Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

On this thread, I am beginning to just not think at all.   

If you go back to the FAirMormon link, you will see by reading the original article (and President Smith's letter)  that the context for the poorly-worded irony was about adversarial thinking running in tandem with speaking against leaders who speak for our benefit. That kind of "thinking," like those kinds of "questions" isn't the kind the Gospel invites and teaches us to use. The same complaints are made about having "doubts."

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But you've seen on this thread a number of members who had heard the same idea throughout their years of membership in the church.

That has nothing to do with the false conclusion connecting prophetic fallibility with whether someone thinks she should not think.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

In their quest to defend Church leaders, apologists sometimes find themselves in the odd position of having to deny what they teach.

Yes, indeed, in an Orwellian world of your choosing, Counselor, in which newspeak and doublespeak become normative.  What is even odder is that non-Mormon intellectuals, who closely examine Mormon theology, so often find themselves in agreement with Mormon intellectuals (whom you blithely term "apologists" in order to tar and feather them).  Why would qualified, independent third parties find real Mormon theology so convincing and solid?  Of course, you deny that such is the case, i.e., that Mormon theology has a leg to stand on.  Thus, you demand that we all accept the false notion of infallibility as authentic so that someone like Viegas-Haws can give it a hard thump.  An effective attack mode, but hardly honest.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

CFR that President Tanner, or any other Church leader or publication, has ever said that if we don't receive a personal witness of any such message [from the Prophet] through the Holy Spirit, "we cannot say that it is correct and inspired."

See below.

If such a principle were ever to be acknowledged, then it would fundamentally change the teachings of the Church about the Prophet in very obvious ways, because we should only be obedient to those things which are "correct and inspired", and we can only know which things are so after we have received a personal witness.  So every lesson about obedience or following the Prophet would be predicated on the principle of first receiving personal witnesses of "the message" under consideration, and only needing to be obedient after receiving confirmation.

A lot of people are clearly willing to give the Brethren and the Prophet the benefit of the doubt pending their own receipt of the witness of the Holy Spirit.  But the bedrock principle which differentiates LDS theology from that of normative Judeo-Christian dogma is precisely that one can only know of the authenticity of any prophetic message by the witness of the Spirit (II Peter 1:20).  Jews and Catholics accept tradition, while Protestants interpret Scripture via Scripture.  Only the Catholics allow for a prophetic voice, and then only under limited circumstances.

I've never seen anything like that discussed, and in fact, the opposite is usually taught (be obedient even if you don't have a confirmation).  For example, Apostle Delbert Stapley recommended we ask ourselves this question to judge our level of faithfulness:

What if someone disagrees with God's living prophet because they haven't yet received a witness from the Holy Spirit that the prophet is correct?  That would seem to be a very real possibility according to your methodology, but it would seem to contradict Elder Stapley.

As Pres Tanner observed: "Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each of us can have the assurance that the course we choose has his divine approval."

It might have been helpful had you actually read my exchange with Tacenda in which she quoted the actual words of Pres Tanner (I even bolded the relevant words which you are asking for here):

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I recall a recent General Conference talk, warning those receiving their own revelations vs. the Prophet's revelations.  Now if only I could find it, my memory is shot.  But the speaker may have been talking about speaking for the Lord for the church.  But I did find this Ensign talk when googling.  

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/08/the-debate-is-over?lang=eng

A couple of c/p's from the talk below:

"True Latter-day Saints have no such dilemma. They know that the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and who themselves try to keep in tune with deity. They are not, as some would suggest, following blindly and acting without their own agency to speak and think for themselves. Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each of us can have the assurance that the course we choose has his divine approval."

"We must turn all this about. We cannot serve God and mammon. Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over."

My response was:

Quote

Excellent points, Tacenda, and the Aug 1979 First Presidency message of Pres Tanner is a very good case.  He is talking about messages from the LDS prophet, and he gives a specific example of the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89), so we are not dealing with offhand, innocent opinions by a Mormon prophet, but rather with canonized or special, signed proclamations.  In the case of the Word of Wisdom, which dealt with the temporal realm, it was not applied at first as a commandment, and not made a question in temple recommend interviews until generations after it had been received.  We must always understand both historical and modern context, for therein lie the nuances.

