Daniel Peterson Rips It Up

[ERayR]

 

"So if the Church can't clarify its doctrines and the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have been reduced to General Authorities, then what is the purpose of belonging to a Church that claims to have prophets to help clarify and express God's eternal truths? In other words, after reading this response, what does the Church offer me that I can't get on my own?

Our questions have gone unanswered at every level. This provides my wife and I with the good conscience we need to resign our family's membership in the Church. Just thought I would share my experience in case anybody had considered doing the same thing."

 

 

No this is incorrect.  He was given direction to seek his answers in the way that is ordained by God to recieve answers to such questions.  It is the same method Joseph used and which he spent his life trying to teach the saints to use.

[Tacenda]

No this is incorrect. He was given direction to seek his answers in the way that is ordained by God to recieve answers to such questions. It is the same method Joseph used and which he spent his life trying to teach the saints to use.

Just to clarify, this isn't my quote, it's the poster on NOM's quote.

[MichelleD]

Just to clarify, this isn't my quote, it's the poster on NOM's quote.

I just read through the thread over there and I can feel this person's frustration and dismay that they received the response they did. I can also understand the direction to take his feelings and concerns to The Lord. But, are our Prophets and Seers and Revelators really saying that we cannot ask THEM for help and answers as well? Aren't we told that they are God's mouthpieces here on earth to help and teach us? Why respond with you're asking "the wrong people"?

I honestly wonder if President Uchtdorf saw this response or approved it before it was sent.

[Scott Lloyd]

I just read through the thread over there and I can feel this person's frustration and dismay that they received the response they did. I can also understand the direction to take his feelings and concerns to The Lord. But, are our Prophets and Seers and Revelators really saying that we cannot ask THEM for help and answers as well? Aren't we told that they are God's mouthpieces here on earth to help and teach us? Why respond with you're asking "the wrong people"?

I honestly wonder if President Uchtdorf saw this response or approved it before it was sent.

I think it important to bear in mind that if the First Presidency and the Twelve were to respond to every question that anyone wanted to put to them, doctrinal or otherwise, they would scarcely have time for anything else, and they probably couldn't manage it even if they tried. When there are other channels and sources of information in place, I don't see it as unreasonable that they choose to defer the majority of the questions that flow into them.

 

The idea of them being spokesmen for God (I dislike the term "mouthpieces" for reasons I won't go into here) does not oblige them to entertain every question that anyone anywhere might have for them. Moses was wisely counseled by his father-in-law Jethro to delegate his authority and duties as prophet-leader of the Israelites. Had he not done so, it no doubt would have been his undoing.

 

One can argue about the propriety of the wording in the letter sent by the secretary. But implicit in that response is the observation that there are other sources to which one can turn, including an appeal in prayer to God.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it important to bear in mind that if the First Presidency and the Twelve were to respond to every question that anyone wanted to put to them, doctrinal or otherwise, they would scarcely have time for anything else, and they probably couldn't manage it even if they tried. When there are other channels and sources of information in place, I don't see it as unreasonable that they choose to defer the majority of the questions that flow into them.

 

The idea of them being spokesmen for God (I dislike the term "mouthpieces" for reasons I won't go into here) does not oblige them to entertain every question that anyone anywhere might have for them. Moses was wisely counseled by his father-in-law Jethro to delegate his authority and duties as prophet-leader of the Israelites. Had he not done so, it no doubt would have been his undoing.

 

And Moses was not dealing with a flock of 15 million-plus as today's Church leaders are.

 

One can argue about the propriety of the wording in the letter sent by the secretary. But implicit in that response is the observation that there are other sources to which one can turn, including an appeal in prayer to God.

[ALarson]

 But implicit in that response is the observation that there are other sources to which one can turn, including an appeal in prayer to God.

(First, I agree with your response, but I can also see MichelleD's point as well.)

 

Next, what "other sources" were given for this person to turn to?  From what I read, prayer to God wasn't just one included with others but it was the only source given in the response.  I wonder if this was on purpose or if they meant to include some other recommended sources for answers (such as FairMormon like I already suggested in another post).  I also wonder if Pres. Uchtdorf saw this response as it does not sound like his approach.  But, what do I know?  I really can't imagine that this letter would have been sent on his behalf without his approval.

 

Edited to add that I definitely agree that members should go to their local leaders rather than writing to GAs.  I'm impressed that this person received a response.

