Fair And "the Thinking Has Been Done"

[thatjimguy]

Hey all. Earlier, Calimorah sent a link from FAIR about another subject. But yet, the FAIR response perplexes me.

 

What gets me is that although it looks like blame is given to the shortened quote from the actual talk. Howeevr, it does not look like the quote is warped to say anything different than what the actual talk states. It sounds like the same thing anyway.

 

So what am I missing? Was the quote wrong in some way that I have missed, or is Pres. Benson (at the time Elder Benson) wrong here?

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_leadership/The_thinking_has_been_done

 

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hey all. Earlier, Calimorah sent a link from FAIR about another subject. But yet, the FAIR response perplexes me.

 

What gets me is that although it looks like blame is given to the shortened quote from the actual talk. Howeevr, it does not look like the quote is warped to say anything different than what the actual talk states. It sounds like the same thing anyway.

 

So what am I missing? Was the quote wrong in some way that I have missed, or is Pres. Benson (at the time Elder Benson) wrong here?

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_leadership/The_thinking_has_been_done

God may forgive us for being obedient to the counsel of Church leadership, but he will not forgive us for not asking for direction from him.

[theplains]

Was the quote wrong in some way that I have missed, or is Pres. Benson (at the time Elder Benson) wrong here?

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_leadership/The_thinking_has_been_done

 

I don't think the quote is wrong, but I would summarize it this way ... If what the LDS prophets/high

ranking officials say is true, you will get a testimony of its truth, believe it, and follow them.  But if 

what they say is false, you will get a testimony of its error and you will reject it.  Unless of course

the Holy Ghost leaves you in the dark and you don't get a testimony either way.  It's similar to what

Mr. Boyd Packer said (see my signature).

 

Thanks,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

I don't think the quote is wrong, but I would summarize it this way ... If what the LDS prophets/high

ranking officials say is true, you will get a testimony of its truth, believe it, and follow them.  But if 

what they say is false, you will get a testimony of its error and you will reject it.  Unless of course

the Holy Ghost leaves you in the dark and you don't get a testimony either way.  It's similar to what

Mr. Boyd Packer said (see my signature).

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

I think the quote is quite wrong (based on the way the church backpedaled a bit so did Pres Smith).  And here is one of the most wrong parts:

 

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the Lord's anointed and retain the Holy Spirit in his heart.

 

Equating disagreeing with the GA's with speaking evil is simply wrong.  Disagreeing with them is not apostasy.  It is calling them out of order, loss of office, insulting, demeaning the office and similar things that are apostasy.  For example, it is not apostasy when someone disagrees with Brigham Young on Adam-God.  It is apostasy to question his position and authority.  It is evil speaking to say Brigham Young is an arrogant old fool who didn't know what he was talking about.  But disagreeing with his doctrine doesn't mean apostasy.

 

The issue for me is not that the church doesn't want us to think for ourselves - we have always been told to think for ourselves.  The issue for me is that if we reach a different conclusion or testimony AND dare to speak it publicly we risk being called apostate.  That is wrong.

Joseph Smith taught that:

 

“I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled."

 

I fear that we have no right to expess our opinions if they go against current Church teachings/creeds.

[Calm]

Hey all. Earlier, Calimorah sent a link from FAIR about another subject. But yet, the FAIR response perplexes me.

 

What gets me is that although it looks like blame is given to the shortened quote from the actual talk. Howeevr, it does not look like the quote is warped to say anything different than what the actual talk states. It sounds like the same thing anyway.

 

So what am I missing? Was the quote wrong in some way that I have missed, or is Pres. Benson (at the time Elder Benson) wrong here?

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_leadership/The_thinking_has_been_done

There are at least two separate occasions being discussed.

 

The first, (1980) Elder Benson's talk is addressed in the quote where Elder Benson states that he was attempting to underline President Kimball's prophetic calling…the same President that expressed concern about his talk going too far.

 

The second issue is the older Ward Teacher's Message (1945).  It is not that the quote is wrong in the sense of if shown in the original context, it says something significantly different, it is often however only partially quoted. FM is simply giving the original context to provide full information about what was challenged AND then showing that the entire concept whether from the shortened quote or the longer discussion is dismissed as contradicting actual church teaching by the then President of the Church, George Albert Smith.