I have already gone over above what it means to say that "the debate is over," for any executive office-holder.  Here, however, Pres Tanner says much the same thing that Brother Brigham used to say:  All of us are required to obtain a personal witness of any such message through the Holy Spirit.  If not, we cannot really say that it is correct and inspired.

You choose to ignore the frequent words of the prophets demanding that we know for ourselves, and that we not  live on "borrowed light."  That is the sine qua non of Mormonism.  That you deny knowing such a principle is astonishing.

Quote

“… Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to do in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but…somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the Celestial Kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, through all mankind besides should take the opposite course…”  Brigham Young Journal of Discourses I:312)

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied… Suppose that the people were heedless, …manifest[ing] no concern with regard to the things of the Kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are;’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.”

“How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.”  (Brigham Young Journal of Discourses III:45)

“…I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not…”  (Brigham Young Journal of Discourses IX:150)

“We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, unless he turns from his folly.”

“… the question is sometimes asked–to what extent is obedience to those who hold the Priesthood required? …willing obedience to the laws of God, administered by the Priesthood, is indispensable to salvation; but…none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood.”  (Millennial Star “Priesthood” 1852)

“Do not, brethren, put your trust in a man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone…”  (George Q. Cannon Millennial Star 53:658-659)

“And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile…”  (Hugh B. Brown “A Final Testimony” from An Abundant Life 1999)

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

What do you mean by "they are all wrong".  You haven't established that yet.  All you've said is that you don't like her implication that at least some church members believed the once published church teaching that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done".

Many on this thread have verified her statement that some members have, in fact, been taught that (admittedly, incorrect) idea so it isn't surprising that she once believed that.

So, I ask again for you to explain what she has written that is false, wrong, or in error (all statements I believe you have used to describe her ten points).

I don't need to answer your CFR since you continually ignore mine but I will say that I don't agree with some of her points (either entirely or in part).  I'd be happy to go through them but only if you're going to provide direct answers from your perspective.  I don't really enjoy the game you and Scott have been playing on this thread.

So you reject my right to express my opinion?  I carefully read through her very short article, and found it deeply flawed, as I have already stated.  Where does it say that I don't have the right to express my views?

You also told me that her views were "true" for her because they were her authentic experience.  That is an odd measure of actual truth, and now you are backtracking from that.  If you are so broad-minded, why can't you simply accept me at my word that my own experience tells me that she is systematically wrong?   If it's good enough for Viegas-Haws, why can't it be good enough for me?  That's what can happen when we completely relativize truth.  I can't speak for Scott Lloyd, but I am playing no game, and I have no truck with relative truth.  I am simply too lazy to spend an inordinate amount of time listing in detail why each of her points is false, only to have you play games with the facts.  If I thought that you took Mormon history and theology seriously, I'd probably take the time.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, cacheman said:

Here is one thing I've learned as I transitioned from the beliefs of my childhood:

1. The United States is a republic, NOT a democracy.

I'm not saying that any person or political philosophy was wrong in claiming that the US was a democracy.... I'm just saying that at some point, I, personally came to an understanding of this fact, despite the common descriptions of the US as a democracy in the culture I was raised. 

One frequently encounters ideological statements and definitions in such matters, and sometimes the explanations for this or that position are tortuous in the extreme.  Other times, it doesn't seem to make a dime's worth of difference -- a mere matter of opinion.  What is scary is when several Mormons get together with a Roman Catholic guy like Timothy McVeigh and blow up a Federal Bldg in Oklahoma, or go with guns to take over a wildlife refuge in Oregon.  Did the Mormon Church teach them this?  Is that part of Mormon theology?

I agree with her statement that this is something that she learned as she transitioned away from the faith of her childhood.  I am not required to see her statement as claiming that Mormon theology is wrong in claiming infallibility.  She's describing the transition of her personal understanding.... perhaps an understanding that differed from common thoughts she was exposed to in her cultural surroundings.

