Policy Anger and Apostle Surprise

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

There have been factions in the twelve since the time Christ himself called twelve men from Israel into his leadership.

Look how many times the Apostles in the Bible "argued" about doctrine and practice,and even mundain daily tasks.  The Peter (judeizers) and Paul (Gentiliers) factions continues to this very day.  (Gal 2:11)

With respect, I'll take Michael Otterson's word over your innuendo.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Zakuska]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was there on that occasion as well, and this strikes me as exaggeration.

While he was showing signs of age (he died very soon after that) I didn't get the sense of alarming deterioration.

He seemed fine at GC a few months before that but on that occasion he struggled to find the words for the "chandelier" hanging from the ceiling in making an analogy about the "light of the Lord".

Edited December 23, 2015 by Zakuska

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was there on that occasion as well, and this strikes me as exaggeration.

While he was showing signs of age (he died very soon after that) I didn't get the sense of alarming deterioration.

I wonder if a person who only sporadically pays attention to the Brethren might have a more sketchy perception of them as compared to someone who, like you, watches and observes them on a regular basis.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I was sure you would.

Joseph frequently pronounced revelation from the pulpit and it was approved by no other GA.

Brigham and Orson went head to head on several of Brigham's revelations.

John Taylor was in hiding for much of the 1880s yet presumably was being led by the Lord in leading the Church.

Correlation would have been a foreign concept to them, at least as far as on doctrinal issues.  Even getting united approval from the GA's was preferred, not required.

I think leading a culturally and linguistically diversified 15-million-member international church in 2015 would also be "a foreign concept" to the early Brethren.  But I'll leave debating the merits of correlation for another time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Must believe everything I read on the Internet...must believe everything I read on the Internet...must believe everything I read on the Internet...

Do you believe everything the Church sources say?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Do you believe everything the Church sources say?

I will admit that I give a presumption of trust, legitimacy and acceptance to formal pronouncements from the Church, particularly as pertaining to statements of doctrine and important policy and administrative decisions promulgated with the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

I will also admit that I give a presumption of skepticism to lurid, agenda-driven, hostile screeds against my Church and its leaders, such as the article under discussion in this thread.

Color me fickle.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 23, 2015 by smac97

[Zakuska]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Do you believe everything the Church sources say?

But of course Teancum... because if its a Church source in public they say they're fallible. But when push comes to shove ever time some one brings up something they don't see eye to eye with leadership on all of a sudden the Leaders walk on water and can do no wrong, and the person who is bringing up the issue is instantly and automatically labeled an Ark Steadier. (Case in point from 2 days ago... http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66626-a-review-of-recent-trends-re-ordination-of-women-in-lds-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209571185)

Get with the Program Tea!

Edited December 23, 2015 by Zakuska

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The article barely rises to the level of gossip.

Oh I don't know. After reading the book David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism I was enlightened on all the politicking, posturing, power grabbing, going behind an aging Church President's back, the push by powerful senior apostles of their agenda I would say this article makes total sense.

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I was sure you would.

Joseph frequently pronounced revelation from the pulpit and it was approved by no other GA.

Brigham and Orson went head to head on several of Brigham's revelations.

John Taylor was in hiding for much of the 1880s yet presumably was being led by the Lord in leading the Church.

Correlation would have been a foreign concept to them, at least as far as on doctrinal issues.  Even getting united approval from the GA's was preferred, not required.

Presentist fallacy. You have no way of knowing that the earlier presidents of the Church, in the same time and under the same conditions and circumstances, would not under inspiration from God have implemented the priesthood correlation program or something very similar thereto.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

But of course Teancum... because if its a Church source in Public they say they're fallible. But when ever some one brings up something they don't see eye to eye with leadership on all of a sudden the Leaders walk on water and can do no wrong, and the person who is bringing up the issue is instantly and automatically labeled an Ark Steadier.

Get with the Program Tea!

Not to toot my own horn, but I think my previous post is a far more accurate and reasonable approximation of the position taken by your run-of-the-mill faithful, observant Latter-day Saint than the above pablum.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 23, 2015 by smac97

[Teancum]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The article is intending to portray the Brethren as a bunch of uninspired, scheming, conniving manipulators.  Circumventing the Correlation Committee would seemingly bolster the narrative of the Brethren being factionalized and using underhanded means to foist their personal preferences on the body of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Have you read the McKay bio I mention above?

[Zakuska]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Have you read the McKay bio I mention above?

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh I don't know. After reading the book David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism I was enlightened on all the politicking, posturing, power grabbing, going behind an aging Church President's back, the push by powerful senior apostles of their agenda I would say this article makes total sense.

