Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[thesometimesaint]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Let's not go there again.  I think most on here have to acknowledge that the disavowal (a private letter) was not published or released to the general membership like the original ward teaching message was.  I doubt very few members ever saw it or even knew it existed.  It was not published back when the letter was written.  I have to believe that even today, most haven't seen it or know about it  (even after it was posted on FairMormon).

I thought that with the internet the critics were supposed to be better informed than the faithful.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

I thought that with the internet the critics were supposed to be better informed than the faithful.

Ok.  But the sister in the opening post is speaking of how she felt as an active member vs. how she feels today, correct?  So I'm not sure what your point is.  Many members still believe that when the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.

Read Bobbieaware's posts here as exhibit A (if you doubt members believe this).

[Analytics]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  But the sister in the opening post is speaking of how she felt as an active member vs. how she feels today, correct?  So I'm not sure what your point is.  Many members still believe that when the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.

Read Bobbieaware's posts here as exhibit A (if you doubt members believe this).

Everyone agrees that a home teaching message written by somebody of no particular authority carries no normative weight.  However, the person who wrote the message surely didn't think he was saying something that was new or contradictory to established Mormon doctrine.  Former members like the phrase because it is a pithy way to express what they experienced in the Church.

For those who take issue with it, how would you finish the statement, "When the prophet has spoken?"

When the Prophet has spoken...

...the debate is over.

...we are free to think about his words, but not to question them.

...God has spoken (by His words or those of His prophets, they are the same).

...the only question remaining is whether we will follow what God's prophet said.

...we have a yardstick by which we can measure the validity of our own thoughts and opinions.
 

Or would it be something like this?

...the debate is just beginning.

...we are free to have lively discussions about whether the prophet is correct

...we are encouraged to consider them, but then are encouraged to form our own opinions and will be respected if they differ from the prophet's

 

When I hear the phrase, "When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done," I don't think it literally means we aren't supposed to think about what the Prophet said.  But I do think it means that when the Prophet has spoken, the truth of the matter has been spoken, and at that point our responsibility is to accept what he says and follow it.

 

[cinepro]

On 5/6/2016 at 8:29 AM, Analytics said:

Everyone agrees that a home teaching message written by somebody of no particular authority carries no normative weight.  However, the person who wrote the message surely didn't think he was saying something that was new or contradictory to established Mormon doctrine.  Former members like the phrase because it is a pithy way to express what they experienced in the Church.

For those who take issue with it, how would you finish the statement, "When the prophet has spoken?"

When the Prophet has spoken...

...the debate is over.

...we are free to think about his words, but not to question them.

...God has spoken (by His words or those of His prophets, they are the same).

...the only question remaining is whether we will follow what God's prophet said.

...we have a yardstick by which we can measure the validity of our own thoughts and opinions.
 

Or would it be something like this?

...the debate is just beginning.

...we are free to have lively discussions about whether the prophet is correct

...we are encouraged to consider them, but then are encouraged to form our own opinions and will be respected if they differ from the prophet's

 

When I hear the phrase, "When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done," I don't think it literally means we aren't supposed to think about what the Prophet said.  But I do think it means that when the Prophet has spoken, the truth of the matter has been spoken, and at that point our responsibility is to accept what he says and follow it.

 

For the record:

It's important to distinguish between the two different phrases that have been discussed over the years:

"When the Prophet speaks, the thinking is done."

"When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over."

Sometimes people use them interchangeably, or tell a story about one but thinking of the other, but they are very different and one is disavowed by the Church while the other is supported.

Edited May 8, 2016 by cinepro

[Jeanne]

On 5/6/2016 at 0:00 AM, cinepro said:

For those who are arguing that the Church acknowledges the fallibility of the Prophet (at this time, President Monson), can you please share some of the things the Church has acknowledged President Monson has been wrong about since he became Prophet?  If you can't find anything, can you share some of the things you personally think he has been wrong about?

I don't want to argue you anymore..but I do wonder why Pres. Monson's signature is no where on the essays and such.  Other than conferences, I believe he is a very quiet man.

