times change and things progress making some things written years and years ago somewhat obsolete (if you know what I mean). You make a good point, Yep and I wish that practice would end.

[Yep]

Not exactly sure what your asking but I will take a stab at it. My false paradigm of what the church is and what it isn't was in part set up by General Authroities who shared their opinion as if they were absolutely certain it was Doctrine. Since they were sure and they were prophets and apostles I also believed said statements and invested (wrongly I admit) my testimony in them. Then one day I Saw through the glass "less" darkly and it was a different picture and my world collapsed. So I have empathy for those who are frustrated with this experience and take out that frustration (wrongly I admit when done in a mean spirited way) on the leaders who stated opinion as doctrine.

I would be looking for is the bolded portion above with the explanation of subjective personal experience as well as specific examples with support. In your response a citation with the support for it being just opinion would be helpful. Thus allowing me, and hopefully others, to come to our own conclusion as to agreement or not. As well as providing specific authorities or pieces that can be assessed.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Yep

[Yep]

I've seen this too and I don't agree with this type of tactic. One should be able to disagree without deriding someone's opinion or conclusions. This has always bothered me as well. I'm not sure it will ever stop though as years pass, new information comes out or times change and things progress making some things written years and years ago somewhat obsolete (if you know what I mean). You make a good point, Yep and I wish that practice would end.

Yes, my largest issue is often that the critiqued authority, usually with regards to apostles or prophets, had, or should have had, more "light and knowledge" than I, and most often the critic, have wherewith to inform their opinions, speculations and conclusions. At least that is my opinion.

[T-Shirt]

I have seen a number of apologists deride various past Church authorities' works

Can you provide some examples of this derision? I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

[BCSpace]

If there is a particular authority you view in this manner, or know of one that others view in this manner, I am interested in the reasoning behind such a view. The same goes for an authority's specific work if it is only a specific work that is critiqued in this manner.

The authority I would use is official doctrine, that is, publication by the Church. Relative to how the Church operates and "thinks" or in typical apologetics, if the words didn't get published specifically by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Corporation thereof, they have no value in that context.

[Ahab]

I agree, but such still occurs. I am hoping for some form of support for the positions though. If the critique holds validity it would be nice to understand. Especially if the critique's validity is based in statements by more recent authorities.

There are lots of people who don't agree with what our Presidents of the Church have said from the get go, and then there are those who accept what they say for a little while and then at some point they don't believe them anymore. That happens with people both in and out of the Church. Some just don't have a testimony from God to assure them that what a prophet of God has said is the truth. People could believe what they said anyway, though. Sometimes people just choose to believe for a little while and then at some point they just change their mind and no longer believe anymore. That's why a testimony from God is so crucial, and why I choose to get that before I start believing something. Why just go along with the crowd and believe because we think we're supposed to? When we believe something it should be because God has told us that something is true, and then with that we should just go on believing. It's not as if God is ever going to change his mind about something, in the proper context, so when he assures us that something is true we can go on believing that forever, in the proper context.

Anyway, that's what you're seeing when you see people who don't believe or who no longer believe what a prophet of God has said. When a man speaks as a prophet of God he is always speaking for God, so what he says (or means) is always the truth, in the proper context, and when people don't agree or believe they're just showing that they don't have an assurance from God to help them know that.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Ahab

[Yep]

Can you provide some examples of this derision? I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

I cannot provide an exact quote or citation. I remember a few years back someone using a quote from John A. Widtsoe's Evidences and Reconciliations and having a response being completely disregarded because it was Widtsoe and because it was from that specific text. I have seen this occur a number of times since with Widtsoe and various works of his. I never received an adequate explanation for the disregard, which to me appears to be derision oftentimes, of Widtsoe or his work. Commentary on much of BY's work suffers frequent disregard as well through statement that BY was just stating his opinion, speculation etc. in an improper forum for such. It comes across to me as a picking and choosing as to what was stated as doctrine and what was not. Where is the line? To educate myself I am asking for the explanation.

The terms "deride" and "contempt" were perhaps too strong in the OP. I did not use these words as strongly negative as they can come across, and would have chose others, but I could not think of better descriptives.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Yep

[Ahab]

The authority I would use is official doctrine, that is, publication by the Church. Relative to how the Church operates and "thinks" or in typical apologetics, if the words didn't get published specifically by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Corporation thereof, they have no value in that context.

You shouldn't be waiting until something becomes "official doctrine" before you find out if it's true through the power of the Holy Spirit. It's not the fact that something is "official doctrine" that makes it true. If God says something, either personally or through one of his prophets, then it's true. Period. Regardless of who doesn't believe it. And you can find out what is true through the power of the Holy Spirit, who is a person who is God, which is what you were told to receive when you first became a member of the Church.

[pogi]

The authority I would use is official doctrine, that is, publication by the Church. Relative to how the Church operates and "thinks" or in typical apologetics, if the words didn't get published specifically by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Corporation thereof, they have no value in that context.

Now you are opening a whole new can of worms of what official doctrine really is. I would suggest that "published" does not equal "prophetic", or "official doctrine."

I found this link very helpful in understanding official doctrine: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/priesthood/prophets/doctrine.html

The trick is to be able to disagree with Church authorities without being disagreeable.

[Ahab]

Now you are opening a whole new can of worms of what official doctrine really is. I would suggest that "published" does not equal "prophetic", or "official doctrine."