Please explain to me why I must admit that actual Mormon theology is wrong in claiming infallibility, even though that was never correct Mormon theology anyhow.  Are you sure that you're not reading more into this than can be gleaned from the text?

-cacheman

Sorry.  I read for actual context.  In this case, Viegas-Haws' intention is clear, and point one is merely one of ten.  I see no agreement with or knowledge of actual Mormon theology in her very brief statement in point one.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know that its fair to say she is claiming anything about actual Mormon theology, when she doesn't claim as much.

All she seems to know is that many members have suggested to her that when the prophet speaks the thinking is done--that, its apparent, as an LDS person she at one time accepted it.   Why she ties that into what LDS believe is pretty irrelevant.  All she knows is that she once thought it and that other LDS believe it.  I don't get what your disagreement is, really. 

I suppose that we could limit our examination of her ten-point cannonade as nothing more than a mosquito bite (which it probably is), and we might more profitably examine it for sociological value:  Why do LDS members leave the Church? Ignoring all the doctrinal and historical issues entirely.  So perhaps your doubts are justified, stemelbow.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

............................................................  

................................. because of this illusion that a person can receive personal revelation on the issue.

...............................................................

Is this the crux for you, Counselor?  That the witness of the Holy Spirit is merely an illusion, and no better than the Maya experienced by the Buddha.  That is at least a form of legitimate argument.  Certainly much better than all the hemming and hawwing which we have seen on this thread so far.

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you reject my right to express my opinion?  I carefully read through her very short article, and found it deeply flawed, as I have already stated.  Where does it say that I don't have the right to express my views?

You also told me that her views were "true" for her because they were her authentic experience.  That is an odd measure of actual truth, and now you are backtracking from that.  If you are so broad-minded, why can't you simply accept me at my word that my own experience tells me that she is systematically wrong?   If it's good enough for Viegas-Haws, why can't it be good enough for me?  That's what can happen when we completely relativize truth.  I can't speak for Scott Lloyd, but I am playing no game, and I have no truck with relative truth.  I am simply too lazy to spend an inordinate amount of time listing in detail why each of her points is false, only to have you play games with the facts.  If I thought that you took Mormon history and theology seriously, I'd probably take the time.

You do have the right to express your view.  You don't (at least on these boards) have a right to state that "each of her points is false" and then refuse to answer a CFR as to what she has stated that is false.  Those are the guidelines of the board that you signed onto.

I accept her claim of what she believed (that she is stating truth about her beliefs before and after her transition) and I accept that because I have read her articles and listen to her speak and find her to be a genuine person.  I also know many people who have experienced similar faith transitions.

If you'd like to explain how your experience was different, I'm listening.  And if you are going to continue to claim that her statements are false, you need to explain why.

It's interesting that you have participated for many days and many pages on this thread but don't want to spend time backing up your claims.  Then you turn around and say that I play games with the facts (I've answered CFR's given to me, while mine extended to you and Scott have been ignored).

I assure you that I do take Mormon history and theology seriously.  I've spent a great deal of time studying them, graduated from BYU, taught seminary for years, and continue daily study to this day.

Edited May 10, 2016 by rockpond

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You do have the right to express your view.  You don't (at least on these boards) have a right to state that "each of her points is false" and then refuse to answer a CFR as to what she has stated that is false.  Those are the guidelines of the board that you signed onto.

I accept her claim of what she believed (that she is stating truth about her beliefs before and after her transition) and I accept that because I have read her articles and listen to her speak and find her to be a genuine person.  I also know many people who have experienced similar faith transitions.

If you'd like to explain how your experience was different, I'm listening.  And if you are going to continue to claim that her statements are false, you need to explain why.

No I don't.  But I would happily do so, if she asked me to.  I'm too old to get interested in such things anymore, unless properly stimulated.