[cinepro]

On 5/6/2016 at 11:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Who on this board has been claiming that Pres Monson has made specific errors lately?  What I have heard said, and I have said it myself, is that the Brethren are men like you and me, cinepro, subject to error.  Joseph Smith used to say to the Mormon people:  "If you will bear with my infirmities, I will bear with yours."  He also said: "A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as such."  Does that mean that any of the current Brethren (singly or collectively) have made errors lately?  I have heard many complaints in recent years about decisions made by LDS leaders, a lot of those complaints made on this board.  So, you have a good many negative claims to choose from, cinepro.  Are there any you would like to specifically apply to Pres Monson, or to his associates as a group?  Since they are humans and not infallible gods, I suspect that there are specific policies advanced by the Brethren which are not necessarily good, better, or best.  Or are you saying that Pres Monson and his associates are infallible, in order to negate the claims many of us make that he is fallible.  You ought to be willing to argue your point (whatever it is) with some specific evidence.  Otherwise it seems like you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  You can't have it both ways, cinepro.

My argument is that while some give lip-service to the idea of prophetic fallibility, the effect of Church teachings about the prophet (inspiration and obedience) leads most members to view him (and other Apostles) as being de-facto infallible when it comes to Church leadership and teaching. 

"Fallibility" seems to be understood as leaders not being perfect in that they might burn their toast or lose their temper at a traffic jam.  It is never understood as them saying something incorrect from the pulpit or when making policies.  The idea that prophets might say something from the pulpit or in official Church publications that is wrong is borne of necessity by apologists who need to bracket some past teachings in order to preserve some semblance of consistency and logic, but it is never taught by the actual Church itself, nor is it ever applied to current leaders (where it would be most important and relevant to Church members!)

I also suspect that the "infallibility" band-aid is always (100%) applied to situations in which someone does not agree with the prophet.  But in cases where a Church member disagrees with a prophet and must choose between changing their view to match the prophet's, or favoring their "correct" view over what they perceive is the prophet's incorrect one, I think the Church has always advised us to follow the prophet and set aside our alternate view.  If prophetic mistakes were a real possibility, then this wouldn't be sound advice.

We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38).

Our greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the Church. The Lord warns that those who ignore the words of the living prophets will fall (see D&C 1:14-16). He promises great blessings to those who follow the President of the Church:

“Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

Edited May 8, 2016 by cinepro

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

My argument is that while some give lip-service to the idea of prophetic fallibility, the effect of Church teachings about the prophet (inspiration and obedience) leads most members to view him (and other Apostles) as being de-facto infallible when it comes to Church leadership and teaching. 

"Fallibility" seems to be understood as leaders not being perfect in that they might burn their toast or lose their temper at a traffic jam.  It is never understood as them saying something incorrect from the pulpit or when making policies.  The idea that prophets might say something from the pulpit or in official Church publications that is wrong is borne of necessity by apologists who need to bracket some past teachings in order to preserve some semblance of consistency and logic, but it is never taught by the actual Church itself, nor is it ever applied to current leaders (where it would be most important and relevant to Church members!)

I also suspect that the "infallibility" band-aid is always (100%) applied to situations in which someone does not agree with the prophet.  But in cases where a Church member disagrees with a prophet and must choose between changing their view to match the prophet's, or favoring their "correct" view over what they perceive is the prophet's incorrect one, I think the Church has always advised us to follow the prophet and set aside our alternate view.  If prophetic mistakes were a real possibility, then this wouldn't be sound advice.

 

 

Well said!

And I think that attitude ("de-facto infallible when it comes to Church leadership and teaching") is what Viegas-Haws is saying she has moved away from as she experienced a faith transition. 

 

[rockpond]

On May 5, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Ahab said:

She was giving (me, at least,  if not you) me the impression that she was saying that she thinks Mormons think all the thinking is done when the "prophet" speaks,  which is not what Mormons really believe.

Do you understand me now?

 

I believe I missed this response to me and didn't want to leave it unanswered. 

