cinepro Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Those were only a couple of examples of what might be said, only suggestions not meant to be exhaustive. A contrary-to-fact intimation that the Church has admitted to not being led by revelation amounts to disparagement in my view. Scott, you need to understand that not every statement made by a critic of the Church necessarily represents the general feelings of all critics. A single statement made by a single critic on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially representative of the feelings of all critics. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Scott, you need to understand that not every statement made by a critic of the Church necessarily represents the general feelings of all critics. A single statement made by a single critic on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially representative of the feelings of all critics.I don't think I've ever claimed or implied that the Church's critics in toto are a monolithic structure. On the other hand, it's not all that difficult to perceive commonly recurring characteristics and kinds of argumentation.
rockpond Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 The Church, however, isn't claiming that the ban wasn't sourced in revelation. Meaning they don't know. That is a huge distinction. Yes, but the statements leave it open for one to believe either way.
rockpond Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 No it's not. It's contrary to fact, just as I said. lvjd66 is right. There is a huge distinction. If it might curb the potential whining -- or pre-emptively identify it for what it is when it does come about -- I see that as productive. One is free to believe that there was revelation or that there was not. We don't know. For some, it is actually more faith promoting to believe that the ban did not arise from revelation. So you think name-calling will curb potential criticisms? Good luck with that.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 One is free to believe that there was revelation or that there was not. We don't know.But one is not free to state or imply that the Church has admitted what it has in fact not admitted. So you think name-calling will curb potential criticisms? Good luck with that. It's not name-calling. It's social commentary. And who knows? If one is led thereby to do some introspection regarding his own attitude, all to the good.
rockpond Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 But one is not free to state or imply that the Church has admitted what it has in fact not admitted. And he didn't. He stated an opinion. And it doesn't make him an "invincible whiner". It's not name-calling. It's social commentary.Funny. And who knows? If one is led thereby to do some introspection regarding his own attitude, all to the good.As I said, good luck with that. I don't know if you consider me an "invincible whiner" but that post you wrote certainly didn't do much for me in terms of promoting an introspective POV.
canard78 Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 I took January off. It's a little depressing to come back and see the usual level of discourtesy from a few of the posters.
cinepro Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) This is interesting. On page 480 of the new manual, the following story is recounted regarding Heber C. Kimball and his call to practice plural marriage (as told by his daughter Helen): ‘In Nauvoo, shortly after his return from England, my father, among others of his brethren, was taught the plural wife doctrine. . . . “‘My father realized the situation fully, and the love and reverence he bore for the Prophet were so great that he would sooner have laid down his life than have betrayed him. This was one of the greatest tests of his faith he had ever experienced. . . . “‘My mother [Vilate Kimball] had noticed a change in his manner and appearance, and when she inquired the cause, he tried to evade her questions. At last he promised he would tell her after a while, if she would only wait. This trouble so worked upon his mind that his anxious and haggard looks betrayed him daily and hourly, and finally his misery became so unbearable that it was impossible to control his feelings. He became sick in body, but his mental wretchedness was too great to allow of his retiring, and he would walk the floor till nearly morning, and sometimes the agony of his mind was so terrible that he would wring his hands and weep like a child, and beseech the Lord to be merciful and reveal to her this principle. . . . Here's is the unedited quote from the book: "In Nauvoo, shortly after his return from England, my father, among others of his brethren, was taught the plural wife doctrine, and was told by Joseph, the Prophet, three times, to go and take a certain woman as his wife; but not till he commanded him in the name of the Lord did he obey. At the same time Joseph told him not to divulge this secret, not even to my mother, for fear that she would not receive it; for his life was in constant jeopardy, not only from outside influences and enemies, who were seeking some plea to take him back to Missouri, but from false brethren who had crept like snakes into his bosom and then betrayed him. "My father realized the situation fully, and the love and reverence he bore for the Prophet were so great that he would sooner have laid down his life than have betrayed him. This was one of the greatest tests of his faith he had ever experienced. The thought of deceiving the kind and faithful wife of his youth, whom he loved with all his heart, and who with him had borne so patiently their separations, and all the trials and sacrifices they had been called to endure, was more than he felt able to bear. "He realized not only the addition of trouble and perplexity that such a step must bring upon him, but