Look how much politics played into getting the Prophet Joseph Smith killed. How many different factions and politics where played in the early church? It seems we went through regular attrition of the 12 every six months or so.

Emmas politicing gave us the WOW for hecks sake.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Zakuska

[Teancum]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I was sure you would.

Joseph frequently pronounced revelation from the pulpit and it was approved by no other GA.

Brigham and Orson went head to head on several of Brigham's revelations.

John Taylor was in hiding for much of the 1880s yet presumably was being led by the Lord in leading the Church.

Correlation would have been a foreign concept to them, at least as far as on doctrinal issues.  Even getting united approval from the GA's was preferred, not required.

Ahh JLH the Church you belong to is not the Church of Joseph or of Brigham.  You are a man for the wrong time.

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I'll take Michael Otterson's word over your innuendo.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course you would.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ahh JLH the Church you belong to is not the Church of Joseph or of Brigham.  You are a man for the wrong time.

Now THAT I know.  Oh for the days when prophets prophesied...

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Of course you would.

Yeah, I'm funny that way.  Michael Otterson interacts regularly with the First Presidency and the Twelve, and has done so for many years.  He is in a singularly advantaged position to speak about the issue of whether "factions" exist or not.  In contrast, Zak is an anonymous online poster with no first-hand knowledge whatsoever, and who is relying purely on gossip and innuendo hostile to the LDS Church.

Michael Otterson's testimony, such as it is, would have significant probative value as to issue at hand.  Zak's testimony has none.  So yes, "of course" I am partial to accepting the former over the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Look how much politics played into getting the Prophet Joseph Smith killed. How many different factions and politics where played in the early church? It seems we went through regular attrition of the 12 every six months or so.

Emmas politicing gave us the WOW for hecks sake.

.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Presentist fallacy. You have no way of knowing that the earlier presidents of the Church, in the same time and under the same conditions and circumstances, would not under inspiration from God have implemented the priesthood correlation or something very similar thereto.

You are probably right.  It is just my opinion.  I think correlation has led to a dumbing down of the average member where their own religion is concerned.  Not all members of course - this board is proof of the knowledge and understanding of many members.  But the average member (most of my family for instance) knows virtually nothing of the doctrines and history of the Church beyond the average Sunday School level.

But you are right - this is my bias, not a demonstrable fact.

[Teancum]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I will admit that I give a presumption of trust, legitimacy and acceptance to formal pronouncements from the Church, particularly as pertaining to statements of doctrine and important policy and administrative decisions promulgated with the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

I will also admit that I give a presumption of skepticism to lurid, agenda-driven, hostile screeds against my Church and its leaders, such as the article under discussion in this thread.

Color me fickle.

Thanks,

-Smac

So you are not biased at all then are you?

[smac97]

Just now, Teancum said:

So you are not biased at all then are you?

If this was a reasonable, fair-minded, or otherwise legitimate question, I would answer it.  But it ain't, so I won't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh I don't know. After reading the book David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism I was enlightened on all the politicking, posturing, power grabbing, going behind an aging Church President's back, the push by powerful senior apostles of their agenda I would say this article makes total sense.

That was the book that led one review writing scholar to speculate that Pres. McKay was a secret polygamist.

Edited December 23, 2015 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

You are probably right.  It is just my opinion.  I think correlation has led to a dumbing down of the average member where their own religion is concerned.  Not all members of course - this board is proof of the knowledge and understanding of many members.  But the average member (most of my family for instance) knows virtually nothing of the doctrines and history of the Church beyond the average Sunday School level.

But you are right - this is my bias, not a demonstrable fact.

Do you think the general membership of the Church had a more in-depth understanding of the Restored Gospel as compared to the post-correlation membership?

Put another way, how would you go about substantiating the claim that "correlation has led to a dumbing down of the average member"?  It seems that the failure of some Latter-day Saints to give their faith more searching study and analysis has not been only a post-correlation problem.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I will admit that I give a presumption of trust, legitimacy and acceptance to formal pronouncements from the Church, particularly as pertaining to statements of doctrine and important policy and administrative decisions promulgated with the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

I will also admit that I give a presumption of skepticism to lurid, agenda-driven, hostile screeds against my Church and its leaders, such as the article under discussion in this thread.

Color me fickle.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure.  And Obama's PR guy gives you the full picture are as well.

 

I suggest your approach is colored by your faith, testimony and is naïve.

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If this was a reasonable, fair-minded, or otherwise legitimate question, I would answer it.  But it ain't, so I won't.

Thanks,

-Smac

So in other words... yes.

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Do you believe everything the Church sources say?

I imagine that if I said no I would be chided for my lack of faith in the brethren.  While if I said yes you would trot out examples of when church leaders have been wrong. 

Edited December 23, 2015 by ksfisher