I think that statement in her first point reflects how she used to believe and, possibly, how she was raised to believe in the church.  That has been verified by others here though most seem to agree that it isn't correct.  And Viegas-Haws likewise believes that it isn't correct. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On May 6, 2016 at 8:57 AM, thesometimesaint said:

I thought that with the internet the critics were supposed to be better informed than the faithful.

Ooh. Zing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On May 6, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Analytics said:

Everyone agrees that a home teaching message written by somebody of no particular authority carries no normative weight.  However, the person who wrote the message surely didn't think he was saying something that was new or contradictory to established Mormon doctrine.  Former members like the phrase because it is a pithy way to express what they experienced in the Church.

For those who take issue with it, how would you finish the statement, "When the prophet has spoken?"

When the Prophet has spoken...

...the debate is over.

...we are free to think about his words, but not to question them.

...God has spoken (by His words or those of His prophets, they are the same).

...the only question remaining is whether we will follow what God's prophet said.

...we have a yardstick by which we can measure the validity of our own thoughts and opinions.
 

Or would it be something like this?

...the debate is just beginning.

...we are free to have lively discussions about whether the prophet is correct

...we are encouraged to consider them, but then are encouraged to form our own opinions and will be respected if they differ from the prophet's

 

When I hear the phrase, "When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done," I don't think it literally means we aren't supposed to think about what the Prophet said.  But I do think it means that when the Prophet has spoken, the truth of the matter has been spoken, and at that point our responsibility is to accept what he says and follow it.

 

Today, I have been reading portions of Edward Kimball's biography of his father, Spencer W. Kimball, the second one he wrote, about the years of President Kimball's presidency. 

On page 181, there is a paragraph about President Kimball addressing the topic of the ERA in a meeting with local Church leaders in South Carolina. He is quoted as saying:

"We feel members of the Church need to be reminded in appropriate ways of the position taken by the First Presidency, although we do not want . . . to injure the feelings of the members of the Church who do not wish to accept this counsel. . . . Every man in this room has his free agency, and every woman has her free agency and can vote as she pleases, but she will be wise, and he will be wise, if he will listen to the Brethren. "

This, to me, typifies the stance of the Church, and it strikes me as eminently reasonable. 

[rodheadlee]

On 5/6/2016 at 7:54 AM, rockpond said:

But she agrees with you and Scott that the statement from the 1945 Ward Teachers message is not correct.  So what is her error?

Ward teachers don't set policy? Are you all saying this statement was just some ward teacher? I had never heard of it before it was mentioned here.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Ward teachers don't set policy? Are you all saying this statement was just some ward teacher? I had never heard of it before it was mentioned here.

It was a Ward Teachers message published in a 1945 Improvement Era.

[rodheadlee]

Thank you. Who wrote it?

Edited May 9, 2016 by rodheadlee

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Thank you. Who wrote it?

An unnamed functionary at Church headquarters. 

Church Correlation did not exist back then. 

Of course, the critics hate Correllation too, so you can't win with them. 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

An unnamed functionary at Church headquarters. 

Church Correlation did not exist back then. 

Of course, the critics hate Correllation too, so you can't win with them. 

Are you just here to take pot shots or are you ever going to address the substance of the OP?

I can't even get a clear answer from you on her first point.  Viegas-Haws says that she learned "When the prophet speaks the thinking is not done because he could be wrong as many have been in the past and present time."

What do you disagree with from that first statement?

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Ward teachers don't set policy? Are you all saying this statement was just some ward teacher? I had never heard of it before it was mentioned here.

It was promptly forgotten and faded into obscurity for many decades. Then, antagonists dredged it up to defame the Church of Jesus Christ. Defenders subsequently found and published the backstory of President George Albert Smith promptly disavowing the statement. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Are you just here to take pot shots or are you ever going to address the substance of the OP?

 

I'm here to keep the record straight on the ward teachers message as you obviously don't intend to. 

As for my addressing what you call your "substance," see my quote from Spencer W. Kimball a few posts ago. 

