False Doctrine At Conference

[stemelbow]

meh...the more I think of it, the more I realize anyone in Joseph's position would come off as having serious flaws. It's probably hard to imagine because many people being called as prophet wouldn't have done the same things as he, perhaps. I just think he was in high pressure situations being asked to make very tough decisions for a lot of people and much of what he did and thought was recorded and scrutinized. Most of us aren't treated like that. Its far too easy to sit back and judge and not really understand where he's coming from no matter how much we study his life. "serious flaws"? meh. If he had serious flaws it was because, in my mind, he actually thought he was doing God's work and felt a great deal of pressure because of what God asked of him.

[jkwilliams]

meh...the more I think of it, the more I realize anyone in Joseph's position would come off as having serious flaws. It's probably hard to imagine because many people being called as prophet wouldn't have done the same things as he, perhaps. I just think he was in high pressure situations being asked to make very tough decisions for a lot of people and much of what he did and thought was recorded and scrutinized. Most of us aren't treated like that. Its far too easy to sit back and judge and not really understand where he's coming from no matter how much we study his life. "serious flaws"? meh. If he had serious flaws it was because, in my mind, he actually thought he was doing God's work and felt a great deal of pressure because of what God asked of him.

I didn't realize anyone was attributing his flaws to anything in particular. I always liked what one of the early apostles said (I can't remember if was Wilford Woodruff or Lorenzo Snow). He said that he was glad to see Joseph's human failings because he felt that if God could do such a great work using a flawed man like Joseph Smith, there was hope for him as well.

There's nothing wrong or mean-spirited in acknowledging that people are people and have flaws. Frankly, I like the flawed Joseph Smith a lot more than the paragon of human perfection I learned about growing up.

[stemelbow]

I didn't realize anyone was attributing his flaws to anything in particular. I always liked what one of the early apostles said (I can't remember if was Wilford Woodruff or Lorenzo Snow). He said that he was glad to see Joseph's human failings because he felt that if God could do such a great work using a flawed man like Joseph Smith, there was hope for him as well.

There's nothing wrong or mean-spirited in acknowledging that people are people and have flaws. Frankly, I like the flawed Joseph Smith a lot more than the paragon of human perfection I learned about growing up.

Yes. I agree. Just pointing out calling it serious flaws seems a little on the meaningless side, since in like manner we are all flawed. Serious to me would entail molesting children or something (which I realize some critics would say he did).

[Tacenda]

I had an epiphany yesterday.  Sometimes I listen to a Christian radio station that has sermons mostly.  The particular sermon that I heard yesterday seemed to be too simple, it was kind of frustrating at first.  It reminded me of when I had the beginnings of my faith crisis and that I happen to have commented on one of these sermons to my husband who was TBM.  He commented back that it was like listening to a first grader.  That made me think and compare it to our LDS leaders in conference and he kind of had a point.  But I've now realized that maybe he doesn't see the big picture, and I think Joseph may have also thought it to be too simple and that a church needed to be more than that.   

 

My epiphany was that we must be like little children, like 1st graders, haha. (Matt 18:3 - And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven).  Maybe we shouldn't add to it, just because we believe it to be too infantile, or too simple.  But I'm probably up in the night as usual.   

Edited June 3, 2014 by Tacenda

[CV75]

What to you, do you think I mean by top leader?

I've told you before, I honestly don't know what to think you mean. That why I am asking.

 

Do you anticipate getting a description of what went on between his sending you the e-mail and what the Ensign published, and his role along the way?

[CV75]

Either come out and call him a liar, or let it go.

 

You are badgering.

Huh? I think I've been pretty clear all along about trying to find out how these things work, not about accusing anyone of anything.My persistence is to counter the apparent lack of clarity in my questions.

 

I think it is good for everyone to know what went on between the e-mail excahnge and the publication of General Conference in the Ensign, not to judge anyone but to gain a better knowledge about the member-"top leader" dynamics in our Church. From a practical standpoint, part of this is knowing the level of leadership involved.

[Bob Crockett]

Either come out and call him a liar, or let it go.

 

You are badgering.

Let's revisit the facts.

 

This thread started with the argument that Elder Bednar made a statement about the anniversary of Christ's birth which is not Church doctrine.  I have seen the arguments both in support of the claim of doctrine and against it.   I can see why Bill would think that Elder Bednar might have gotten it wrong. (I disagree with Bill, but I can certainly see how reasonable minds can differ.)  On the other hand, I think the issue is trivial and not the sort of thing one would rub an apostle's nose in, as Bill has done with the original post.

