Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Agreed.  But apparently, according to the requirements you've given me in describing my ethical obligations, the entire backstory needs to be accurately mentioned every time the subject of the quote is brought up.  I'd like you to hold to the same standard.   So, I'll ask you to please clarify, anytime you mention the disavowal, that it was in private correspondence with someone outside of the church.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

You oversimplify, cinepro.

I sometimes hear this sort of thing when a discussion of the American Presidency takes place.  The President will typically hear a variety of opinions from his political and military advisers, and then he makes his decision.  Because of his Constitutional authority, some of his decisions have the force of law, or may send military forces into immediate combat.  In other cases, his powers are more limited and he may meet with opposition in Congress or the Supreme Court, thus effectively denying him his immediate executive authority.

The LDS President, due to his particular circumstances (the culture of which he is a part, and with the men he has known for so long) may take considerable time to make a decision of any kind.  Long discussions, deep research, prayer &  meditation are also very likely ingredients.  At the end of the day, since it is the practice of the First Presidency and Twelve to seek complete unanimity on any major decision, such decisions may be a long time in coming.  However, once the President decides an issue and expresses himself, it would not be surprising if his Brethren go along with it.  To that extent, debate within the First Presidency and Twelve is indeed over.  In many cases, the general membership will "follow the prophet," but there is no guarantee that there will not be some protests or misgivings. The LDS President is effectively the CEO or Chairman of the Board of a very large multinational corporation requiring a many-layered technical and management staff.

The complexity of such decision-making and the possible consequences can lead to unforeseen results, and may even require revisiting bad decisions -- as in the case of the Third Convention problem in Mexico, or the apostasy in the French Mission, or the racist exclusion of Black men from priesthood.  In the latter case, for example, Pres McKay was not able to reverse that decision without a revelation (due to the objection by Pres Joseph Fielding Smith that a revelation was needed).  Pres McKay simply refused to ride roughshod over his Brethren, even though he certainly could have done so.  We live in the real world, cinepro.  There are nuances.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

 

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

Suppose I were to make a comment like the following: 

After thinking the matter over, I have concluded that rockpond is probably not a serial bank robber. 

Can you not see how that would be defaming to you, even though I could claim plausible deniability, because, after all, I had said I didn't think it true? I would have put the rumor out there that some (perhaps many or most) believed it to be true. 

The wrongdoing on her part is to insinuate that it is a widely held belief in Mormonism that "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done," even though that was authoritatively disavowed 70 years ago. 

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

I get the exact opposite message from her ten points.  Try reading them in context.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

I don't know whether she knew better or not regarding the ward teachers message. You did, yet you were apparently ready and willing to perpetuate the false statement without acknowledging the backstory regarding its origen. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Agreed.  But apparently, according to the requirements you've given me in describing my ethical obligations, the entire backstory needs to be accurately mentioned every time the subject of the quote is brought up.  I'd like you to hold to the same standard.   So, I'll ask you to please clarify, anytime you mention the disavowal, that it was in private correspondence with someone outside of the church.

I want you to refrain from bringing it up unless you are willing to provide the crucial explanatory context that it was promptly and authoritatively disavowed. 

That is a reasonable expectation; to do otherwise is hardly honest. 

Edited May 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I want you to refrain from bringing it up unless you are willing to provide the crucial explanatory context that it was promptly and authoritatively disavowed. 

That is a reasonable expectation; to do otherwise is hardly honest. 

Likewise to mention a disavowal and not explain that it was only in the prophet's private correspondence with an individual outside of the church lacks crucial explanatory context.  

It's a reasonable expectation and to do otherwise is hardly honest. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know whether she knew better or not regarding the ward teachers message. You did, yet you were apparently ready and willing to perpetuate the false statement without acknowledging the backstory regarding its origen. 

This is so ridiculous for you to continually harp on.  We bring up points all the time without explaining their entire backstory.  You do it every time you claim a disavowal of the idea without actually explaining that disavowal. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Suppose I were to make a comment like the following: 

After thinking the matter over, I have concluded that rockpond is probably not a serial bank robber. 

