Section 132: Of Man Or God?

[ttribe]

Of course, as there is no reliable contemporary evidence that these relationships were anything other than sealings, he is jumping to conclusions based on an unproven, and I would argue, unsafe assumption.

 

Like I have said before, Joseph publicly denied he had any other wife but Emma and that he could prove those who said otherwise liars. That is and will remain good enough for me.

 

Have you read any of Brian Hales' analyses of Joseph's other marriages?  How about Compton?  Both faithful LDS and both acknowledge that (at least in some cases), the marriages were more than just sealings.

[rockpond]

But then again, Brigham never had to give a radio interview.

But he still manages to have the intent of his recorded sayings mangled.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I think there a lot of questions arise about BY's statements because so many of them seem to contrast with current (and even previous) church teachings.  But there is so much great stuff from his amazing life to study... remember how the RS/PH manual that covered his life took about two years to cover?

[rockpond]

Section 132: Of Man Or God?

 

 

Why are you are asking us?

 

Does God post here?

 

We keep hoping.  

[rockpond]

I think that the lds church is playing catch up when it comes to social media. It seems that members believe that they can saying anything they want about church doctrine when it is placed on social media. But we also need to understand that if such statements were said in meetings, they would most likely be in hot water. What ones says on social media can have tremendous influence on what members think and how they act. So, there also should be some accountability about what one says on social media also.

 

Now in terms of Hinckley. To my knowledge, he was not given the question in advance. And if so, this was a mistake. In other words, I think that much of what he said in the interview was off the cuff and when one says things off the cuff, there may be misstatements etc. We have also seen this with the pope, who just happens to be the first pope to take questions unprepared for what these questions may be. Unfortunately, Hinckley doesn't get any slack for his answers during that interview or any other off the cuff interview. People hang on those words to justify their disbelief, anger etc. when people with critical minds understand the context of what he said and the mistake that he made in confusion. Fortunately, the pople gets more slack and understanding. And might I had that Hinckley was in his 90s when the interview took place or in his late 80s. Now, I know, that what I just wrote will have no impact whatever because people will still wish to put what he said in a negative light of hiding church doctrine.

 

I feel sorry for Hinckley. A lifetime of great work as leader in the lds church has been 'blemished (because of critic exploitation) by a misstatement during an interview. Poor guy. But it is amazing just what members or former members wish to exploit for their own bias confirmation.

 

Absolutely... I expect anyone to make some missteps when speaking extemporaneously in a nationally televised interview.  If President Hinckley felt that he misspoke he had the means and time to make corrections.

 

What you see as people exploiting for their own bias confirmation, others see as seeking to understand what the prophet might have truly felt/meant by his responses.  I don't see a reason to put it in a negative light.

[rockpond]

You don"t??

 

I don't.  But I'm also not really bothered by much of the questioning and critical analyses of the Church... I see the dialogue as good and moving us all upward.

[rockpond]

The answer comes by looking at pragmatism rather than principle. What really matters is whether your words have an impact on other members. Tolerance is a fine principle, but if you put out a convincing argument that other people rely on to change their minds, then some action may be taken against you. I'm not plugged into Kirk's circles, but it seems that his piece quickly gained traction. In fact, that is precisely why that Hales decided to release a response:

 

I think the piece did gain some traction early on but more more so when he was threatened with excommunication.  And while I haven't finished reading the Hales' response, I'm glad Brian and Laura took the time to write it.  They have a great perspective from their extensive study on the matter.

 

Your phrasing above is interesting... you indicate that problems could arise if one puts out a convincing argument that others rely on.  Does validity of the argument factor in at all?  I'm just thinking of Quinn who was, presumably, excommunicated for publishing an argument (post-manifesto polygamy) that has now been validated by the Church.

[JLHPROF]

Section 132: Of Man Or God?

 

 

Why are you are asking us?

 

Does God post here?

 

If he speaks through us through his spirit he does...

[ksfisher]

I'm just thinking of Quinn who was, presumably, excommunicated for publishing an argument (post-manifesto polygamy) that has now been validated by the Church.