 

Then the thread evolved to the point where Bill asserts he has secret inside information to show that the Church acknowledged to Bill Elder Bednar's error and would correct it, but didn't.   Thus, the discussion has evolved to the point where (1) a promise was made to Bill and (2) a doctrinal error was acknowledged and (3) a promise to Bill was breached.  That is a far different proposition that the opening thread; a more serious accusation against the Church and one that could likely give offense to the weak-hearted, an effect I think which was intended.  So, some might want to probe for details.  And, little details are emerging.  A stake conference here, correspondence, a "top leader" there.  I'm sorry that Bill sees me as an "antogonist."  But he doesn't follow me on other threads where I agree or disagree with people.  Disagreement is not antogonism.  People can disagree without making it personal.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[CV75]

Calling me a liar or claiming I am misinterpreting is fair, but it is also wrong.  Again I have the correspondence in my possession.  I could, though I won't with any antagonist here, prove I am right.  Several people in my ward/stake are aware (including my SP) that I have had correspondence with this person.  It is not something to call me out on, but it is ok, let them have more rope if that is their intention (I do not at this point know CV75's intentions)!

I think you will acknowledge that I've never asked to see the correspondence and that I never expressed interest in verifying your report. I think I've been consistent in explaining my intention and my approach. And as you can see, I've been called out for my persistence, but so what--that goes with the territory!

[DBMormon]

I've told you before, I honestly don't know what to think you mean. That why I am asking.

 

Do you anticipate getting a description of what went on between his sending you the e-mail and what the Ensign published, and his role along the way?

I do anticipate getting a better answer for why he thought it would happen and it not happening.  I will need to write him first and won't  do so for a few weeks, so his answer won't likely arrive for a while.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think you will acknowledge that I've never asked to see the correspondence and that I never expressed interest in verifying your report. I think I've been consistent in explaining my intention and my approach. And as you can see, I've been called out for my persistence, but so what--that goes with the territory!

 

I agree that DBMormon has been vague, and I too am interested in how these things worked, so I did a bit of sleuthing. Here is my best guess of how this went down.

 

Sorry DBMormon if this come off as stalkerish.

 

Bill's first post that touched on his attempts at communication was here:

 

I wrote someone in the church history dept. who said little could be done by existing mechanisms to fix this, other then their talking to their superior, which they did prior to my communication.  

 

 

This was just a few days after conference. It would appear that by the next day he escalated to his contact in the "top leadership" of the church and received a response as noted here:

 

Keep your eyes open and watch for this to be addressed soon in some way even if very small.

 

He detailed this further after the ensign came out here:

 

That said when this happeneded I wrote the Church history department member, a friend in the know, and a top tier leader.  All agreed it was a mistake (by study and by faith).  But obviously not one worth correcting.

 

#1 - it wasn't in the written copy.  He added it impromptu.  

 

#2 - He is aware of the issue now and why this may not be a safe assumption

 

#3 - The Church considered adding a note to the talk acknowledging the issue but chose not to (my personal guess is that it is due to too many people losing faith in their assumption of words at GC being the word of God at all times and those who would lose faith as they change their assumption about what prophets are and are not.

 

 

Further added stuff like the following:

 

Also the bigger issue Is that the Church chose not to fix it when those at the top privately acknowledged that the birthdate is not doctrine and that a correction of some sort would be made in the upcoming ensign.  While it bothered me that Elder Bednar would repeat a false assumption, I also completely allow such as we all do it.  For me the bigger issue is the Church chose to entrench on a false assumption rather than move beyond it.  That to me is a gross problem that needs to be addressed. 

 

 

I raised the issue and got a response that the brethren acknowledged the issue and would place a footnote in the ensign to acknowledge it was not a clear cut as stated in the talk.  Instead....  it is the Church that  chose to double down.

 

I have had correspondence with a couple of top leaders over the past 2 years.  I also have made many connections through the podcast to other departments of the Church for example "Church history Department" and "BYU Professors".  When I run into something I can't work out and which is frustrating - I will from time to time correspond with those 3 groups.  I have also received messages out of the blue by phone by a top leader and encouraged to send him a message whenever I desired and felt the need. 

 

Finally the following:

 

When the April 6th thing happened, I shot a message over stating that while I understand a false assumption being held, That I was hopeful it would be addressed.  I was informed that based on this individual's understanding, that it would be addressed as a footnote in the ensign.

 

 

It is my guess based on these vague references, that DBMormon had some correspondence with an apostle (though perhaps a seventy). Said apostle acknowledged that the birthdate of Christ is not clear cut and different viewbpoints are valid. This apostle communicated that the issue had been discussed and would be addressed via footnote. At some point past this point, Elder Bednar decided not to put such a footnote in his talk (I assume Elder Bednar would have the final say about what goes in Elder Bednar's talks).

