Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Substance rather than the blame game would be nice.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was responding to your claim that 

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.

Actually I think I mostly agree with you.  I think I get where you are coming from now.  But I probably part ways in that I think her perception is understandable considering the culture and teaching of the Church.  I can see how she perceived things that way. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Substance rather than the blame game would be nice.

Yes, I completely agree.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Bold added by me.

I don't think that she attributes her "transitioning away from the faith of her childhood" (not sure whether that amounts to apostasy) to her realization that the prophets are infallible.

It seems that she identified the reason for her transition in the very first paragraph where she writes:  "In 2014, as I learned more about damaging historical facts that the LDS leadership deliberately excluded from instructional manuals and as I learned more in depth about the LDS Church's unfair treatment of women, blacks and LGBTQ members in the name of godly inspiration, I lost faith that such an organization could truly be led by God."

[CV75]

48 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.

Well, let’s break it down (again,*sigh*…):

“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.”

Paraphrased: The saints’ thinking is not buttoned up because the prophet is fallible. Conversely: The saints’ thinking is unfinished because the prophet is infallible. Makes zero sense!

If it supposed to mean that the saints should think things through because, among other things, the prophet is fallible, it certainly doesn’t say that! Rather, it betrays a narrow-minded prejudice, and misses the real reasons we should think things through (many of which are covered in President Smith’s letter, though anyone with any sense at all should find them out over the course of genuine study and participation).

What kind of gospel principle leads with "The prophet is fallible," anyway?

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

considering the culture and teaching of the Church

Really? Such a mindset captures the culture and teaching of the Church? LOL

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

I've already told that by reference to the FairMormon link earlier on this thread. Do you need the link again? Here it is:

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

How about your copying the link and securing it in a readily accessible location so you can reproduce it next time you're inclined to quote or allude to the disavowed ward teachers message? It's the honest thing to do, especially for those who are inclined to complain about the Church not being "transparent."

And it will help people like consigliere, who is so unfamiliar with the backstory that he keeps saying the president of the Church in that incident was Heber J. Grant, when it was, in reality, George Albert Smith.

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've already told that by reference to the FairMormon link earlier on this thread. Do you need the link again? Here it is:

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

How about your copying the link and securing it in a readily accessible location so you can reproduce it next time you're inclined to quote or allude to the disavowed ward teachers message? It's the honest thing to do, especially for those who are inclined to complain about the Church not being "transparent."

 

Likewise, I think the honest thing to do, whenever you bring up the disavowal, is to make sure you include the important detail that it was only in private correspondence with someone outside of the church rather than a published retraction.  

[Rivers]

Sounds to me like her faith transition was moving from one form of black and white thinking to another.

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Rivers

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Sounds to me like her faith transition was moving from one form of black and white thinking to another.

I agree.  Good observation.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Really? Such a mindset captures the culture and teaching of the Church? LOL

I can think of few things that are better documented than the teaching of the Church. Virtually the entire body of Church curriculum, plus the Church periodicals and general conference sermons extending back to the early '70s -- is digitally accessible and searchable on LDS.org. Perhaps he can demonstrate by selecting excerpts from this wide field to demonstrate that her mindset captures the teaching of the Church.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

So even though the vast majority of the members of the Church agree that the prophets are not infallible, you assert that we often live our experience in the Church with a paradigm where the prophets are infallible? How do you even come up with something like that!

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Sounds to me like her faith transition was moving from one form of black and white thinking to another.

Sometimes it takes as long as it takes to become a product of black and white, to being in-between.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, let’s break it down (again,*sigh*…):

 

“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.”

 

Paraphrased: The saints’ thinking is not buttoned up because the prophet is fallible. Conversely: The saints’ thinking is unfinished because the prophet is infallible. Makes zero sense!

 

 

It's called a false dichotomy or a false dilemma.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Likewise, I think the honest thing to do, whenever you bring up the disavowal, is to make sure you include the important detail that it was only in private correspondence with someone outside of the church rather than a published retraction.  

Typically, when I mention it, it is by way of countering the ignorant and taunting "think has been done," and when I do, I am apt to link to the FairMormon entry for documentation.

That said, I don't know for certain it was "only said in private correspondence and that there was never a published retraction." I have no way of knowing one way or the other? Do you?

If, as President Smith's letter indicates, there were "not a few members of the Church ... upset in their feelings," and General Authorities were embarrassed by the content of the leaflet, it is conceivable to me that there were efforts at the time to do damage control, efforts that have been lost to history, removed as we are, 70 years from the incident.

But the important thing today is that people like you who are educated enough to know better have no excuse for propagating the false statement without noting the crucial backstory that it was promptly disavowed by no less of an authority than the president of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So even though the vast majority of the members of the Church agree that the prophets are not infallible, you assert that we often live our experience in the Church with a paradigm where the prophets are infallible? How do you even come up with something like that!

I think the formula must go something like this:

I disagree with the prophets.

Most active and faithful members of the Church disagree with my disagreement.

Since most active and faithful members of the Church refuse to go along with me, one of the enlightened few, it must be because they are taught not to think for themselves once the prophets have spoken.

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour 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.)

