Daniel Peterson Rips It Up

[why me]

Perhaps I read too much into the response.

 

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

I am a litltle suspicious. First, who is the secretary? Is it a man or a woman? And do all three have one secretary? And why no name? And why such an ending to a letter? Basically, the letter is saying: sorry, but this letter will be inadequate but I hope that you can deal with it anyway.

 

If the letter is real, the secretary should be called in to face the music.

[MichelleD]

I am a litltle suspicious. First, who is the secretary? Is it a man or a woman? And do all three have one secretary? And why no name? And why such an ending to a letter? Basically, the letter is saying: sorry, but this letter will be inadequate but I hope that you can deal with it anyway.

If the letter is real, the secretary should be called in to face the music.

Well, her signature is on it. So unless she's not the Secretary to the first presidency or it's a forgery, it's authentic.

(What do you mean by "And why no name"? Her name is signed with it typed underneath!)

Edited April 12, 2014 by MichelleD

[MichelleD]

I'll post a link to the scanned letter with the signature and name if it's allowed here.

Brook P. Hales is named as the current secretary to the first presidency here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Presidency_(LDS_Church)

Edited April 12, 2014 by MichelleD

[why me]

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.

Okay, so now we are getting somewhere.

 

Here what is says from the wiki:

 

Secretary to the First Presidency

The church employs a secretary to assist the First Presidency in its administrative duties. The position is paid employment and its holder is not formally considered to be a member of the First Presidency or a general authority of the church. However, it is common for letters from the office of the First Presidency to private individuals to bear the signature of the Presidency's secretary as opposed to any of the members of the Presidency.

The First Presidency also employs assistant secretaries and press secretaries.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Presidency_%28LDS_Church%29

 

What are the questions now?

 

Did brother hales write this letter himself or did one of his under secretaries write it in his name? He is not considered a general authority. Did a general authority instruct him to respond in the way that he did? And how many letters does the first presidency receive and how can one secretary respond to all the letters? And do the general authorities read the letters that are sent by the secretary?

 

However, usually when a person deals with letters whether they are to the bishop or the SP and does not call them to make an appointment, one can be looking for a written trail knowing that the success of such letters may be lower than an actual phone call.

Edited April 12, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Well, her signature is on it. So unless she's not the Secretary to the first presidency or it's a forgery, it's authentic.

(What do you mean by "And why no name"? Her name is signed with it typed underneath!)

But it wasn't in the original post of this thread. And that was a big omission. Also, I do have other questions listed in my last post. How many letters does this person have to answer a month?  300? 3? 555? It seems like a very boring job. So, should a member resign his membership because he received such a letter from a secretary who is not a general authority? And his wife too? And why not just call the SP for an interview? or the bishop? Something is not right in the story.

[Tacenda]

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.

I saw a paper clip and thought that meant pinned, sorry. Edited April 12, 2014 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

But it wasn't in the original post of this thread. And that was a big omission. Also, I do have other questions listed in my last post. How many letters does this person have to answer a month? 300? 3? 555? It seems like a very boring job. So, should a member resign his membership because he received such a letter from a secretary who is not a general authority? And his wife too? And why not just call the SP for an interview? or the bishop? Something is not right in the story.

I originally posted it and tried to show the attached photo of the letter but my "limited" status wouldn't allow it. If only you had read through, it would have showed I didn't omit anything purposefully . What I was trying to get at is there are no answers, but in my mind the no answers is to JS being married the way he was, see I have a terrible time even saying it. This is personal, there are no answers that will adequately answer to it. Only having faith in an answer from the Lord will have to do. Even the apologists seem to stumble for a good answer for the polyandry. If this makes sense.

[why me]

How often have we seen personal letters from GAs attempting to answer questions of members posted all over the boards in a mocking way. I think we have many examples of such letters. I believe that elder holland had this experience. I am afraid that the church cannot win this game at all as long as such letters are posted on exmormon boards or boards critical of mormonism. And why is it that lds members can be so egocentric in believing that they are deserving of a personal response that not only answers their questions but does so to their liking? And if not...well...post the correspondence on exmormon boards in order to get other people out of the church?