Can you not see how that would be defaming to you, even though I could claim plausible deniability, because, after all, I had said I didn't think it true? I would have put the rumor out there that some (perhaps many or most) believed it to be true. 

The wrongdoing on her part is to insinuate that it is a widely held belief in Mormonism that "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done," even though that was authoritatively disavowed 70 years ago. 

 

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I get the exact opposite message from her ten points.  Try reading them in context.

If you've read much of this thread, you have read that her experience and understanding from before her faith transition is not that different than some other members.  

From the responses to me repeated inquiries to you two, it sounds like her only actual error is in having made a possible implication that others in the church believe like she did.  And yet, such an implication has been verified here on this thread. 

Ironically, in your zeal to defend against that one particular teaching you have shut down a member's viewpoint, experience, and thinking calling it an error. 

[JulieM]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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. 

Here's her first point, do you believe it is false?  You say all of her points are "systematically false".  What do you disagree with in her first point below?

"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."

[consiglieri]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The wrongdoing on her part is to insinuate that it is a widely held belief in Mormonism that "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done," even though that was authoritatively disavowed 70 years ago. 

You keep saying it was "authoritatively disavowed" 70 years ago, but in reality, it was not.

Yes, the person who disavowed it was the president of the Church, but it was not done publicly, nor in any Church publication.

Look at it this way--the message itself that when the leaders speak, the thinking has been done, was published in an official Church publication.

President Grant did not choose to disavow the message in an official publication.

Rather, when brought to President Grant's attention in private correspondence by a minister of another denomination, President Grant said the message must have gotten into the Church publication through inattentiveness of the editors, and President Grant then expresses his disagreement with the sentiment--again in the same private correspondence.

This private correspondence ends up not exonerating President Grant, but rather condemning him, because we now know for a surety that President grant absolutely knew of the publication of the message.

So the question must be raised as to why President Grant did not issue a public refutation of the message.

It would have been an easy enough thing for him to do, being the president.  And yet he does not.

One is left to conclude that he was willing to disavow the message privately when pressed on it by a non-Mormon.

But President Grant was happy to allow the membership of his Church to labor under the delusion of a message he said privately was incorrect.

Why would President Grant do such a thing, one wonders . . .

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours 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. 

It's striking how church leadership supposedly isn't responsible for things printed in official church publications like the Improvement Era. It was just some "functionary at Church Headquarters" so everyone should have known to disregard.

Facts-

1- The Improvement Era published an article that essentially stated that once the prophet speaks the discussion is over. (Bobbie agrees with this sentiment wholeheartedly)

2- A leader from another church then sent a letter to the prophet expressing concern about this statement

3- The prophet sent a private letter back to that leader disavowing the idea. (This is what Scott claims is the immediate disavowal though no one else ever saw it until years later)

4- Leaders have continued to express the sentiment that the debate is over once the prophet speaks. (Examples have already been shared)

5- Therefore we have official church publications and talks representing one view (that the debate is over) and not representing the view that the idea should be disavowed. (Scott claims this doesn't matter because FAIR posted the private letter of disavowal)

 

Viegas-Haws is right. Her experience mirrors mine. Others can spin the facts by claiming silly things like "the church immediately retracted the statement" when really the only disavowal came in private correspondence. The church has taught this concept in the past and continues to teach it every time the 14 Fundamentals talk is rehashed, thus creating the errant notion of infallibility.

 

 

[consiglieri]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Viegas-Haws is right. Her experience mirrors mine. Others can spin the facts by claiming silly things like "the church immediately retracted the statement" when really the only disavowal came in private correspondence. The church has taught this concept in the past and continues to teach it every time the 14 Fundamentals talk is rehashed, thus creating the errant notion of infallibility.

I think you have set forth the facts exactly right, HJW.

Here is why I think this whole discussion by some Church members is disingenuous:

There is a tension built into the LDS Church of general revelation (from Church leaders) versus personal revelation.