Edited May 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm here to keep the record straight on the ward teachers message as you obviously don't intend to. 

As for my addressing what you call your "substance," see my quote from Spencer W. Kimball a few posts ago. 

First, I've stated several times (if not more) that I don't believe that the statement from the 1945 Ward Teachers message represents the position of the Church so please stop misrepresenting me.

Second, Viegas-Haws point #1 is in agreement with the Kimball quote you provided.  So, what from her first point do you disagree with?

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was promptly forgotten and faded into obscurity for many decades. Then, antagonists dredged it up to defame the Church of Jesus Christ. Defenders subsequently found and published the backstory of President George Albert Smith promptly disavowing the statement. 

Since you are interested in full and complete disclosure you should also include that President Smith's "disavowal" was in a private letter sent to a leader of another church.  You wouldn't want to leave that detail out, right?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/6/2016 at 8:26 AM, ALarson said:

Let's not go there again.  I think most on here have to acknowledge that the disavowal (a private letter) was not published or released to the general membership like the original ward teaching message was.  I doubt very few members ever saw it or even knew it existed.  It was not published back when the letter was written.  I have to believe that even today, most haven't seen it or know about it  (even after it was posted on FairMormon).

But, moving on from this point....

Can you be specific here for discussion purposes?  Which "false claims" are you referring to?.

All of them.  This is a test for you. If you are unable to see clearly, right off the bat, that her statements are systematically false, then that tells us more about you than about the issues we are supposedly exploring here.  The same applies to Jeremy Runnells and to Grant Palmer ("Paul Pry Jr").

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

First, I've stated several times (if not more) that I don't believe that the statement from the 1945 Ward Teachers message represents the position of the Church so please stop misrepresenting me.

Second, Viegas-Haws point #1 is in agreement with the Kimball quote you provided.  So, what from her first point do you disagree with?

Any insinuation -- by her, you or anyone else -- that the Church as a whole does <not> agree with the Kimball quote I provided. 

Edited May 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Since you are interested in full and complete disclosure you should also include that President Smith's "disavowal" was in a private letter sent to a leader of another church.  You wouldn't want to leave that detail out, right?

That has not been left out in this discussion. Someone here provided a link to a FairMormon web site post where the whole episode was related in detail. I thanked that person for doing so. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/6/2016 at 8:54 AM, rockpond said:

But she agrees with you and Scott that the statement from the 1945 Ward Teachers message is not correct.  So what is her error?

She says that she learned ten damaging things about the LDS Church:

Quote

1. When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done because he could be wrong as many have been in the past and present time.

She is clearly unaware of the fact that the Ward Teacher's message had been disavowed.  She is attacking a position which only yokels believe in, and is clearly not part of Mormon theology.  Only yokels believe in the infallibility of the Prophet and his associates.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

She says that she learned ten damaging things about the LDS Church:

She is clearly unaware of the fact that the Ward Teacher's message had been disavowed.  She is attacking a position which only yokels believe in, and is clearly not part of Mormon theology.  Only yokels believe in the infallibility of the Prophet and his associates.

You are incorrect.  The only time she uses "damaging" is in this statement: "as I learned more about damaging historical facts that the LDS leadership deliberately excluded from instructional manuals" as she explained the catalyst for her faith transition.  She did not say that she had "learned ten damaging things about the LDS Church".

CFR that "she is clearly unaware of the fact that the Ward Teacher's message has been disavowed" in a private letter between the Prophet and a leader of another church.

Where did she attack a position.  She stated that she learned that when the prophet speaks, the thinking is NOT done.  That's something we all seem to agree on here.  So is your problem that she learned it too late?  Or that she apparently believed it for a while?

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Any insinuation -- by her, you or anyone else -- that the Church as a whole does <not> agree with the Kimball quote I provided. 

She seemed to be speaking of herself and what she understood or believed (and then learned otherwise).  There does seem to be an implication that she learned that at some point during her life.

Are you accusing her of falsifying what she once believed in order to criticize the church?