 

There seems to have more to it than what you mention.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Church_discipline/Scholars/D._Michael_Quinn

[JLHPROF]

There seems to have more to it than what you mention.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Church_discipline/Scholars/D._Michael_Quinn

 

I like this quote - ""Heresy" has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions."

 

I guess I am a heretic but not an apostate.  That makes me feel better.

[ksfisher]

I like this quote - ""Heresy" has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions."

 

I guess I am a heretic but not an apostate.  That makes me feel better.

 

I think all of us can say that there are things that we don't understand about the gospel and the church.  Whether this goes to the extent of holding "heretical" views, or just saying "I don't understand, I need to learn more" is up to each individual.  But we do need to make sure that in our quest to learn and grow that we don't inadvertently weaken the faith of others.

[why me]

Absolutely... I expect anyone to make some missteps when speaking extemporaneously in a nationally televised interview.  If President Hinckley felt that he misspoke he had the means and time to make corrections.

 

What you see as people exploiting for their own bias confirmation, others see as seeking to understand what the prophet might have truly felt/meant by his responses.  I don't see a reason to put it in a negative light.

I sit it as nitpicking. Of course, if Hinckley had a crystal ball and see just what commotion his misstatement would cause 20 years later I think he would have done so. Or perhaps those people who felt a little betrayed could have read some of his books and see just what a great guy he was. Of course, those in faith crisis may have problems with doing this. Much better to latch on to the interview and claim something negative from it. I suppose that Hinckley made a serious mistake: he believed that members testimonies were strong and vibrant, and those with wonderful spiritual experiences would not be too out of sorts with a misstatements. But he was wrong if he believed this. But who is perfect.

 

The point is that critics will use any means necessary to shake testimonies and their interpretation of this interview have caused some members to reinforce their disbelief etc. Such is the internet....a media outlet where nothing goes away and where everything can be pulled from a hat over and over again as this interview is. However, I think that this is what he meant to say in the interview:

 

 

And here is the man before he died:

 

 

This is the man that I remember and who the critics wish to hide.

Edited March 12, 2015 by why me

[rockpond]

I sit it as nitpicking. Of course, if Hinckley had a crystal ball and see just what commotion his misstatement would cause 20 years later I think he would have done so. Or perhaps those people who felt a little betrayed could have read some of his books and see just what a great guy he was. Of course, those in faith crisis may have problems with doing this. Much better to latch on to the interview and claim something negative from it. I suppose that Hinckley made a serious mistake: he believed that members testimonies were strong and vibrant, and those with wonderful spiritual experiences would not be too out of sorts with a misstatements. But he was wrong if he believed this. But who is perfect.

The point is that critics will use any means necessary to shake testimonies and their interpretation of this interview have caused some members to reinforce their disbelief etc. Such is the internet....a media outlet where nothing goes away and where everything can be pulled from a hat over and over again as this interview is. However, I think that this is what he meant to say in the interview:

And here is the man before he died:

This is the man that I remember and who the critics wish to hide.

I'm confused at why you feel those who interpret his words differently than you must also consider to be not a "great guy".

I don't watch/read the interview and claim anything negative in it. Perhaps what you are seeing as negative, testimony shaking, disbelief causing is actually a positive to many.

For example, I love President Hinckley. He will always be the wonderful, kind-hearted prophet of my youth. And while I am unsure of his personal beliefs on polygamy and think that maybe he wasn't entirely opposed to the idea of women being ordained or church financial disclosure that doesn't give me any negative feelings about him. It doesn't make me question his role as prophet. I love him. He's an amazing, dedicated, inspired man.

[rockpond]

There seems to have more to it than what you mention.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Church_discipline/Scholars/D._Michael_Quinn

I am sure there is more to it than I know. But, given the circumstances, Quinn has earned my trust on this specific matter more than church leadership.

[JLHPROF]

I am sure there is more to it than I know. But, given the circumstances, Quinn has earned my trust on this specific matter more than church leadership.