Joseph Smith sought to ameliorate this tension by saying that personal revelation has its limits--being the stewardship of the person receiving it--but that only the general officers (i.e., the prophet in his day) can receive revelation that is binding on the entire Church.

That much makes sense.

What has happened since is rather different.  Today general revelation from leaders is seen as binding on individual members, and the individual member is powerless to receive personal revelation that trumps general revelation--even as regards the individual receiving it.

The disingenuous part kicks in when some Mormons continue to claim that the thinking has not been done upon the receipt of general revelation, but that the individual may think about it and receive personal revelation on the issue, with the idea that the individual's revelation may trump the general revelation.

But that is an illusion.

This is form over substance; shadow over reality.

The only reason this illusion is put forward as reality is because it is generally understood to be an untenable position to maintain that when the leaders speak, the thinking has been done, or the debate is over.

Most reasonable people simply cannot bring themselves to defend this proposition.

And so they will say it isn't true, because of this illusion that a person can receive personal revelation on the issue.

But when pressed, these same people will usually eventually admit that personal revelation cannot conflict with general revelation.

Why?

Because we "know" that the leaders speak for God, and hence the general revelation is divine.

Any other revelation that conflicts with the general revelation can therefore not be from God, and must be discarded as personal invention or revelation from some source other than God.

(Bobbieaware is a refreshing exception because he/she actually admits what the others believe, but can't find it in themselves to just say plainly.)

Sorry for going into so much detail, but I think it important to put in words why it is I feel frustrated with these types of discussions, which generally proceed the way this one has; with certain Mormons claiming that the thinking is not done when the leaders speak, but actually believing that the thinking is done.

This is why I consider this argument to be disingenuous.

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

You keep saying it was "authoritatively disavowed" 70 years ago, but in reality, it was not.

Yes, the person who disavowed it was the president of the Church, but it was not done publicly, nor in any Church publication.

Look at it this way--the message itself that when the leaders speak, the thinking has been done, was published in an official Church publication.

President Grant did not choose to disavow the message in an official publication.

Rather, when brought to President Grant's attention in private correspondence by a minister of another denomination, President Grant said the message must have gotten into the Church publication through inattentiveness of the editors, and President Grant then expresses his disagreement with the sentiment--again in the same private correspondence.

This private correspondence ends up not exonerating President Grant, but rather condemning him, because we now know for a surety that President grant absolutely knew of the publication of the message.

So the question must be raised as to why President Grant did not issue a public refutation of the message.

It would have been an easy enough thing for him to do, being the president.  And yet he does not.

One is left to conclude that he was willing to disavow the message privately when pressed on it by a non-Mormon.

But President Grant was happy to allow the membership of his Church to labor under the delusion of a message he said privately was incorrect.

Why would President Grant do such a thing, one wonders . . .

This. 

BTW consig, I was hoping that the reason the board was shut down was they were trying to get you set back up for rep points!

[Jeanne]

I am not going to say anymore after this because I got in trouble last week..but it all boils down to this..for me anyway.

If there was any disavowal of her first point, it was still repeated time and time again.  It was never corrected in any ward, seminary or teaching that I am aware of ...or could find during all those years.  I didn't know about FairMormon or Ward Teaching message,  Tell me..was I supposed to hunt something up that I didn't know about?  And what good would that have done.  I am in not any postion to correct my own ward leaders or seminary teacher that he was wrong.  At some point, church publications etc. or who ever is in charge of such..has to find another way to get people the message.  I fear what would have happened if the Prophet had said to jump off a bridge.  My dad would have done just that.  We were taught this and our perception of it was never challenged.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

If you've read much of this thread, you have read that her experience and understanding from before her faith transition is not that different than some other members.  

From the responses to me repeated inquiries to you two, it sounds like her only actual error is in having made a possible implication that others in the church believe like she did.  And yet, such an implication has been verified here on this thread. 

Ironically, in your zeal to defend against that one particular teaching you have shut down a member's viewpoint, experience, and thinking calling it an error. 