 

Then FairMormon follows with several quotes showing that "the thinking has been done" is contrary to what has been taught by church leaders.

 

So both the quote and Elder Benson were wrong and were corrected by the concerned Prophet at the time of the error and that is what FairMormon is trying to demonstrate.

Edited February 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I don't think the quote is wrong

However, President George Albert Smith thought so:

 

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church [bolding mine]

 

[Calm]

The issue for me is that if we reach a different conclusion or testimony AND dare to speak it publicly we risk being called apostate.  That is wrong.

Joseph Smith taught that:

 

I fear that we have no right to expess our opinions if they go against current Church teachings/creeds.

So in your view Joseph Smith never called anyone out for apostasy for teaching something that was against the current Church position?

[JLHPROF]

So in your view Joseph Smith never called anyone out for apostasy for teaching something that was against the current Church position?

 

It's about the difference between allowing for agency, personal belief, and differing perspectives on doctrine and excommunicating someone for heresy or apostasy.  In my opinion it is a spectrum, and while there has always been a line between personal belief and heresy that would result in disciplinary action, I personally think that current policy and actions has moved that line a little closer to personal belief than Joseph would have liked.  He didn't allow open resistance to church policies and principles, but he was more allowing of differing beliefs.

 

But the Church aren't completely overzealous in excommunicating either.  I mean they allow the Ordain Women group to agitate and protest and (mostly) keep their membership.  They allow those who are science oriented to speak out in Church against traditional scriptural understandings.  But heaven forbid you dare to have an open discussion on doctrines like Adam-God, Polygamy or Blood Atonement or anything else considered "embarrassing".  I just get a bit fidgety when the excommunication line moves too close to the right to personal belief.

[Calm]

  But heaven forbid you dare to have an open discussion on doctrines like Adam-God, Polygamy or Blood Atonement or anything else considered "embarrassing".  I just get a bit fidgety when the excommunication line moves too close to the right to personal belief.

So you have evidence that people are getting currently excommunicated for simply talking about Adam-God, Polygamy or Blood Atonement (as opposed to practicing any of the three).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hey all. Earlier, Calimorah sent a link from FAIR about another subject. But yet, the FAIR response perplexes me.

 

What gets me is that although it looks like blame is given to the shortened quote from the actual talk. Howeevr, it does not look like the quote is warped to say anything different than what the actual talk states. It sounds like the same thing anyway.

 

So what am I missing? Was the quote wrong in some way that I have missed, or is Pres. Benson (at the time Elder Benson) wrong here?

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_leadership/The_thinking_has_been_done

I was tasked with "day of service" we do here in Georgia, to go around to other Churches and ask them to help...when they found out what Church we were; all declined.

[cinepro]

There are two different but similar statements that have been discussed over the years:

 

1. When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.

 

2. When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.

 

One is correct, the other isn't.

Edited February 9, 2014 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

So you have evidence that people are getting currently excommunicated for simply talking about Adam-God, Polygamy or Blood Atonement (as opposed to practicing any of the three).

 

Well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six - disciplined for speaking out (or publishing) their beliefs on Church Doctrines and History.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee - report to disciplinary authority for expressing disagreeing ideas.

 

Now we can debate these two items to death, whether the actions are right or the discipline deserved, but the principle behind them stands.  Don't publicly disagree or debate the Church line on doctrine or you risk your membership.  That line between the right to personal belief and heretical behaviour is VERY blurry.

[Calm]

Don't you think publishing books and going around giving talks about a subject is a bit more than "having an open discussion"?

[JLHPROF]

Don't you think publishing books and going around giving talks about a subject is a bit more than "having an open discussion"?