It's interesting that you have participated for many days and many pages on this thread but don't want to spend time backing up your claims.  Then you turn around and say that I play games with the facts (I've answered CFR's given to me, while mine extended to you and Scott have been ignored).

Yeah, I have been here way too long, and for what?

I assure you that I do take Mormon history and theology seriously.  I've spent a great deal of time studying them, graduated from BYU, taught seminary for years, and continue daily study to this day.

Sounds good, and at least you are a libertarian.  That may make up for your having taught LDS seminary for many years . . .  I  hope that you didn't graduate from the Y in religion.  That is like death warmed over.  My late friend Hugh Nibley told a graduate assistant that he would never speak to him again if he got his masters in religion a the Y.  So that guy then went to UC Santa Barbara to get his masters (under Thomas F. O'Dea and others), and then to Cornell for his PhD.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds good, and at least you are a libertarian.  That may make up for your having taught LDS seminary for many years . . .  I  hope that you didn't graduate from the Y in religion.  That is like death warmed over.  My late friend Hugh Nibley told a graduate assistant that he would never speak to him again if he got his masters in religion a the Y.  So that guy then went to UC Santa Barbara to get his masters (under Thomas F. O'Dea and others), and then to Cornell for his PhD.

I wasn't a professional seminary teacher... it was a calling.  Early morning.  I graduated in statistics.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And if you are going to continue to claim that her statements are false, you need to explain why.

No I don't.

And do you think that kind of attitude helps foster good dialogue?

Edited May 10, 2016 by rockpond

[CV75]

Statement #1 is false because it asserts that the prophet’s fallibility is the reason the saints should not think things through.

Many of the defenses for statement #1 seem to hinge on a faulty understanding of something said long ago that many took umbrage with at the time, but was not so great a kerfuffle that special attention was warranted. Despite the advantage of hindsight, 70 years’ practical experience since the kerfuffle, scripture and other teachings from the pulpit, some (precious few!) unfortunately stubbornly latch onto the phrase and run in the wrong directions with it.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Statement #1 is false because it asserts that the prophet’s fallibility is the reason the saints should not think things through.

How does it assert that?

If anything, it asserts the opposite:  that the prophet's fallibility is the reason saints should think things through.  Which, I believe, is part of the reason but not the complete reason.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How does it assert that?

If anything, it asserts the opposite:  that the prophet's fallibility is the reason saints should think things through.  Which, I believe, is part of the reason but not the complete reason.

Rockpond- you may have noticed a brick wall or two blocking your dialogue. You've explained yourself very clearly for anyone trying to understand and I agree. But at some point talking to the wall is simply futile.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suppose that we could limit our examination of her ten-point cannonade as nothing more than a mosquito bite (which it probably is), and we might more profitably examine it for sociological value:  Why do LDS members leave the Church? Ignoring all the doctrinal and historical issues entirely.  So perhaps your doubts are justified, stemelbow.

We can do both--examine why members leave and also address doctrinal and historical issues.  I will say, I too remain a faithful member while acknowledging doctrinal and historical issues.  I'm not sure why we have to leave it as the basis of the issue is to be contested when we all know, for instance, that many a member think and treat the prophet and his apostles as infallible or something close to it.  We really ought to acknowledge the issues that are out there in order to address them and resolve them. 

[Scott Lloyd]

For what it's worth, I've just entered my seventh decade of a lifetime in the Church, and in all that time, I've never encountered the teaching in written or spoken discourse that "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done" unless it was a mocking taunt from adversaries and critics. (The infamous and promptly disavowed ward teachers message appeared nearly 10 years before I was born.)

Edited May 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

And do you think that kind of attitude helps foster good dialogue?

Dialogue needs at least two real participants, and both need to believe that an actual exchange is taking place.  It does happen sometimes on this board.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We can do both--examine why members leave and also address doctrinal and historical issues.  I will say, I too remain a faithful member while acknowledging doctrinal and historical issues.  I'm not sure why we have to leave it as the basis of the issue is to be contested when we all know, for instance, that many a member think and treat the prophet and his apostles as infallible or something close to it.  We really ought to acknowledge the issues that are out there in order to address them and resolve them. 