 

I can attend the catholic church. I see the priest quite often. Lets say that I have a question about catholic doctrine. Do I write him a letter about it, 5 pages long? Or do I see him in person? And if the priest says to me that they sent my letter to the bishop and the bishop doesn't respond and yet, I see the bishop during high mass...do I ask him for an interview or do I stew over the matter and eventually write a letter to the vatican to the pope himself?  And if his secretary responds in kind, do I resign from the catholic church?

 

I don't think so. However, I just may visit the priest or the bishop in the first place. But I really doubt that they could answer all questions that I may have. They are just human beings too.

Edited April 12, 2014 by why me

[why me]

I originally posted it and tried to show the attached photo of the letter but my "limited" status wouldn't allow it. If only you had read through, it would have showed I didn't omit anything purposefully . What I was trying to get at is there are no answers, but in my mind the no answers is to JS being married the way he was, see I have a terrible time even saying it. This is personal, there are no answers that will adequately answer to it. Only having faith in an answer from the Lord will have to do. Even the apologists seem to stumble for a good answer for the polyandry. If this makes sense.

In matters of history we can only have interpretations of events. Such is history. And we can have the testimony of the women involved and their spiritual experiences when living the principle. For exampe, why did god kill the couple who cheated on their tithing in Acts? What answer can i receive from the catholic priest or the mormon bishop? What can they tell me about this event? What interpretation do scholars give? Can we ever answer this question?

 

Here is what I do know. No sealed women to joseph smith ever said a negative word about him. In fact, just the opposite. Some of these women had wonderful spiritual experiences confirming the principle before they consented to be sealed to JS. And all were sad when he was murdered to my understanding. How to answer questions about polyandry or the killing of the couple who cheated on their tithe? It seems that god was responsible for both. So, what to do?

[MichelleD]

Oops, sorry but I assumed Brook P. Hales (secretary to the First Presidency that signed the letter) was a woman. He's not, and here's a picture of him (giving the statistical report at General Conference 2 years ago):

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/765564839/LDS-Church-announces-changes-to-presiding-bishopric-Relief-Society-presidency-First-Quorum-of-the.html?pg=all

Edited April 12, 2014 by MichelleD

[MichelleD]

why me, I wouldn't write a letter to a General Authority asking questions either. But many, many do. I don't think that part of this story is at all unbelievable.

Edited April 12, 2014 by MichelleD

[why me]

why me, I wouldn't write a letter to a General Authority asking questions either. But many, many do. I don't think that part of this story is at all unbelievable.

The problem for me is the beginning of the story about writing a letter to his bishop. Why? And then the problem with the stake president. Both the bishop and the SP can be called on the phone for a face to face, especially the bishop. And the SP often meets with members for various of purposes. So, I am a little suspicious. Then, we have him waiting and waiting until finally getting tired, and then writing a letter to salt lake. In the meantime, I see no face to face attempt by himself to meet with the bishop or SP. Then, he receives a general letter from a secretary to the first presidency but unfortunately it did not answer his questions as if the first presidency can answer all questions pertaining to why something happened or why not something happened a couple of hundred years ago. What should be said to such questions? What answers would be satisfactory? What interpretations would be on the mark?

 

However, maybe just maybe all could have been solved with a phone call to the bishop or the SP instead of a letter (which does show some ill intent) to the bishop, a man who he sees every sunday or could see every sunday. Most likely, he may not have attended church in a while and decided to make it as impersonal as possible.

 

And somewhere in the back of his mind, was a posting on NoM if all did not go well....announcing his resignation from the church and his wife too, posting the secretary's letter and perhaps the letter to his bishop too on NoM. Well...what more could be said?

Edited April 12, 2014 by why me

[Stargazer]

I agree. I can't understand why members don't just embrace the idea that he had sex with his polygamous wives. If they truly believe that polygamy was a commandment from the Lord, what does it matter if he had sex with 14 year old girls and women who were married to other men? God's commandments tump all right? 

 

It's not just the members; there's non-members fussing about it, too.

