Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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."

So the notion of "cynicism" only applies to those with whom you disagree?  Cynicism can't be applicable to parties on both sides of the discussion?

[Scott Lloyd]

I sense that some here refuse to consider the possibility that the reason faithful Church members side so often with the Church leaders is that the Church leaders, fallible though they are, tend by inclination, habit and understanding to seek and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit and, give pronouncements that are good, wise and right almost all of the time.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

I'd say you have no excuse for propagating a false impression of a disavowal when you have no actual knowledge of any public statement or official church publication with said disavowal.

We can go back and forth forever, Scott.  What it comes down to is that the "thinking has been done" quote comes from a church publication and you cannot cite a church publication that retracts said statement.  What we have is a piece of private correspondence between the prophet and someone outside of church membership that was made public by a third party decades later.  You feel that I gave a false impression with my posting early in this thread and I feel that you continue to give a false impression with you comments on the disavowal.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So the notion of "cynicism" only applies to those with whom you disagree?  Cynicism can't be applicable to parties on both sides of the discussion?

Yes.

But astutely deducing a mindset from demonstrated behavior patterns is not the same thing as cynicism.

[consiglieri]

1 hour 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.

Here I think our language could be more specific.

The issue is not really "infallibility," as pretty much everybody will agree that prophets can commit minor errors, such as preferring Pepsi over Coke.

The real issue to my mind is "doctrinal inerrancy." 

Are the prophets "doctrinally inerrant"?

Using the more generic term of "infallible" allows a lot of talking past each other without really coming to terms with the issue.

If you ask your next Sunday School gospel doctrine class how many think the prophets and apostles are "doctrinally inerrant," I expect you will get a sizeable majority.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Ok (?)  You quote Smac's well stated opinion and I respect that. 

I'm really not sure why you are so defensive about this one point.  From the article in the OP, these points were Viegas-Haws' thoughts and feelings after she transitioned out of the church.  She said nothing about current members nor did she even hint that she felt like you tried to insinuate above.   That you have read all of that into her one statement is really quite revealing and again shows you are over the top defensive about this topic.  

How about we just stick to discussing what she actually stated instead of reading all sorts of sinister meanings into it?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'd say you have no excuse for propagating a false impression of a disavowal when you have no actual knowledge of any public statement or official church publication with said disavowal.

 

I've not done that.

I've only said I have no way of knowing one way or the other, although it is conceivable that there was.

Do you? You seem to be laboring under the impression that there was never any published disavowal. I'm only asking how you know that (if indeed you do know it).

Edited May 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'd say you have no excuse for propagating a false impression of a disavowal when you have no actual knowledge of any public statement or official church publication with said disavowal.

I'm sure if there had been an actual published disavowal, we'd know about it and it would have already been presented here.  

We can go back and forth forever, Scott.  What it comes down to is that the "thinking has been done" quote comes from a church publication and you cannot cite a church publication that retracts said statement.  

This.  Critics did not come up with this statement out of thin air, it came from an official church publication.  And again, if a retraction or disavowal had been published in the same manner, I'm sure we'd know about it.

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

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

Could not the links in this article be an answer to the CFR?  It is apparent that the "thinking has been done" was taught, not necessarily in those words always.  Maybe it's our words that are the problem on this thread or in past talks or articles. Maybe you and others don't want someone saying we don't need to think, but just follow.  That may be the crux to this problem and I wonder if there is a way to meet in the middle.

So many perspectives in this thread.  I read a quote the other day, about testimonies and how one person can have a completely different testimony according to where they are in life. Maybe that can be applied to this subject, just as many on this board differ, Julienna's testimony on thinking or believing the leaders taught that way is her perspective.  

Maybe it's where we were at the moment that the teaching was taught in our lifetimes. I remember being taught to listen or follow the prophet since childhood.  I see it taught in Primary today.  Is there a clause anywhere in that Primary song, "Follow the Prophet", where it states only if you have it confirmed?  I don't believe so...but it's all in how one perceives it.  

Edited May 10, 2016 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm sure if there had been an actual published disavowal, we'd know about it and it would have already been presented here.  

In 1945?

How much reading to you do in Church magazines from the 1940s? Do you even have access to them?

How about Salt Lake City newspapers from that period of time? How often do you delve into those? I daresay if you can't find it online, you never see it, and I happen to know that digital newspaper archives typically go back only to the late '70s.

[rockpond]

1 hour 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!

Have you read the thread?