his sorrow and misery were increased by the thought of my mother hearing of it from some other source, which would no doubt separate them, and he shrank from the thought of such a thing, or of causing her any unhappiness. Finally he was so tried that he went to Joseph and told him how he felt—that he was fearful if he took such a step he could not stand, but would be overcome. The Prophet, full of sympathy for him, went and inquired of the Lord; His answer was, 'Tell him to go and do as he has been commanded, and if I see that there is any danger of his apostatizing. I will take him to myself.' "The fact that he had to be commanded three times to do this thing shows that the trial must have been extraordinary, for he was a man who, from the first, had yielded implicit obedience to every requirement of the Prophet. "When first hearing the principle taught, believing that he would be called upon to enter into it, he had thought of two elderly ladies named Pitkin, great friends of my mother's, who, he believed, would cause her little, if any, unhappiness. But the woman he was commanded to take was an English lady named Sarah Noon, nearer my mother's age, who came over with the company of Saints in the same ship in which father and Brother Brigham returned from Europe. She had been married and was the mother of two little girls, but left her husband on account of his drunken and dissolute habits. Father was told to take her as his wife and provide for her and her children, and he did so. [A] [Footnote A: Heber was told by Joseph that if he did not do this he would lose his Apostleship and be damned.] "My mother had noticed a change in his manner and appearance, and when she inquired the cause, he tried to evade her questions. At last he promised he would tell her after a while, if she would only wait. This trouble so worked upon his mind that his anxious and haggard looks betrayed him daily and hourly, and finally his misery became so unbearable that it was impossible to control his feelings. He became sick in body, but his mental wretchedness was too great to allow of his retiring, and he would walk the floor till nearly morning, and some times the agony of his mind was so terrible that he would wring his hands and weep like a child, and beseech the Lord to be merciful and reveal to her this principle, for he himself could not break his vow of secrecy. I can understand the need to edit such stories for brevity, but has the editing introduced any material changes to the story? Has anything been left out that changes the way we might view the history of plural marriage in Nauvoo generally, and with Heber Kimball specifically? I suspect we can learn a lot about the Church's new attitude towards sharing the history with the members from what is included in these manuals, but apparently we can also learn a lot from what isn't included as well... Edited February 1, 2014 by cinepro 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) And he didn't. He stated an opinion. To be precise, he drew a false (and cynical) inference and asserted it as fact. Lack of availability of a record of revelation does not mean there was no revelation.Funny. Wasn't meant to be. I was engaging in social commentary about a perceived pattern of behavior. I "stated an opinion." Or. not being a critic of the Church, am I disallowed that privilege?As I said, good luck with that. I don't know if you consider me an "invincible whiner" but that post you wrote certainly didn't do much for me in terms of promoting an introspective POV.Maybe not, but it did bring forth considerable defensiveness. Edited February 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) This is interesting.On page 480 of the new manual, the following story is recounted regarding Heber C. Kimball and his call to practice plural marriage (as told by his daughter Helen):Here's is the unedited quote from the book:I can understand the need to edit such stories for brevity, but has the editing introduced any material changes to the story? Has anything been left out that changes the way we might view the history of plural marriage in Nauvoo generally, and with Heber Kimball specifically?I suspect we can learn a lot about the Church's new attitude towards sharing the history with the members from what is included in these manuals, but apparently we can also learn a lot from what isn't included as well...What is it were supposed to have learned about "the Church's new attitude" by what was excluded here?Can we learn something about a critic's attitude by what and how much he makes of content that is omitted in the condensing of a quote? Edited February 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
David T Posted February 2, 2014 Author Posted February 2, 2014 It should be kept in mind this is the Seminary manual. I expect any new Institute manual to allow for more detail discussion and nuance. 1
canard78 Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 What is it were supposed to have learned about "the Church's new attitude" by what was excluded here?Can we learn something about a critic's attitude by what and how much he makes of content that is omitted in the condensing of a quote? Meanwhile at MDDB: Not happy with slinging mud at rockpond, Scott decides to start labeling and name calling Cinepro.
Bikeemikey Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Meanwhile at MDDB: Not happy with slinging mud at rockpond, Scott decides to start labeling and name calling Cinepro. Par for the course.
Tacenda Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I took January off. It's a little depressing to come back and see the usual level of discourtesy from a few of the posters.I'm impressed you can take time away. I hope for the day I can leave it alone like that. I guess I'm very addicted oriented. Glad you're here for our sakes, not really for your sake.
Recommended Posts