 

But that aside, and according to what I have heard (please someone contradict me if I am wrong), the problem is that some of the women to whom Joseph were sealed to had previously been married and in fact were still married to other men as worldly husbands.  In other words, a few of the women were in civil marriages at time they were sealed to Joseph, and remained in those marriages.  In at least one of these cases, not only had the civil husband given permission for the sealing to Joseph, but he had even attended the ceremony when the sealing took place.  It is in these cases, the Eternity-Only marriages, where the question of consummation comes up as a particular controversy.  The other marriages involving women who had not been married to anyone else, may or may not have been consummated.  I should think that there had been consummation with Helen Mar Kimball and Eliza Snow, for example, both of whom had not been previously married.

[Calm]

"The problem for me is the beginning of the story about writing a letter to his bishop. Why? And then the problem with the stake president. Both the bishop and the SP can be called on the phone for a face to face, especially the bishop"

I think the explanation he gives in the thread on the bishop's letter is reasonable. He did not have a closevrelationship with his bishop who appeared to him reluctant to discuss the stuff. He appears to have tried that method before. It would also be the method I would use myself to ensure accurate communication and understanding (i write instead of call when looking for info for the ward bulletin, i figure that way he can answer at his convenience) plus it seems it was important to him to be able document his efforts to have proof he tried for his family.

[Stargazer]

I read this letter too (it's getting interest on several online sites).  This statement seems odd to me:

 

"You are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people."

 

Why not then refer this person to the right people (as you state, Duncan)?  Or, are they truly saying that these types of doubts and questions are now just between the person and God?  I do understand that this is what it really comes down to, but aren't our leaders here to also help with the answers?  

 

Edited to add that I'm surprised they didn't refer the writer of this letter to FairMormon.org as it's an excellent site with answers.

 

The problem is, I don't think that anything Pres. Uchtdorf, Pres. Eyring or even Pres. Monson could say that would have satisfied this brother.  I mean, what could they say? "Thus saith the Lord..." and attach it to an explanation?  But why would this brother feel impelled to accept this from Monson, if Monson is not a Prophet, Seer, or Revelator?  And if he is a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, then the Church is true and his question is completely beside the point!!!

 

In short, the only possible thing left to do is take it to the Lord.  And if you don't consider it important enough to take to the Lord, then hey, don't let the screen door hit you on your way out!  

[Stargazer]

The response to the letter from the secretary of the First Presidency is, IMO, unacceptable.  I hope if the First Presidency gets wind of this, they send out a more appropriate response.  At the very least point him to someone or to sources of some sort.  I mean its fine that it all comes down to faith and it's fine to point that out, but to brush someone off like that just seems inappropriate. 

 

Perhaps you should go back and re-read this.  The secretary of the FP wrote that Pres. Uchtdorf had directed him to respond in that manner. 

 

It was very clear to me that he was simply exercising "due diligence" in asking the questions he was asking.  He was on his way out the door, and wanted to make sure he punched all his tickets in an orderly manner.  The direction to take it to the Lord was entirely appropriate, and indeed, was the perfect response.  If he can't be bothered to ask the Lord, why would he believe anything a mere GA would say?  

[Tacenda]

That's how I went about approaching my bishop, by writing an email or actually responding. Since the day before the 1st counselor had stopped by my home to ask me to teach primary. The 1st counselor strongly suggested I stay involved in the church, this only after spilling my guts as to why I couldn't teach, since my testimony wasn't where it should be. Therefore I couldn't say no at first but took time to think. It was easier to write the bishop and explain my difficulties, rather than do it in person. Consequently, there was no response to that email, I got nothing. So I get why the guy felt the need to write the First Presidency...when the SP and bishop failed to give answers. My bishop has now turned SP, and still nothing, but I don't fault him.

ETA: This is in response to Cal's previous post.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Tacenda

[Stargazer]

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.

 

Every single General Conference the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve get up and bear testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, and the reality of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  Perhaps you have forgotten in the week that has gone by since Conference ended?