Edited April 11, 2014 by ALarson

[Duncan]

(First, I agree with your response, but I can also see MichelleD's point as well.)

 

Next, what "other sources" were given for this person to turn to?  From what I read, prayer to God wasn't just one included with others but it was the only source given in the response.  I wonder if this was on purpose or if they meant to include some other recommended sources for answers (such as FairMormon like I already suggested in another post).  I also wonder if Pres. Uchtdorf saw this response as it does not sound like his approach.  But, what do I know?  I really can't imagine that this letter would have been sent on his behalf without his approval.

 

Edited to add that I definitely agree that members should go to their local leaders rather than writing to GAs.  I'm impressed that this person received a response.

 

 

I would do as much research as possible and maybe answer my own questions, if not i've emailed various people 23 billion light years smarter then I and have gotten responses, they have access to things that I don't. Some questions are interesting but maybe the material to answer them doesn't exist, but you don't know that until you've looked. 

[Calm]

I just read through the thread over there and I can feel this person's frustration and dismay that they received the response they did. I can also understand the direction to take his feelings and concerns to The Lord. But, are our Prophets and Seers and Revelators really saying that we cannot ask THEM for help and answers as well? Aren't we told that they are God's mouthpieces here on earth to help and teach us? Why respond with you're asking "the wrong people"?

I honestly wonder if President Uchtdorf saw this response or approved it before it was sent.

I think a lot depends on how he asked the questions. It might have come across as him being very open to getting help and being taught and seeking desperately to anything to hold on to in which case the response saddens me even if I think the principle being taught is correct or it could have come across as 'I've pretty much made up my mind but I am giving you guys one last chance to stop playing around with half truths to convince me that it is is not the fraud it appears to be, good luck, you'll need it' in which case I get why it was said that way...or it could have been somewhere in between.

[Calm]

(First, I agree with your response, but I can also see MichelleD's point as well.)

Next, what "other sources" were given for this person to turn to? From what I read, prayer to God wasn't just one included with others but it was the only source given in the response. I wonder if this was on purpose or if they meant to include some other recommended sources for answers (such as FairMormon like I already suggested in another post). I also wonder if Pres. Uchtdorf saw this response as it does not sound like his approach. But, what do I know? I really can't imagine that this letter would have been sent on his behalf without his approval.

Edited to add that I definitely agree that members should go to their local leaders rather than writing to GAs. I'm impressed that this person received a response.

If it was six pages long, given the letter to his bishop, it is possible that he came across as already familiar with FM material. He might even have mentioned an argument we used and expressed his unhappiness with our methods.

He might have listed everything he had done in enough detail to demonstrate that it wasn't a lack of knowledge that was his underlying issues. His bishop questions come across as someone who has been discussing this for sometime and his condemnation of lds.org's essays as halftruths and incomplete is an interpretation issue. Plus many of his questions iirc are totally out of the purview of FM or anyone else besides church leadership (or personal revelation)...we have, for example, no knowledge of why there wasn't an apology with the Race essay, if there was even an apology warranted due to the ban being man made (though we have our individual ideas, there is no official position beyond what the Church has said).

I do need to go back and reread the questions when I can concentrate better, right now I remember a few details but mainly just a vague impression of him hitting the most common issues in an intelligent way which, along with his posting his ongoing interaction with his leaders at NOM, leads me to assume at this point that he has been discussing these issues for sometime...probably with NOMsters (do they have a favored nickname, Tac?).

Edited April 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[BCSpace]

I c/p this post from NOM.  Apparently there are no answers....

 

 

The answers are there.  The problem is that the questions require more detail and evidence than FarmerC provided in the post.  Once such is provided, I'd be willing to bet I or many of you could answer most or all those questions in a rationally satisfactorily way. 

 

One of the biggest problems FarmerC is running into is the inability to identify doctrine.  The Church has made it perfectly clear what doctrine is and how to identify it.  Unfortunately, some people, even some apologists, disagree with the Church's own statements in this regard.  The second biggest issue will be difficulty understanding how the prophets are men and that relationship to doctrine.  The third is his own left wing pov which frankly, never squares with Church doctrine in the first place. 

 

The first two play the biggest role in rational argumentation.  People with the most pharisaical take on the Church's doctrine, an inability to be a bit nuanced, are usually the first and easiest to get tripped up.  The last is the reason why, as was mentioned earlier, he's in a state where no answer will satisfy.  The Church does not fit into his world view which erroneously teaches him to see the Church as racist and 'homophobic'.