Most members, I believe, will assert that the prophets are infallible but most will also stridently hold to President Woodruff's statement that the prophet cannot lead us astray.  That's an interesting dichotomy and has created all kinds of explanations.

Culturally it seems that we believe infallibility extends to getting angry at a stubbed today or maybe saying something unkind to their wife.  It seems to me that the prevailing sentiment within the church is that when a prophet stands at a pulpit or writes in the Ensign - they are infallible during those specific times.

[Jeanne]

If there was a disavowal whether private or public somewhere, why have hundreds of members not been corrected when we have used it in our talks, classes and for me..a lot of seminary?  Why didn't someone that had read it correct me?

This is what worries me about the essays..I know they are out there; but members need to see them in a big way because there were a lot of changes there.  Of course we could wait until us baby boomers die...

Edited May 10, 2016 by Jeanne

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

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.

It gives me a chuckle to hear Scott level the "enlightened few" criticism toward her given his belief that something posted to FairMormon.org is "widely published".

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Here I think our language could be more specific.

The issue is not really "infallibility," as pretty much everybody will agree that prophets can commit minor errors, such as preferring Pepsi over Coke.

The real issue to my mind is "doctrinal inerrancy." 

Are the prophets "doctrinally inerrant"?

Using the more generic term of "infallible" allows a lot of talking past each other without really coming to terms with the issue.

If you ask your next Sunday School gospel doctrine class how many think the prophets and apostles are "doctrinally inerrant," I expect you will get a sizeable majority.

Excellent point!

[Maedros]

38 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Here I think our language could be more specific.

The issue is not really "infallibility," as pretty much everybody will agree that prophets can commit minor errors, such as preferring Pepsi over Coke.

The real issue to my mind is "doctrinal inerrancy." 

Are the prophets "doctrinally inerrant"?

Using the more generic term of "infallible" allows a lot of talking past each other without really coming to terms with the issue.

If you ask your next Sunday School gospel doctrine class how many think the prophets and apostles are "doctrinally inerrant," I expect you will get a sizeable majority.

Is that question really relevant to a faithful latter-day saint though? Or, if it were true (and it is depending on the context) that the leaders of the Church have made errors in doctrine - would that justify a member to dissent and criticize the leaders and try to lead others astray by posting articles online to dissuade others from joining the church? Does her article really matter to a faithful latter-day saint? The answer is HELL NO - those points she made is not the reason for her dissent, it is the justification for her dissent but NOT the reason. According to Joseph Smith, our founding prophet, who (I might add) was a polygamist and many other things beside said: 

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”⁵

“I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.”⁶

I wish her well in her future endeavours but as far as I'm concerned she's nothing more than an apostate. I hope she'll have a change of heart butg while she goes online spreading half-truths and creating conflict among the saints and potentially quenching the spirit of a possible convert, I say: she's a false witness, woe unto her.

“In all your trials, tribulations and sickness, in all your sufferings, even unto death, be careful you don’t betray God, … be careful you don’t apostatize.”

This is the only true Church of Jesus Christ upon this earth and its leaders are prophets, seers and revelators - to hell with this skank!

Edited May 10, 2016 by Maedros

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In 1945?

How much reading to you do in Church magazines from the 1940s? Do you even have access to them?

How about Salt Lake City newspapers from that period of time? How often do you delve into those? I daresay if you can't find it online, you never see it, and I happen to know that digital newspaper archives typically go back only to the late '70s.

I'm not sure what your point is here.  The original statement about the "thinking has been done" came from an official church publication.   What does it matter what year it was?  The disavowel was not published back then or since then in an official church publication.  

Here is the original published statement from the church:

Quote

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.

So, it's odd to me that you feel this statement has been fabricated by the critics.  It was not.  It came from and was published by the church leaders.

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've not done that.

I've only said I have no way of knowing one way or the other, although it is conceivable that there was.

Do you? You seem to be laboring under the impression that there was never any published disavowal. I'm only asking how you know that (if indeed you do know it).

I believe you have done that.

I don't know that there wasn't a published disavowal.  You claimed that there was a widely published disavowal.  When asked where that was, all you have pointed to was the private correspondence posted to FairMormon.org.  While I don't believe the "thinking is done" quote to be representative of correct LDS doctrine, I also do not believe that a private letter to someone outside the church constitutes a published disavowal.

[ttribe]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes.

But astutely deducing a mindset from demonstrated behavior patterns is not the same thing as cynicism.