 

And this guy writes a letter to President Uchtdorf asking him for what?  A satisfying explanation of matters that are bothering him?  Especially, when he does not accept the explanations that are on offer from the Church already? Why should Pres. Uchtdorf repeat to him the things that he has already rejected?  Just because they come from a General Authority, this is going to be sufficient to remove his doubt?  If he doubts that Pres. Uchtdorf really is a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, then what good does it do for Pres. Uchtdorf to make any assurances to him that his concerns are groundless?  The only possible way out for the man is to ask the Lord.  If he can't do that (and he makes it very clear that he isn't going to do it), then the matter is concluded.

 

His mind was made up already.  As I said, he was just doing his "due diligence" on his way out of the Church.

[Calm]

It's not just the members; there's non-members fussing about it, too.

But that aside, and according to what I have heard (please someone contradict me if I am wrong), the problem is that some of the women to whom Joseph were sealed to had previously been married and in fact were still married to other men as worldly husbands. In other words, a few of the women were in civil marriages at time they were sealed to Joseph, and remained in those marriages. In at least one of these cases, not only had the civil husband given permission for the sealing to Joseph, but he had even attended the ceremony when the sealing took place. It is in these cases, the Eternity-Only marriages, where the question of consummation comes up as a particular controversy. The other marriages involving women who had not been married to anyone else, may or may not have been consummated. I should think that there had been consummation with Helen Mar Kimball and Eliza Snow, for example, both of whom had not been previously married.

Not with Helen Mar. The way she writes she appears to have understood the sealing as something besides an actual marriage (she continued attending dances for one thing for a number of months after the sealing took place and when forbidden to go to one due to the oresence of "black legs" she still thought she should be able to go and iJS told her father to let him make the decision rather than instructing her father or herself not to go as a husband would have IMO) and later in Utah it was common for younger women/girls who were sealed to stay at their parents' home until they were closer to the typical age at w hich time they would move to their husband's home and the marriage consummated,.the sealing acted both as betrothal and marriage vows in those cases. I think it likely would have been consummated in a few years if JS had lived.

For Eliza R, from what she wrote, I would be very surprised if it wasn't consummated especially given she had moved into the Mansion for a time.

Edited April 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[why me]

That's how I went about approaching my bishop, by writing an email or actually responding also, since the day before the 1st counselor had stopped by my home to ask me to teach primary. I needed to let the bishop know, since the 1st counselor strongly suggested I stay involved in the church, this after spilling my guts as to why I couldn't teach since my testimony wasn't where it should be, therefore I couldn't say no at first but took time to think. It was easier to write the bishop and explain my difficulties, rather than do it in person. Consequently, there was no response to that email, I got nothing. So I get why the guy felt the need to write the First Presidency...when the SP and bishop failed to give answers. My bishop has now turned SP, and still nothing, but I don't fault him.

ETA: This is in response to Cal's previous post.

I think that in this day and age when people get countless emails from work, emails from private people, emails from spam etc, it may be a stretch to expect an email reply. How many people actually enjoy responding to emails? Not many. It is very nice to have email but to respond to emails as a bishop takes much time and thought since any email from a bishop can suddenly end up on RFM.

 

A phone call is always best and more direct. People just don't always respond to emails and quite often the email can get buried in the email if that person is getting a lot of emails. If it were so important, the man in question could have went to church, spoke with the bishop and he would have gotten his time. It is really that simple.

[why me]

"The problem for me is the beginning of the story about writing a letter to his bishop. Why? And then the problem with the stake president. Both the bishop and the SP can be called on the phone for a face to face, especially the bishop"

I think the explanation he gives in the thread on the bishop's letter is reasonable. He did not have a closevrelationship with his bishop who appeared to him reluctant to discuss the stuff. He appears to have tried that method before. It would also be the method I would use myself to ensure accurate communication and understanding (i write instead of call when looking for info for the ward bulletin, i figure that way he can answer at his convenience) plus it seems it was important to him to be able document his efforts to have proof he tried for his family.

And the bishop forwarded his letter to the SP. Then, the brother waited and waited for the SP to respond. No response. But a phone call to the SP would have done the trick. I would not want to leave a paper trail if I were a bishop or SP these days. I have seen many such letters from these men in such callings on exmember boards with a good ol' heehaw and a hearty laugh from the exmembers. I would insist on personal meetings with such men who have issues and maybe have a counselor with me as a witness. Nothing is private anymore, especially written correspondence.