[why me]

It seems strange the letter does not mention the recent essays. Why take the time to publish essays on troubling issues if they are not going to be used in situations like this?

Do we know that it was a real response? I have my suspicions about whether it is a real letter from it says it was from. I try not to believe all that I read on exmormon or critical sites of the lds church, especially if claims cannot be verified. Also, a sincere questioner will not post the letter on the internet to make the church look bad. And this seems to happen more and more. To me this letter is a non-issue. It seems like a standard response to people who are seeking answers. I suppose that one could get into an historical debate with someone but at the end, it doesn't really have any purpose. No matter what the response, it probably would have ended up on the internet to be debated and dissected by the critics.

[MichelleD]

Do we know that it was a real response? I have my suspicions about whether it is a real letter from it says it was from. I try not to believe all that I read on exmormon or critical sites of the lds church, especially if claims cannot be verified. Also, a sincere questioner will not post the letter on the internet to make the church look bad. And this seems to happen more and more. To me this letter is a non-issue. It seems like a standard response to people who are seeking answers. I suppose that one could get into an historical debate with someone but at the end, it doesn't really have any purpose. No matter what the response, it probably would have ended up on the internet to be debated and dissected by the critics.

I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter. He posted a scan of the original. Overall it's a very sincere, kind, and heartfelt response. I have some questions about it (as stated in my post above), but overall I think it's great that they took the time to send a personal response.

[why me]

 

I c/p this post from NOM.  Apparently there are no answers....Dan did the best he could with what is out there.  I've finally had to come to terms with it myself.  The only answer is go to the Lord. The post had an attached copy of the original letter, but my "limited" status wouldn't allow me to put it here.  Anyone can see it on NOM, under "Letter from the First Presidency" topic. I thought it pertinent to the topic, Dan's hands were tied, he couldn't be honest, it sets people up for a big fall.  Not everyone is as faithful as a lot on the MDDB.   

 

Here is the post:

  

"I have systematically been going through my priesthood leaders to answer troubling questions about church history and clarify confusing doctrines or positions of the Church. I shared the letter I wrote to my bishop here. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=34368

 

I am a little suspicious. First, if I have a problem with doctrine and I am searching for answers, why would I write a letter to my bishop? Why not just visit him in person on a sunday or during the weekday? Why a letter? And if I wanted to talk to my stake president, I would just call him or meet him and make an appointment. Why would I have to go through a bishop for permission? Or why would I need to wait for the SP to call me? I have always found that it is much better to take the bull by the horns myself and I would have called him myself. .

 

So, I am already just a little suspicious. Both men are available with one phone call. No letters are necessary. And who writes letters these days anyway? My bishop's email address is for all to see in the ward bulletin and his phone number too. And the stake president's phone number is in the stake directory.

Edited April 12, 2014 by why me

[why me]

 

I c/p this post from NOM.  Apparently there are no answers....Dan did the best he could with what is out there.  I've finally had to come to terms with it myself.  The only answer is go to the Lord. The post had an attached copy of the original letter, but my "limited" status wouldn't allow me to put it here.  Anyone can see it on NOM, under "Letter from the First Presidency" topic. I thought it pertinent to the topic, Dan's hands were tied, he couldn't be honest, it sets people up for a big fall.  Not everyone is as faithful as a lot on the MDDB.   

 

Here is the post:

  

"I have systematically been going through my priesthood leaders to answer troubling questions about church history and clarify confusing doctrines or positions of the Church. I shared the letter I wrote to my bishop here. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=34368

My bishop told me that the SP wanted to meet with me. I waited and waited, followed up and waited before realizing several months later that the SP wasn't going to meet with me. Because I still have close friends and family members who are believing I thought it was important to not leave any stone unturned in trying to get answers to many of these tough issues. This way, I could show those people that I exhausted all avenues before leaving the Church. So I finally wrote a letter to Dieter Uchtdorf asking him to either help me understand the answers to my questions or to help me understand how he could maintain belief while still being aware of the issues (referenced Oct 2013 GC talk). I emphasized his role as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator in helping me and many others restore our faith in the Restored Gospel. I was surprised to receive a response and even more surprised by the content of the response."