"You have an amazing capacity for self-deception. How do you do that?" - Number Six to Baltar

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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.

 

That's right.  It was George Albert Smith.  I always get those two confused.

But the important thing is that, because I got the names mixed up, it means you are right that the disavowal was actually public.

 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I sense that some here refuse to consider the possibility that the reason faithful Church members side so often with the Church leaders is that the Church leaders, fallible though they are, tend by inclination, habit and understanding to seek and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit and, give pronouncements that are good, wise and right almost all of the time.

Thank you for finally admitting the truth of what I have been arguing all along, Scott.

Church leaders are so good, and wise and inspired that they are "right almost all of the time."

Geez, that was like pulling teeth to get you to cop to that!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure what your point is here.  The original statement about the "thinking has been done" came from an official church publication.   What does it matter what year it was?  The disavowel was not published back then or since then in an official church publication.  

Here is the original published statement from the church:

So, it's odd to me that you feel this statement has been fabricated by the critics.  It was not.  It came from and was published by the church leaders.

You're wrong about that. You should have looked at the link more closely and read the letter by President George Albert Smith to the leader of the First Unitarian Society in Salt Lake:

Quote

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

So it did not "come from" the Church leaders, as you assert. It got by them inadvertently.

And it was only in "an official Church publication" because as a matter of routine back then, a monthly message was printed and given to ward teachers to take to the homes they visited and leave it with them. For convenience, that message was published from month to month in the Improvement Era.

If you're going to complain 70 years after the fact about the actions of Church leaders in 1945, you ought to be careful yourself to be accurate in your recitation of the incident.

And I didn't say it was "fabricated by the critics." I have asserted all along it was taken out of context by them -- in the most egregious way possible: to quote it without making proper note of or acknowledgement of the very cruical fact that it was promptly disavowed by the most authoritative source in the Church at that time.

Does that not strike you as wrong?

Edited May 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Have you read the thread?

Most members, I believe, will assert that the prophets are infallible but most will also stridently hold to President Woodruff's statement that the prophet cannot lead us astray.  That's an interesting dichotomy and has created all kinds of explanations.

Culturally it seems that we believe infallibility extends to getting angry at a stubbed today or maybe saying something unkind to their wife.  It seems to me that the prevailing sentiment within the church is that when a prophet stands at a pulpit or writes in the Ensign - they are infallible during those specific times.

But that is not what President Woodruff said. I think you need to educate yourself before misrepresenting them to build a false dichotomy. The explanation for your so-called dichotomy is very simple, really. Just read the quotes: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-2-the-living-prophet-the-president-of-the-church?lang=eng

Once you are properly educated, I'm sure you will see others and in a new light, and that will informs your flawed representations of the culture.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Thank you for finally admitting the truth of what I have been arguing all along, Scott.

Church leaders are so good, and wise and inspired that they are "right almost all of the time."

Geez, that was like pulling teeth to get you to cop to that!

 

Are they not right most of the time?

There right a lot more of the time than you are.

But thank you for providing another textbook example of the formulaic mindset I have identified here:

If Mormons disagree with me, one of the enlightened few, by holding with Church leaders most of the time, that means they have been taught to follow the Church leaders without thinking.

That, in case you haven't been following the discussion here, is an example of the fallacy of the false dilemma or false dichotomy.

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

That's right.  It was George Albert Smith.  I always get those two confused.

But the important thing is that, because I got the names mixed up, it means you are right that the disavowal was actually public.

 

What it means is that you kept making the same error over and over again, which means you hadn't clicked on the link to check your facts.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Here I think our language could be more specific.

The issue is not really "infallibility," as pretty much everybody will agree that prophets can commit minor errors, such as preferring Pepsi over Coke.

The real issue to my mind is "doctrinal inerrancy." 

Are the prophets "doctrinally inerrant"?

Using the more generic term of "infallible" allows a lot of talking past each other without really coming to terms with the issue.

If you ask your next Sunday School gospel doctrine class how many think the prophets and apostles are "doctrinally inerrant," I expect you will get a sizeable majority.

But when a fallible prophet, or even you, stands up and testifies that Jesus is the Christ, and testifies of the doctrine of Christ, that is an example of teaching inerrant doctrine. The ordinances performed are doctrinally inerrant. We can be inerrant on such doctrinal points. So there is no practical difference between being inerrant and being infallible. So the same discussion about infallibility holds. The Lord will not permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray, precisely because of that: His doctrine is inerrant.