 

And then of course, we have the secret pen that is filming everything for youtube. So...if one wishes to give harm, one can certainly do so by asking leading questions for youtube stardom.

Edited April 12, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

A phone call is always best and more direct.

I disagree. If one wants accurate and complete information, I think a combination of writing and speaking is most effective. For conveying factual information, writing is probably best, especially since people can double check if they read it correctly and review info overtime to absorb it better.

Depending on the question, there may also be too much information needing to be shared to fit conveniently into personal meetings. Visual aids available in writing can help clarify as well. Errors are also much easier to catch and correct in writing as opposed to speaking, especially unrecorded. For example, since Dan had in mind a specific set of wives when discussing potential sexual relationships, he might have assumed he made it clear. I have often assumed I shared information I actually only thought of while speaking. If the fireside had not been recorded, he might not have been aware of the lack of clarity and would not have been able to add the additional information to clarify which would correct likely misunderstandings (not saying in this case he needs to tell the kids more detail etc to clarify given the inappropriateness of the question for that age group in the first place, hopefully the parents or future teachers are or will be aware enough of the issues that when they are old enough this becomes an appropriate conversation, more specific details will be provided...it will be interesting to see the essay on Nauvoo plural marriage to see how it deals with this sensitive issue).

If he had written to the individual rather than speaking, he would have likely caught the potential error if he proofread his comments (and given his usual lack of spelling and grammar errors, I assume it likely he doublechecks his writing usually) which writing gives us an option to do.

I learn much more from reading talks than I do listening. Always miss something important and subtle nuances often don't appear without study. One cannot study a phone call. If the subject is complicated, writing is necessary IMO for best learning. Otoh, there are emotional nuances that may not come through writing...thus a combination maximises communication IMO.

Issues of privacy are a different matter. One has to measure priorities...can I actually help this person? Is he open to new information enough to balance the risk he is playing some game to make me look bad, etc.

Edited April 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[why me]

I disagree. If one wants accurate and complete information, I think a combination of writing and speaking is most effective. For conveying factual information, writing is probably best, especially since people can double check if they read it correctly and review info overtime to absorb it better.

Issues of privacy are a different matter. One has to measure priorities...can I actually help this person? Is he open to new information enough to balance the risk he is playing some game to make me look bad, etc.

I can agree with you about the writing. But unfortunately we live a very time consuming world. I am not sure if people have time to read a six page letter of issues and attempt a written response, especially a bishop who has a wife and kids running around the house. Not to mention a stake president also. As we can see with this case, the letters are there for all to see now. No privacy at all. I would be reluctant as bishop to put anything down in writing especially if I am active on the web...I would hate to see my private letter on RFM. Or have me sitting in my office with the person and become a youtube star. I don't want my 15 minutes of fame. So, if I were bishop if i saw a pen in the individual's shirt pocket, I would probably ask him if I can use it to write a memo and then sit on it.

[ALarson]

I am a litltle suspicious. First, who is the secretary? Is it a man or a woman? And do all three have one secretary? And why no name? And why such an ending to a letter? Basically, the letter is saying: sorry, but this letter will be inadequate but I hope that you can deal with it anyway.

 

If the letter is real, the secretary should be called in to face the music.

The letter in the scan shows that Brook P. Hales signed it and his name is also typed beneath and "Secretary to the First Presidency" typed underneath that.

 

Here's a link to the image:

 http://forum.newordermormon.org/download/file.php?id=459&mode=view

 

why me, do you still believe "the secretary should be called in to face the music"?  If so, why?

[Tacenda]

The letter in the scan shows that Brook P. Hales signed it and his name is also typed beneath and "Secretary to the First Presidency" typed underneath that.

Here's a link to the image:

http://forum.newordermormon.org/download/file.php?id=459&mode=view

why me, do you still believe "the secretary should be called in to face the music"? If so, why?

Bro. Hales signature looks like a girl's signature, somewhat. I bet he gets confused for one often, with the name and signature. If people only know him through correspondence, that is. I don't mean this in a derogatory manner, it makes me like him all the more. And he definitely has a fun and interesting job, working side by side the First Presidency.