If you are arguing that there are plenty of people who have similar misconceptions, you are certainly correct.  We see that on this board all the time, and it motivates much of the back and forth discussion which we find here.  Such discussion and disagreement is normal across a broad range of religious, political, and cultural issues, and such disputes will likely go on forever.  After all, there is even a religious conception  that there was a great Council in Heaven in which fundamental disagreement led to one-third of those present following a primary figure in the dispute.

If you are arguing that perception is everything, you may be in for a rude awakening when dealing with reality -- because reality is not always what it seems.  Surface impressions can be very misleading.  If you are arguing that some one person's personal views are true because they are "true" for that person, you are then attempting to relativize truth and making it meaningless.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Here's her first point, do you believe it is false?  You say all of her points are "systematically false".  What do you disagree with in her first point below?

"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."

Here are a  couple of opposing responses just made.  Which has meaning for you?

Scott Lloyd said:

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I want you to refrain from bringing it up unless you are willing to provide the crucial explanatory context that it was promptly and authoritatively disavowed. 

That is a reasonable expectation; to do otherwise is hardly honest. 

rockpond immediately replied:

Quote

Likewise to mention a disavowal and not explain that it was only in the prophet's private correspondence with an individual outside of the church lacks crucial explanatory context.  

It's a reasonable expectation and to do otherwise is hardly honest. 

Do you think, Julie, that we might have a problem here?  A "When did you stop beating your wife?" problem.  Di you read her point in context?  Or are you giving her a special pass?  Why?

Edited May 9, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Here's her first point, do you believe it is false?  You say all of her points are "systematically false".  What do you disagree with in her first point below?

"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."

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

President Smith’s letter only acknowledges that the upsetting and embarrassing language went out uncensored, implying that it should have undergone better editing and correction in order to be congruent with the principles he them laid out. But some (and I’d say most do) can also read the article in a different light, and this may be why a general retraction was never sent out.

To me, having the adversary get the saints to “do their own thinking” (note that “do their own thinking” is in quotation marks!), especially when doing so in speaking against their leaders, is editorial irony.

Of course some will still misunderstand how the Church operates as reflected in the #1 statement you posted above. I would think talking with the right people would have offered some perspective before putting something that ignorant in writing. And the statement doesn't make any sense really, because universal human fallibility already places everyone on the same standing. We don't simply keep on thinking because we and everyone else could be wrong--it really, really, really depends!

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If you are arguing that there are plenty of people who have similar misconceptions, you are certainly correct.  We see that on this board all the time, and it motivates much of the back and forth discussion which we find here.  Such discussion and disagreement is normal across a broad range of religious, political, and cultural issues, and such disputes will likely go on forever.  After all, there is even a religious conception  that there was a great Council in Heaven in which fundamental disagreement led to one-third of those present following a primary figure in the dispute.

If you are arguing that perception is everything, you may be in for a rude awakening when dealing with reality -- because reality is not always what it seems.  Surface impressions can be very misleading.  If you are arguing that some one person's personal views are true because they are "true" for that person, you are then attempting to relativize truth and making it meaningless.

No, I have not argued that her personal views are true.  Viegas-Haws op-ed makes the point that what she once believed, she no longer sees as correct as her faith has transitioned.

What I have tried to ask of you is to clarify what you believe are the fundamental errors you have claimed she made in her op-ed.  You still haven't identified what those errors are.  Or even one error.

In the post above, JulieM asks you what you disagree with in Viegas-Haws point number one and you can't even seem to answer that.

Perhaps you should retract your statement that she has made fundamental errors or explain what they are.

[Robert F. Smith]

37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am not going to say anymore after this because I got in trouble last week..but it all boils down to this..for me anyway.

If there was any disavowal of her first point, it was still repeated time and time again.  It was never corrected in any ward, seminary or teaching that I am aware of ...or could find during all those years.  I didn't know about FairMormon or Ward Teaching message,  Tell me..was I supposed to hunt something up that I didn't know about?  And what good would that have done.  I am in not any postion to correct my own ward leaders or seminary teacher that he was wrong.  At some point, church publications etc. or who ever is in charge of such..has to find another way to get people the message.  I fear what would have happened if the Prophet had said to jump off a bridge.  My dad would have done just that.  We were taught this and our perception of it was never challenged.