Dear FarmerC,

Thank you for your recent letter addressed to President Dieter F. Uchtdorf. He has asked that I respond in his behalf.

You are posing the wrong questions to the wrong people. Regardless of what any of the General Authorities might tell you in person or in writing, your answer to the questions you pose must come directly from God Himself to you through the Holy Ghost, which direction you are entitled to as you honor the covenants you have made. Only God, not man, can provide the assurance and sure knowledge you are seeking. Being a long-time member as indicated in your letter, you will understand that concept and will have experienced it.

As you prayerfully and honestly consider your questions using the formula outlined in Moroni 10:3-7, you will know the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. That knowledge will then become an unshakable anchor to you.

It is understood that this is not the response you were looking for; however, please know it is the sincere prayer of the First Presidency that you will receive the spiritual guidance you are seeking.

Sincerely,

Secretary to the First Presidency

"So if the Church can't clarify its doctrines and the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have been reduced to General Authorities, then what is the purpose of belonging to a Church that claims to have prophets to help clarify and express God's eternal truths? In other words, after reading this response, what does the Church offer me that I can't get on my own?

Our questions have gone unanswered at every level. This provides my wife and I with the good conscience we need to resign our family's membership in the Church. Just thought I would share my experience in case anybody had considered doing the same thing."

 

Looking at the entire post, I am very suspicious. First, i would like to see the person's name who is making the accusations. This way, I can go to the bishop and SP myself and confirm his story. I would also like to see the letter from the secretary. The response from the secretary seems to be a standard response to all who write such letters as this man wrote. However, I would think it more genuine if a name was attached representing the first presidency. Who is the secretary and can this person be reached for comment?

 

And the end result is rather common: we all left the church. However, I really do find it hard to believe that anyone would write a letter to the bishop and not just call him. And why this person did not call the SP himself. I know that I see the SP in church. I can just go up to him and ask for an appointment. I think that he is freely available to whomever wishes to talk to him.

[why me]

I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter. He posted a scan of the original. Overall it's a very sincere, kind, and heartfelt response. I have some questions about it (as stated in my post above), but overall I think it's great that they took the time to send a personal response.

But there are some things that just doesn't add up. Why write the bishop? Most ward members would just go to him. Why wait for a response from the SP when in this day and age people tend to forget their own names. I would just call him myself and make an appointment. I suppose that I would write a letter in order to have a paper trail so if things go wrong I can post it on a critic site for all to see. But really, these days letters are not the way to go. With cell phones, a connection is very close at hand.

[Tacenda]

If it was six pages long, given the letter to his bishop, it is possible that he came across as already familiar with FM material. He might even have mentioned an argument we used and expressed his unhappiness with our methods.

He might have listed everything he had done in enough detail to demonstrate that it wasn't a lack of knowledge that was his underlying issues. His bishop questions come across as someone who has been discussing this for sometime and his condemnation of lds.org's essays as halftruths and incomplete is an interpretation issue. Plus many of his questions iirc are totally out of the purview of FM or anyone else besides church leadership (or personal revelation)...we have, for example, no knowledge of why there wasn't an apology with the Race essay, if there was even an apology warranted due to the ban being man made (though we have our individual ideas, there is no official position beyond what the Church has said).

I do need to go back and reread the questions when I can concentrate better, right now I remember a few details but mainly just a vague impression of him hitting the most common issues in an intelligent way which, along with his posting his ongoing interaction with his leaders at NOM, leads me to assume at this point that he has been discussing these issues for sometime...probably with NOMsters (do they have a favored nickname, Tac?).

NOM works, but he doesn't necessarily have leaders at NOM. But you are probably tired.

He is a new member of the board, maybe he needs to hang out here, you guys could wear off on him.

[why me]

I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter. He posted a scan of the original. Overall it's a very sincere, kind, and heartfelt response. I have some questions about it (as stated in my post above), but overall I think it's great that they took the time to send a personal response.

The problem is of course, we only have farmer's version of the story. I see no names for confirmation. And this happens quite often. I have read many of the same type of stories on critic sites. I wrote my bishop and got no response....I wrote my SP and was ignored. But anytime i see the verb 'wrote' from someone who contacted their bishop or SP in this way, I get suspicious. The phone is a marvelous invention and usually has us all connected in seconds, especially now with the cell phone.