In your next Sunday School gospel doctrine class, ask the teacher to ask the class by show of hands how many think "the prophet and his apostles" are infallible. Then report back to us.

By the way, they are not the prophet's apostles; they are apostles of Jesus Christ.

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For what it's worth, I've just entered my seventh decade of a lifetime in the Church, and in all that time, I've never encountered the teaching in written or spoken discourse that "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done" unless it was a mocking taunt from adversaries and critics. (The infamous and promptly disavowed ward teachers message appeared nearly 10 years before I was born.)

I have heard it in many less years in the Church.  But, that's what we get when we hear from so many, off the cuff, unofficially, unsanctioned and all that.  SOmeone is bound to say some pretty crazy things.  Or at the very least quote past prophets thinking even they knew what they were talking about.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Dialogue needs at least two real participants, and both need to believe that an actual exchange is taking place.  It does happen sometimes on this board.

Yes, I imagine that a "real participant" in an "actual exchange" would answer questions rather than avoiding them... over and over again... as you have done.  Oh well.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In your next Sunday School gospel doctrine class, ask the teacher to ask the class by show of hands how many think "the prophet and his apostles" are infallible. Then report back to us.

By the way, they are not the prophet's apostles; they are apostles of Jesus Christ.

 I might have to wait for an appropriate time.  DOn't want to throw a teacher off, necessarily. I could see it take us off course getting all sorts of people chiming in about different perspectives.  SOme will probably say, "well only when he or they act as a prophet" or something like it.  SOme might suggest infallible teaching while acknowledging they are humans who make personal errors.  We could spend hours just discussing the issue.  I'm not so sure it'd be wise to do in a gospel doctrine class, but I may do it anywho. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by stemelbow

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For what it's worth, I've just entered my seventh decade of a lifetime in the Church, and in all that time, I've never encountered the teaching in written or spoken discourse that "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done" unless it was a mocking taunt from adversaries and critics. (The infamous and promptly disavowed ward teachers message appeared nearly 10 years before I was born.)

You keep forgetting to tell the whole story of the disavowal, Scott.  Surely you meant to adhere to your ethical obligation to include the fact that the disavowal was in a private letter to a leader of another church.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In your next Sunday School gospel doctrine class, ask the teacher to ask the class by show of hands how many think "the prophet and his apostles" are infallible. Then report back to us.

By the way, they are not the prophet's apostles; they are apostles of Jesus Christ.

I think the vast majority of the members would agree with you, me, and Viegas-Haws that the prophets are not infallible.

It's the lived experience in the church that often seems to differ.

[Robert F. Smith]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We can do both--examine why members leave and also address doctrinal and historical issues.  I will say, I too remain a faithful member while acknowledging doctrinal and historical issues.  I'm not sure why we have to leave it as the basis of the issue is to be contested when we all know, for instance, that many a member think and treat the prophet and his apostles as infallible or something close to it.  We really ought to acknowledge the issues that are out there in order to address them and resolve them. 

I was responding to your claim that 

Quote

I don't know that its fair to say she is claiming anything about actual Mormon theology, when she doesn't claim as much.

All she seems to know is that many members have suggested to her that when the prophet speaks the thinking is done--that, its apparent, as an LDS person she at one time accepted it.   Why she ties that into what LDS believe is pretty irrelevant.  All she knows is that she once thought it and that other LDS believe it. 

You side-step the hard theological questions here, to discuss her perceptions.  I do accept that she had falsely attributed infallibility to LDS leaders, which was a fundamental reason for her apostasy when she discovered that they were not infallible.  In fact, this is a common misconception among apostates generally -- part of the danger of rigid thinking on such matters.  However, since perception is everything, it can have value as a sociological factor in understanding apostasy.  It comes under the heading of losing your fairy faith due to unmet expectations.  She has made her ignorance the measure of truth, and clearly doesn't realize it.  She remains at the level of first naivete.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Robert F. Smith