Excellent points, and a legitimate argument, Jeanne.  Church members are often taught folklore by well-meaning but uninformed parents and other members.  Sometimes, as in the case of Elder McConkie, gross errors are systematized, published, and gain considerable following.  The right and left-wing tensions which result are not new at all and have been with us during this dispensation since the earliest days of Brother Joseph himself.  However, they go much further back, even before the foundation of this world.  And they will continue forever.  They entail the very nature of existence and of the free agency of all intelligences.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Excellent points, and a legitimate argument, Jeanne.  Church members are often taught folklore by well-meaning but uninformed parents and other members.  Sometimes, as in the case of Elder McConkie, gross errors are systematized, published, and gain considerable following.  The right and left-wing tensions which result are not new at all and have been with us during this dispensation since the earliest days of Brother Joseph himself.  However, they go much further back, even before the foundation of this world.  And they will continue forever.  They entail the very nature of existence and of the free agency of all intelligences.

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."

 

[Tacenda]

http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/09/think-for-yourself-or-not-%E2%80%93-that-is-the-question-cognitive-dissonance-1/

This link shows several different views from LDS leaders.  So I can see the dilemma.  And can see the problem with a current leader saying that when the prophet speaks the thinking hasn't been done, because it can open a can of worms.  And the members might be let out of the thought that the prophet knows best, and who knows what they'll do.  Not joking here.    

Edited May 9, 2016 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I have not argued that her personal views are true.

 Viegas-Haws op-ed makes the point that what she once believed, she no longer sees as correct as her faith has transitioned.

In your false reply to what I say here to Julie, you make it appear that you are correct to affirm Viegas-Haws' views -- without actually affirming them.  Yet what Viegas-Haws once believed was as false as the new belief to which she has "transitioned."

What I have tried to ask of you is to clarify what you believe are the fundamental errors you have claimed she made in her op-ed.  You still haven't identified what those errors are.  Or even one error.

In the post above, JulieM asks you what you disagree with in Viegas-Haws point number one and you can't even seem to answer that.

Perhaps you should retract your statement that she has made fundamental errors or explain what they are.

Of course, it may well be that you are unable to read her points with a critical eye -- since you apparently buy her false narrative and likewise share in the systematically wrong set of ten or more beliefs which she once had or now has.  If you do not understand Mormon history or theology, you will naturally not understand such questions.  I can not make up for your failure in those areas.  You are responsible to make a serious study and conclude what you will about it.  Your being in lockstep with Viegas-Haws doesn't bode well for that prospect.

 

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Excellent points, and a legitimate argument, Jeanne.  Church members are often taught folklore by well-meaning but uninformed parents and other members.  Sometimes, as in the case of Elder McConkie, gross errors are systematized, published, and gain considerable following.  The right and left-wing tensions which result are not new at all and have been with us during this dispensation since the earliest days of Brother Joseph himself.  However, they go much further back, even before the foundation of this world.  And they will continue forever.  They entail the very nature of existence and of the free agency of all intelligences.

Thank you for your reply,  Those errors should be fixed.  As it is, it is not the member or NON member at fault on this. 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In your false reply to what I say here to Julie, you make it appear that you are correct to affirm Viegas-Haws' views -- without actually affirming them.  Yet what Viegas-Haws once believed was as false as the new belief to which she has "transitioned."

Of course, it may well be that you are unable to read her points with a critical eye -- since you apparently buy her false narrative and likewise share in the systematically wrong set of ten or more beliefs which she once had or now has.  If you do not understand Mormon history or theology, you will naturally not understand such questions.  I can not make up for your failure in those areas.  You are responsible to make a serious study and conclude what you will about it.  Your being in lockstep with Viegas-Haws doesn't bode well for that prospect.

What did I say that was false?  CFR.

And what is systemically wrong with her ten points.  CFR.

p.s.  I am not in "lockstep with Viegas-Haws".  Please read for comprehension.