[why me]

And given that the letter was six pages long, I would not be surprised if it had the same detail as the bishop's letter...still it would be nice to see it. I don't know why he wouldn't post it like he did the other one. Perhaps it was identical and he assumes people know that? The length didn't stop him from posting the last one so that doesn't seem an issue.

Why write a letter at all? I would just go and speak to the bishop. He usually shakes my hand when i go on a sunday. And he is probably available for a conversation. Likewise for the SP. I am still just a little suspicious of all this. It sounds too familiar to other stories when someone writes the bishop. But the cell phone usually works for me.

[why me]

 

It is understood that this is not the response you were looking for; however, please know it is the sincere prayer of the First Presidency that you will receive the spiritual guidance you are seeking.

Sincerely,

Secretary to the First Presidency

"So if the Church can't clarify its doctrines and the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have been reduced to General Authorities, then what is the purpose of belonging to a Church that claims to have prophets to help clarify and express God's eternal truths? In other words, after reading this response, what does the Church offer me that I can't get on my own?

Our questions have gone unanswered at every level. This provides my wife and I with the good conscience we need to resign our family's membership in the Church. Just thought I would share my experience in case anybody had considered doing the same thing."

 

Does anyone have the name of the secretary to the first presidency? I think that scott can call him and ask for confirmation of this letter. Also, I am surprised that no name was attached to the letter. Usually, the person writing the letter would have a name attached with a signature. These days such signatures can be stamped. Also, it seems who ever wrote this letter already deemed the letter unsuccessful thereby already planting the seed in the recipient's mind that it is inadequate. Strange to make that implication to one's own letter. .

[why me]

Maybe I have been on the boards too long. I just don't take such things at face value anymore. Call me just battle weary and a little suspicious of internet communication from nameless posters.

Edited April 12, 2014 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

(First, I agree with your response, but I can also see MichelleD's point as well.)

 

Next, what "other sources" were given for this person to turn to?  From what I read, prayer to God wasn't just one included with others but it was the only source given in the response.  I wonder if this was on purpose or if they meant to include some other recommended sources for answers (such as FairMormon like I already suggested in another post).  I also wonder if Pres. Uchtdorf saw this response as it does not sound like his approach.  But, what do I know?  I really can't imagine that this letter would have been sent on his behalf without his approval.

 

Edited to add that I definitely agree that members should go to their local leaders rather than writing to GAs.  I'm impressed that this person received a response.

Perhaps I read too much into the response.

 

And now, I see that its authenticity is in doubt in any case.

[Tacenda]

Perhaps I read too much into the response.

And now, I see that its authenticity is in doubt in any case.

You no doubt went to NOM and saw the attached letter on the post. Did you go to Gospel Discussions, the topic is pinned. How does it look like it is a phony letter? It's pretty sad if this guy really did that. Edited April 12, 2014 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter. He posted a scan of the original. Overall it's a very sincere, kind, and heartfelt response. I have some questions about it (as stated in my post above), but overall I think it's great that they took the time to send a personal response.

It's not very difficult to counterfeit a letterhead, MichelleD.

 

Did the scan show the signature of the letter writer, or did it just say "secretary to the First Presidency"?

 

If there is no signature, that would make me strongly suspect it is false. I know the secretary to the First Presidency, and it seems quite unlike him not to sign his correspondence.

[Scott Lloyd]

You no doubt went to NOM and saw the attached letter on the post. Did you go to Gospel Discussions, the topic is pinned. How does it look like it is a phony letter? It's pretty sad if this guy really did that.

No, I didn't go there. Hence my above question to Michelle D.

 

Did the letter really not contain a signature?

 

Edited to add:

 

I just went there, and clicked on the "Gospel Doctrine and Philosophical Discourse" forum. I didn't see any pinned topic.

 

Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place, but I don't have the patience to search through it.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[MichelleD]

It's not very difficult to counterfeit a letterhead, MichelleD.

Did the scan show the signature of the letter writer, or did it just say "secretary to the First Presidency"?

If there is no signature, that would make me strongly suspect it is false. I know the secretary to the First Presidency, and it seems quite unlike him not to sign his correspondence.

It's signed by "Brook P. Hales, Secretary to the First Presidency".

It's posted on NOM in the Gospel Topics and Philosophical Discourse forum under the topic "Letter from the first presidency". It's not a pinned topic and is about halfway down on the first page of that forum.

Edited April 12, 2014 by MichelleD