I found this link very helpful in understanding official doctrine: http://www.lightplan...s/doctrine.html

The trick is to be able to disagree with Church authorities without being disagreeable.

An even bigger trick is to know when you shouldn't be disagreeing with Church authorities. And it also helps to know why.

[Calm]

The terms "deride" and "contempt" were perhaps too strong in the OP. I did not use these words as strongly negative as they can come across, and would have chose others, but I could not think of better descriptives.

It is possible that there are those would do attempt to defend the Church in their own way who do deride leaders' words, but I have not heard or seen of such from those we usually think of as "apologists" (those connected with the Maxwell Institute, Interpreter, FAIR or who have published scholarly work in these areas).

Disagreement does not equate to derision. I would be careful with how you present such a claim to avoid tarnishing the image of those not deserving of such criticism.

Edited March 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[ALarson]

An even bigger trick is to know when you shouldn't be disagreeing with Church authorities. And it also helps to know why.

This. I completely agree.

[cinepro]

Can you provide some examples of this derision? I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

Here's one:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Doesn't get much worse than that.

[Yep]

It is possible that there are those would do attempt to defend the Church in their own way who do deride leaders' words, but I have not heard or seen of such from those we usually think of as "apologists" (those connected with the Maxwell Institute, Interpreter, FAIR or who have published scholarly work in these areas).

Disagreement does not equate to derision. I would be careful with how you present such a claim to avoid tarnishing the image of those not deserving of such criticism.

True. In this thread I have used the term apologist loosely and in reference to the body of people who make the attempt at defense, not solely to those who are "professional" apologists. However, even among those that are a part of the organizations you mention I have seen, imo, borders on derision. A scholar's derision is much more subtle, and there are instances where comments made by an "official" apologist border on such.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Yep

[cinepro]

If there is a particular authority you view in this manner, or know of one that others view in this manner, I am interested in the reasoning behind such a view.

The reasoning is that the former Church leader was wrong.

Which, as far as I can tell, is a pretty good reason for disagreeing with someone.

For examples, here are some things Elder McConkie wrote in "Mormon Doctrine" that lots of LDS disagree with:

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=168

[thesometimesaint]

I've seen this too and I don't agree with this type of tactic. One should be able to disagree without deriding someone's opinion or conclusions. This has always bothered me as well. I'm not sure it will ever stop though as years pass, new information comes out or times change and things progress making some things written years and years ago somewhat obsolete (if you know what I mean). You make a good point, Yep and I wish that practice would end.

It is always fair to address any persons opinions or conclusions. It is not fair to address the person themselves IE; An Ad Hominem argument

[T-Shirt]

Here's one:

Doesn't get much worse than that.

Where is the derision and contempt in that?

[Yep]

The reasoning is that the former Church leader was wrong.

Which, as far as I can tell, is a pretty good reason for disagreeing with someone.

For examples, here are some things Elder McConkie wrote in "Mormon Doctrine" that lots of LDS disagree with:

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=168

Understandable. In the comments is the following statement:

"The Tribune contained an article a few years ago, where Pres. David O McKays secretary (Clare Middlemiss) stated that Bruce R was asked to not publish Mormon Doctrine due to over 1,000 errors (or questionable facts) by Pres. McKay directly." ~ gpen51

Is there a reference for this that you are aware of? This would meet the requirement of being contradicted by a higher authority and thus lend more validity to a rejection.

I am looking for more than just a statement of disagreement, but also sourcing for a disagreement with the authority. The quote from gpen51 is something that would support more strongly imo than "The reasoning is that the former Church leader was wrong" and "lots of LDS disagree with."

[Yep]

Where is the derision and contempt in that?

Honestly, I feel that at times this statement, while not such in itself, is used as support for derision and contempt by others when a source is referenced. Rather than explaining why a statement was personal opinion, the explanation is just that it was just an opinion. It leads many to an attitude that comes across as disregard without cause.

[cinepro]

Understandable. In the comments is the following statement:

"The Tribune contained an article a few years ago, where Pres. David O McKays secretary (Clare Middlemiss) stated that Bruce R was asked to not publish Mormon Doctrine due to over 1,000 errors (or questionable facts) by Pres. McKay directly." ~ gpen51

Is there a reference for this that you are aware of? This would meet the requirement of being contradicted by a higher authority and thus lend more validity to a rejection.

I am looking for more than just a statement of disagreement, but also sourcing for a disagreement with the authority. The quote from gpen51 is something that would support more strongly imo than "The reasoning is that the former Church leader was wrong" and "lots of LDS disagree with."

I don't have my copy handy, but I'm pretty sure it's in this book:

David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism

[Ahab]

The reasoning is that the former Church leader was wrong.

... more like believed to be wrong. Each person subjectively chooses whether or not to agree with what they have said, and it's at least possible for people to think they were wrong when they were right.

Which, as far as I can tell, is a pretty good reason for disagreeing with someone.

Because you think they're wrong? While that may seem like a good reason, it could be that your thinking needs to be adjusted.

For examples, here are some things Elder McConkie wrote in "Mormon Doctrine" that lots of LDS disagree with:

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=168

Blah blah blah. What "lots of LDS disagree with" doesn't mean what they disagree with is wrong. It just means they think it's wrong.

Not all LDS are as enlightened as those with the keys of the kingdom, don't cha know.