 

That seems odd - he says he was facing discipline for his writings on history, but he never bothered to show up to the court to find out.  I'm sure that's what he'd like to think.  And the timing (September 6) certainly lends him credibility.

 

Either way, considering the crap he put out post-excom he really would have been disciplined for his writings eventually anyway.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There seems to have more to it than what you mention.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Church_discipline/Scholars/D._Michael_Quinn

I was about to believe that RP was giving us all there was.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am sure there is more to it than I know. But, given the circumstances, Quinn has earned my trust on this specific matter more than church leadership.

Of course he has. You seem to always line up with the apostates. That should tell you something about your self.

 

Quinn is your hero.

Delin is your hero.

KK is your hero.

 

Who else did I forget?

[rockpond]

Of course he has. You seem to always line up with the apostates. That should tell you something about your self.

 

Quinn is your hero.

Delin is your hero.

KK is your hero.

 

Who else did I forget?

 

None of them are my heroes.  But...

 

Quinn is a fantastic historian and a firm believer in the restoration and Joseph Smith (still today).

 

Dehlin's work helped me during a low time in my life when the church couldn't/wouldn't.  He has followed his heart in trying to help those who he feels have been hurt by church policies.  I respect him for that though it saddens me that he lost his faith.

 

While I don't agree with the approach that Kelly took, I see her as a woman of faith.  If you haven't listened to her A Thoughtful Faith podcast interview with Gina Colvin, I recommend it as a great way to understand Kelly rather than the media + social media portrayal of her.  Here's the link:  http://athoughtfulfaith.org/063a-conversation-with-kate-kelly-feminist-and-optimist/

[rockpond]

That seems odd - he says he was facing discipline for his writings on history, but he never bothered to show up to the court to find out.  I'm sure that's what he'd like to think.  And the timing (September 6) certainly lends him credibility.

 

Either way, considering the crap he put out post-excom he really would have been disciplined for his writings eventually anyway.

 

Yes, the Sept 6 timing does lend credibility to his claim that he was ex'd for his writings.

 

I'm not sure what "crap" you are referring to.  But I agree he was on a path toward excommunication for writing things that the Brethren did not want revealed.

[ksfisher]

Yes, the Sept 6 timing does lend credibility to his claim that he was ex'd for his writings.

 

I'm not sure what "crap" you are referring to.  But I agree he was on a path toward excommunication for writing things that the Brethren did not want revealed.

 

I think the key to understanding why Quinn was excommunicated is the "conduct unbecoming a member of the church" line from the Fairmormon article.  This seems consistent with later revelations about his personal life. 

[rockpond]

The Van Allens' have now posted their response to the Hales' critique. It's on their site: Mormonverse.com.

Also, they have apparently decided to leave the original post online which means they will likely be facing a disciplinary council if the SP hasn't altered his previously stated position.

[JLHPROF]

I think the key to understanding why Quinn was excommunicated is the "conduct unbecoming a member of the church" line from the Fairmormon article.  This seems consistent with later revelations about his personal life. 

 

I would love to agree with this, but given that he was excommunicated along side other academics (September 6) I doubt it didn't relate to his writings.

[JLHPROF]

The Van Allens' have now posted their response to the Hales' critique. It's on their site: Mormonverse.com.

Also, they have apparently decided to leave the original post online which means they will likely be facing a disciplinary council if the SP hasn't altered his previously stated position.

 

I think that's unavoidable and quite correct (for reasons I already explained).

[rockpond]

Deleted.

Edited March 14, 2015 by rockpond

[ksfisher]

I would love to agree with this, but given that he was excommunicated along side other academics (September 6) I doubt it didn't relate to his writings.

I don't doubt that his writing put him on his local leaderships radar and precipitated the action, but I would bet that it was the conduct unbecoming was the clincher during the actual council.

[Coreyb]

Of course he has. You seem to always line up with the apostates. That should tell you something about your self.

 

Quinn is your hero.

Delin is your hero.

KK is your hero.

 

Who else did I forget?

Quinn is a hero to me. The other two not so much