 

Only if we attempt to pass of our opinions as "official church position".  It's kind of like on this board.  I can espouse any doctrinal opinion I want freely, but if I start teaching it as fact I will receive CFR requests.  I think members should be allowed to discuss, debate, and espouse opinion publicly and with other members without fear of retribution or Church discipline.  If I want to discuss the doctrinal or historical details behind the Adam-God doctrine or Blood Atonement, or Plural Marriage in Gospel Doctrine class (IF it fits with the topic at hand) I shouldn't have to bite my tongue.  If I try to teach the Adam-God doctrine as true and the Church's lesson manual as the false doctrine, well, then be it on my own head.

 

I think we are heading in that direction a bit with the new manuals and articles the Church is now publishing, but we still have a way to go.

[frank_jessop]

Unless personal letters written on Church letter head represent the Official position of the Church, and if the JoD or books written by individuals who happen to be Apostles represent the Official positions of the Church; the FAIR article can only stand on the Official Church statement published in the Ensign which is the statement of Elder Oaks.

[theplains]

The issue for me is that if we reach a different conclusion or testimony AND dare to speak it publicly we risk being called apostate.  That is wrong.

 

I agree with your assessment that it is wrong but it is what it is.  If you do that as a Jehovah's

Witness, you enter "shun" mode.

 

"God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me to be

god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it, you must

lump it" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 363)

 

I think there are some Latter-day Saints who view this particular teaching of Joseph Smith as

wrong - "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed

that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you

may see" (History of the Church, volume 6). Some members of the Community of Christ are

more open to the teaching that God was once a man who became a God because they view

him as an uplifting role model of how a sinful person like themselves can become exalted.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Calm]

The page has been altered to be less confusing we hope, Jimguy. Check it out and see if it makes more sense now.

Edited February 10, 2014 by calmoriah

[thatjimguy]

There are at least two separate occasions being discussed.

 

The first, (1980) Elder Benson's talk is addressed in the quote where Elder Benson states that he was attempting to underline President Kimball's prophetic calling…the same President that expressed concern about his talk going too far.

 

The second issue is the older Ward Teacher's Message (1945).  It is not that the quote is wrong in the sense of if shown in the original context, it says something significantly different, it is often however only partially quoted. FM is simply giving the original context to provide full information about what was challenged AND then showing that the entire concept whether from the shortened quote or the longer discussion is dismissed as contradicting actual church teaching by the then President of the Church, George Albert Smith.

 

Then FairMormon follows with several quotes showing that "the thinking has been done" is contrary to what has been taught by church leaders.

 

So both the quote and Elder Benson were wrong and were corrected by the concerned Prophet at the time of the error and that is what FairMormon is trying to demonstrate.

 

Ah. Ok. that makes more sense.

 

I think that the words "In order to provide complete context" might be re-worded on the FM page to read; "In order to give the completeness of the talk" or something similar. There are more than a few rebuttals LDS have against attacks that deal with things being "out of context" and I think that is why I thought there was supposed to be a difference or misaligned meaning between the two. I'll put a word to FM about it.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Vance]

"When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

By whom?

The prophet? YES!!!

The members of the Church? Maybe not! If they disagree with the prophet's counsel, then they need to get the thinking done.

And as always, the Lord blesses the obedient. The disobedient, not so much.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

[frank_jessop]

Then FairMormon follows with several quotes showing that "the thinking has been done" is contrary to what has been taught by church leaders.

While the FAIRMormon articles provides the full context, it is a stretch, in my opinion, to claim that "the thinking has been done" is contrary to the order of the Church or that the Church does not operate under the premise "the debate is over/the thinking has been done". Yes, as a general body we get to sustain things. I suppose an issued and a accepted formal calling could be revoked under circumstances related to opposing vote during a sustaining (this is not to include an opposing vote that could be due to issues unknown about the person called)

Is there any difference between "the debate is over" and "the thinking has been done".

We must turn all this [pornography use, neglect of families, other social ills of the day] about. We cannot serve God and mammon. Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over. the thinking has been done.

vs,

When our leaders speak the debate is over. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. (Don't watch pornography. Love and take care of your family)

For me, I do not see a difference between the two statements. Is there something I am missing? And I do not take issue with either statement. Yes, we are to each gain individual testimonies.