 

So DBMormon am I close?

Edited June 3, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[DBMormon]

Let's revisit the facts.

 

This thread started with the argument that Elder Bednar made a statement about the anniversary of Christ's birth which is not Church doctrine.  I have seen the arguments both in support of the claim of doctrine and against it.   I can see why Bill would think that Elder Bednar might have gotten it wrong. (I disagree with Bill, but I can certainly see how reasonable minds can differ.)  On the other hand, I think the issue is trivial and not the sort of thing one would rub an apostle's nose in, as Bill has done with the original post.

 

Then the thread evolved to the point where Bill asserts he has secret inside information to show that the Church acknowledged to Bill Elder Bednar's error and would correct it, but didn't.   Thus, the discussion has evolved to the point where (1) a promise was made to Bill and (2) a doctrinal error was acknowledged and (3) a promise to Bill was breached.  That is a far different proposition that the opening thread; a more serious accusation against the Church and one that could likely give offense to the weak-hearted, an effect I think which was intended.  So, some might want to probe for details.  And, little details are emerging.  A stake conference here, correspondence, a "top leader" there.  I'm sorry that Bill sees me as an "antogonist."  But he doesn't follow me on other threads where I agree or disagree with people.  Disagreement is not antogonism.  People can disagree without making it personal.

 

Your recounting the facts are incorrect.

1.) I stated here that according to the person I have have conversation "as far as they understood" a footnote would be added to acknowledge the issue -

 

2.)  Acknowledging an issue is complex and has multiple viewpoints is far different from acknowledging a mistake but rather acknowledging complexity.

 

3.) since rather than a promise he assured me that as far as he knew, a footnote was being added - something either changed or he understood wrong.

 

Please Bob, Be better at fact checking

 

My quotes

 

My bigger issue is the fact that The ensign chose rather then to insert a footnote acknowledging the issue (And by the way I know directly that the Church was aware of the issue and discussed how to address it), they instead chose to entrench by defending the view with four sources which are also a reiteration of claiming revealed truth when it wasn't revealed.  Rather than acknowledge the issue and correct course, we instead chose to lift up such nonsense and treat it as a fact.

 

 

  I was assured it would be addressed.

 

Which I was

 

 

When the April 6th thing happened, I shot a message over stating that while I understand a false assumption being held, That I was hopeful it would be addressed.  I was informed that based on this individual's understanding, that it would be addressed as a footnote in the ensign.

 

 

Not sure how you make so many mental gymnastics.... Please stick to the facts when you revisit them

[DBMormon]

I think you will acknowledge that I've never asked to see the correspondence and that I never expressed interest in verifying your report. I think I've been consistent in explaining my intention and my approach. And as you can see, I've been called out for my persistence, but so what--that goes with the territory!

And as I pointed out I was not speaking directly to you as I did not yet know if your intentions were to say I am a liar.

 

I am ok with questions but I have gone as far as I can.  Wish I could say more as Many here doubt my impact, motives, or sincerity and if only they knew what goes on that they don't see. 

[cdowis]

I couldn't care less about anti-Mormons, Ed Decker, or their tactics. Should I?

 

 

 

OK, so you were not responding to my post regarding the use of "curse" among the antis, but just trying to make some sort of point.  I guess I need to learn to ignore your posts.

[Bob Crockett]

Your recounting the facts are incorrect.

 

..

 

 

Not sure how you make so many mental gymnastics.... Please stick to the facts when you revisit them

I most certainly will.   It isn't personal.  

[cdowis]

Then the thread evolved to the point where Bill asserts he has secret inside information to show that the Church acknowledged to Bill Elder Bednar's error and would correct it, but didn't.   Thus, the discussion has evolved to the point where (1) a promise was made to Bill and (2) a doctrinal error was acknowledged and (3) a promise to Bill was breached.  That is a far different proposition that the opening thread; a more serious accusation against the Church 

 

 

We got an answer!!

 

"This is a mountain out of a molehill, and we have some real  issues that need attention."  

 

This is from a high leader of the church who recently visited an ex-friend of mine in our stake, but I can't mention his name because I forgot it.  But this unnamed person did promise to write me a letter on church letterhead  to confirm what he told me in confidence.

 

(I did think it strange that he did not ask for my address.  Oh well.)

Edited June 3, 2014 by cdowis

[DBMormon]

I agree that DBMormon has been vague, and I too am interested in how these things worked, so I did a bit of sleuthing. Here is my best guess of how this went down.