Multiple examples have been given in this thread where this idea has been taught in church talks and publications. So if you haven't encountered them in your 70 years then maybe you haven't been listening. I don't say that to be rude, but examples have been given. This idea has been taught. I'm sorry you haven't noticed it but that doesn't mean the teaching doesn't exist.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Multiple examples have been given in this thread where this idea has been taught in church talks and publications. So if you haven't encountered them in your 70 years then maybe you haven't been listening. I don't say that to be rude, but examples have been given. This idea has been taught. I'm sorry you haven't noticed it but that doesn't mean the teaching doesn't exist.

It is just as likely that you and the authors of the "multiple examples" have misunderstood or misremembered the instances you have encountered.

But I'll tell you what. A few posts ago I noted how thoroughly the teachings of the Church are documented on the Church's website, lds.org. with all the lesson manuals, Church periodicals, general conference sermons, etc., there must be millions of words there.

With all that body of content, surely you ought to be able to cite something that supports this allegedly pervasive idea in the Church that "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done," if, indeed, it is as pervasive as you and others say it is.

We'll call this a CFR.

 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the formula must go something like this:

I disagree with the prophet and apostles.

Most active and faithful members of the Church disagree with my disagreement.

Since most active and faithful members of the Church refuse to go along with me, one of the enlightened few, it must be because they are taught not to think for themselves once the prophets and apostles have spoken.

Good grief.  How do you possibly get all of that from this one statement from her:  

Quote

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 states that this in something she has learned "while transitioning away" from the faith of her childhood.  Where does she say that she is "one of the enlightened few"?  She's relating what her experience and views are now.

Your defensiveness here is very revealing and actually quite odd.  You have to know that many members would never go against anything that the Prophet states.  I highly doubt that you ever would yourself.  There are many ways to state this and it has been stated this way in the past in one of the church's publications.  So, it's not like it came out of thin air.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Good grief.  How do you possibly get all of that from this one statement from her:  

 

It's not just her I have in mind; it's her several cheerleaders on this thread.

Quote

Your defensiveness here is very revealing and actually quite odd.  You have to know that many members would never go against anything that the Prophet states.  I highly doubt that you ever would yourself.  There are many ways to state this and it has been stated this way in the past in one of the church's publications.  So, it's not like it came out of thin air.

So right here, you demonstrate the formula yourself: Because members don't "go against anything that the prophet states" it must be because they don't do their own thinking.

Thank you for providing such a clear example of what I said.

I think back to what smac said early in this thread, about dissenters claiming the right to be guided by their conscience, but refusing to grant that same right to faithful members of the Church.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Multiple examples have been given in this thread where this idea has been taught in church talks and publications. So if you haven't encountered them in your 70 years then maybe you haven't been listening. I don't say that to be rude, but examples have been given. This idea has been taught. I'm sorry you haven't noticed it but that doesn't mean the teaching doesn't exist.

I don't mean to be rude either, but I'll issue a CFR that "this idea" has been taught in Church talks and publications. Just one sample per decade sine 1945 will suffice. And by "this idea" I take you to mean that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" and that the prophets are infallible.

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the formula must go something like this:

I disagree with the prophets.

Most active and faithful members of the Church disagree with my disagreement.

Since most active and faithful members of the Church refuse to go along with me, one of the enlightened few, it must be because they are taught not to think for themselves once the prophets have spoken.

 

 

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not just her I have in mind; it's her several defenders on this thread.

 

Speaking of a surrender to cynicism...

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not just her I have in mind; it's her several cheerleaders on this thread.

No one has stated this here, but you (from what I've seen):

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I disagree with the prophets.

Most active and faithful members of the Church disagree with my disagreement.

Since most active and faithful members of the Church refuse to go along with me, one of the enlightened few, it must be because they are taught not to think for themselves once the prophets have spoken.

 

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So right here, you demonstrate the formula yourself: Because members don't "go against anything that the prophet states" it must be because they don't do their own thinking.

Thank you for providing such a clear example of what I said.

Except I did not state that, did I?  Nice try though.

That members won't go against what the Prophet speaks or teaches does not mean they aren't thinking about it or pondering it.   

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No one has stated this here, but you (from what I've seen):

 

Except I did not state that, did I?  Nice try though.

That members won't go against what the Prophet speaks or teaches does not mean they aren't thinking about it or pondering it.   

Here is the excerpt from the thread by Smac that I referred to a few posts ago:
 

Quote

 

I respect the sentiment that "her conscience transcends mere feelings and that her conscience will be the ultimate rudder in her life."  I am quite willing to accept that people can believe this, and I will respect it.  I even think that many decisions made in this way will be correct and moral.

I sense, however, that people like you and Mrs. Viegas-Haws do not return the favor.  Latter-day Saints have come to a "spiritual conclusion" that using our wits, our learning, and the Spirit "transcends mere feelings," and that a Latter-day Saint's conscience informed by learning, experience, the Scriptures, counsel from modern prophets and apostles, and - most of all - The Holy Spirit "will be the ultimate rudder in {our lives}."

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Speaking of a surrender to cynicism...

On the contrary, the cynics are those who, overtly or by insinuation, accuse those who tend to side with the leaders of the Church as following the false and disavowed mantra that "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done."