I would that for me, the error of a critic using these statements against the Church would depend on the context of the criticism. Is there any debate/thinking to be had within the Church about the family structure that God condones?

Edited May 23, 2014 by frank_jessop

[DBMormon]

I think the quote is quite wrong (based on the way the church backpedaled a bit so did Pres Smith).  And here is one of the most wrong parts:

 

Equating disagreeing with the GA's with speaking evil is simply wrong.  Disagreeing with them is not apostasy.  It is calling them out of order, loss of office, insulting, demeaning the office and similar things that are apostasy.  For example, it is not apostasy when someone disagrees with Brigham Young on Adam-God.  It is apostasy to question his position and authority.  It is evil speaking to say Brigham Young is an arrogant old fool who didn't know what he was talking about.  But disagreeing with his doctrine doesn't mean apostasy.

 

The issue for me is not that the church doesn't want us to think for ourselves - we have always been told to think for ourselves.  The issue for me is that if we reach a different conclusion or testimony AND dare to speak it publicly we risk being called apostate.  That is wrong.

Joseph Smith taught that:

 

I fear that we have no right to expess our opinions if they go against current Church teachings/creeds.

 

I vocally disagree at times and while a few goody two shoes have called me onto the carpet for doing so, no one in authority over me has ever spoken to me or asked me not to say such things.

 

I think if you do so kindly and respectfully, it will receive little correction.  The problem is when rather then offer an alternative you deem your view right and try to enforce it as the standard rather than an opinion.  edited::: Which by the way I also admit to be a little too over the top as well, but still I have gotten no pushback to be silent from those over me

Edited May 23, 2014 by DBMormon

[Kevin Christensen]

Take a look at the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, and figure out whether the actual source of the "thinking has been done" kind of thinking comes from and therefore fully represents "the Church" (i.e. a monolithic quasi-entity that dictates all thoughts to be thought, or according to some, a diverse bunch of people distinguished by their making baptismal covenants, a teensy tiny minority of whom landed the job of writing manuals or editorials) or whether the source is actually independent of the Church (by either definition) as such, and has more to do with individual levels of Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/Perry%20Scheme.pdf

And incidentally, I made the the case in "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" that the LDS scriptures actively strive to lead members to Position 9 of the Scheme.

Just saying, FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[JLHPROF]

I vocally disagree at times and while a few goody two shoes have called me onto the carpet for doing so, no one in authority over me has ever spoken to me or asked me not to say such things.

 

I think if you do so kindly and respectfully, it will receive little correction.  The problem is when rather then offer an alternative you deem your view right and try to enforce it as the standard rather than an opinion.  edited::: Which by the way I also admit to be a little too over the top as well, but still I have gotten no pushback to be silent from those over me

 

This is true.  But ignoring those ideas that lead to controversial actions, let's just look at an idea of pure doctrine with no major repurcussions other than belief.

 

For example, if I read my scriptures, read the teachings of the prophets, and pray about them.  And I come to my own conclusion/witness that Brigham was right in his teachings about Adam-God and that our current teachings as established around the turn of the 1900s doesn't fit in my mind.

 

The church 100% allows me to believe as I see fit.

The church MIGHT discipline me for teaching heresy if I tell anyone in Church I believe it.

The church WILL discipline me if I publicly disagree with the current understanding AND publicly promote Adam-God.

[thesometimesaint]

This is true.  But ignoring those ideas that lead to controversial actions, let's just look at an idea of pure doctrine with no major repurcussions other than belief.

 

For example, if I read my scriptures, read the teachings of the prophets, and pray about them.  And I come to my own conclusion/witness that Brigham was right in his teachings about Adam-God and that our current teachings as established around the turn of the 1900s doesn't fit in my mind.

 

The church 100% allows me to believe as I see fit.

The church MIGHT discipline me for teaching heresy if I tell anyone in Church I believe it.

The church WILL discipline me if I publicly disagree with the current understanding AND publicly promote Adam-God.

 

The first is guaranteed.

The middle one is highly unlikely if you keep it as your ideas.

The last one is most likely if promoted as Church Doctrine

Edited May 23, 2014 by thesometimesaint