 

Sorry DBMormon if this come off as stalkerish.

 

Bill's first post that touched on his attempts at communication was here:

 

This was just a few days after conference. It would appear that by the next day he escalated to his contact in the "top leadership" of the church and received a response as noted here:

 

 

He detailed this further after the ensign came out here:

 

 

Further added stuff like the following:

 

 

 

 

Finally the following:

 

 

 

 

It is my guess based on these vague references, that DBMormon had some correspondence with an apostle (though perhaps a seventy). Said apostle acknowledged that the birthdate of Christ is not clear cut and different viewbpoints are valid. This apostle communicated that the issue had been discussed and would be addressed via footnote. At some point past this point, Elder Bednar decided not to put such a footnote in his talk (I assume Elder Bednar would have the final say about what goes in Elder Bednar's talks).

 

So DBMormon am I close?

 

Closer than Bob!

[wenglund]

I love the biblical phrase: "strain at a gnat"

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

Your recounting the facts are incorrect.

1.) I stated here that according to the person I have have conversation "as far as they understood" a footnote would be added to acknowledge the issue -

 

2.)  Acknowledging an issue is complex and has multiple viewpoints is far different from acknowledging a mistake but rather acknowledging complexity.

 

3.) since rather than a promise he assured me that as far as he knew, a footnote was being added - something either changed or he understood wrong.

 

Please Bob, Be better at fact checking

 

My quotes

 

 

Which I was

 

 

Not sure how you make so many mental gymnastics.... Please stick to the facts when you revisit them

Really all I'm interested to know is if a leader, perhaps even Elder Bednar, acknowledged it was a mistake to say we know by revelation the day of Christ's birth. can you clarify that?

It'd be really helpful if we had a reference for any of this. But we don't, so we're just too unimportant to know the interesting stuff, I guess.

[Bob Crockett]

I love the biblical phrase: "strain at a gnat"

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Most of us are guilty of that on this board.  If there weren't gnats at which to strain there wouldn't be fish swimming in the lakes.

[CV75]

so I did a bit of sleuthing.

LOL -- All you have to do is find out which Stake Conference it was, which of the two visitors was the higher-ranking leader, and send him an e-mail yourself! Of course I'm too lazy to do that.

[CV75]

And as I pointed out I was not speaking directly to you as I did not yet know if your intentions were to say I am a liar.

 

I am ok with questions but I have gone as far as I can.  Wish I could say more as Many here doubt my impact, motives, or sincerity and if only they knew what goes on that they don't see. 

I'm not here to judge anybody, that's for sure. It is the "if I only knew what goes on" that I would find valuable and anyhting you can share about that process would go a long way.

[DBMormon]

I'm not here to judge anybody, that's for sure. It is the "if I only knew what goes on" that I would find valuable and anyhting you can share about that process would go a long way.

email me.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

LOL -- All you have to do is find out which Stake Conference it was, which of the two visitors was the higher-ranking leader, and send him an e-mail yourself! Of course I'm too lazy to do that.

I actually tried that, but its a bit harder than you might think. I do know the state where Bill lives, but can't find any postings about GA travel schedules or stake conference schedules in general.

Edited June 3, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[canard78]

OK, but the problem is that the enemies of the church and their victims use "curse" as a code word for "inferior", and it is necessary to identify this tactic.

We are *all* cursed in one matter or another, and the curse that we have individually or as a group may have a relationship to pre-mortal life. That exact relationship has been a matter of speculation, and that is what the church is attempting to clarify.

This has nothing to do with the conversation.

You called for examples of prophets teaching that black skin/the priesthood ban was a consequence of pre-earth choices. We provided two and showed it had been disavowed.

This conversation wasn't about how the "enemies" characterise the word but whether the disavowal in the essay is of something taught as doctrine by a prophet.

[cdowis]

This has nothing to do with the conversation.

You called for examples of prophets teaching that black skin/the priesthood ban was a consequence of pre-earth choices. We provided two and showed it had been disavowed.

 

 

Really.

 

I am very careful on how I word my requests.  So, please copy and past my request, and then show me your response and THEN quote the "disavowal".  I do not think they will correspond as you stated in your post.  

 

Please note that I quoted your post exactly, so please give me the same courtesy.

 

I often find posts that say, "This is what you said, more or less, and I kinda gave a response which included a statement from the prophets which said more or less that....."  So, let's nail this thing down.

 

You will find the exact church statement ("disavowal") in one of my posts, so everything should be right here in this thread.  Just put it all together and let's see what we got.

Edited June 3, 2014 by cdowis