Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for not knowing this as you seem to claim. You and Scott are disputing this the most so I'll share...AGAIN...a few references for you to peruse. However, your call for a CFR from every decade is absurd. I've never claimed it's been every decade, however, everytime one of these early ideas is repeated it is like teaching the idea anew.

Lets start with this. It is well known. It is canonized in Official Declaration 1. It is repeated often in lessons and manuals.

“President Wilford Woodruff stated: I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13.)

President Marion G. Romney: “I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)

Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (Journal of Discourses, 13:95.)

A couple of excerpts from Headquarter Functionaries published in the Improvement Era.

Ward Teachers’ Message for June, 1945

“Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the “prophets, seers, and revelators” of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy.”

“This sort of game is Satan’s favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to “do their own thinking.”

“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.”

Elaine Cannon- General YW Pres. “When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over” (Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 108).

N Eldon Tanner- 1st Counselor in 1st Presidency  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/08/the-debate-is-over?lang=eng 

“those who neglect their spiritual training or fail to heed the warning voice of the prophets will suffer a spiritual death.”

“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.”

“History and experience have proven that whenever and wherever there is departure from following the word of the Lord, calamity occurs. Civilizations have fallen; there has been general and individual destruction; there have been weeping and wailing and great sorrow; there have been famine and pestilence. Only Satan and his cohorts have been left to rejoice. He is the author of the debates on moral issues.”

“When the prophet speaks the debate is over.”

Ezra Taft Benson-  14 Fundamentals In Following the Prophet (Repeated in Lessons of Ezra Taft Benson Manual)

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

“First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything…

There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.”

Then in section 21 verses 4–6 [D&C 21:4–6], the Lord states:

“Wherefore, meaning 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;

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

“For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.”

“Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.”

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.”

 

CV75 & Scott Lloyd- These are merely the first references I found in 5 minutes of searching. As Scott mentioned, they can be found on LDS.org. I truly don't understand how anyone can dispute the idea that prophetic infallibility (doctrinal inerrancy), or that when the prophet speaks the debate is over and the thinking is done. This is not a rare idea stated by some functionary. This is pervasive as I've shown by multiple examples, covering multiple decades by multiple leaders.

 

None of the above, with the exception of the ward teachers message that President George Albert Smith promptly disavowed, amounts to saying, "When the prophet speaks the thinking has been done."

What else have you got?

 

[JulieM]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever boilerplate might have appeared in the magazine back then, we have the president of the Church affirming to the head of the Unitarian Society in Salt Lake that the errant wording in the message did not originate Church leaders but, rather, got by them.

Whatever might be your disposition, I have no reason to believe President George Albert Smith was lying.

Well not lying, but he could have been mistaken.  You do believe that Prophets make mistakes, isn't that right?  Or do you believe they are infallible?   I would think that printed material was proofed and approved back then just as it is today.

Edited May 11, 2016 by JulieM

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

None of the above, with the exception of the ward teachers message that President George Albert Smith promptly disavowed, amounts to saying, "When the prophet speaks the thinking has been done."

What else have you got?

 

There are a great many instances in the scriptures where prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord were engaged in debate by those who took ia dim view of their prophetic pronouncements. It must be said that it never turned out well for those who argued against the prophets after they spoke in the name of the Lord. So at least in so far as the standard works are concerned, it might more accurately be said that 'when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, only the unwise will think it's a good idea to engage them in debate.'

Edited May 11, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever boilerplate might have appeared in the magazine back then, we have the president of the Church affirming to the head of the Unitarian Society in Salt Lake that the errant wording in the message did not originate Church leaders but, rather, got by them.

Whatever might be your disposition, I have no reason to believe President George Albert Smith was lying.

Pres. Smith stated that the "leaflet" was not prepared by one of the church leaders.  What "leaflet" was he referring to, do you know?  Was this something different than what was published 6 months earlier in the Improvement Era under the direction of The Presiding Bishopric to members who were to use it as a ward teaching message?

Here's the quote regarding the "leaflet" from the letter:

Quote

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” 

I wouldn't think that Pres. Smith was speaking of The Improvement Era and calling it a "leaflet".

Also, if the message (that was published in the Era) wasn't written by one of the church leaders, who would have written it?  Just some random church member and it happened to make its way into the ward teaching message "under the supervision of The Presiding Bishopric" and then was published in an official church publication?  

.

Edited May 11, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You agreed to what I identified as the idea. I supplied quotes that back up that idea. Now you're asking for direct quotes that specifically state "follow the prophet because he's infallible and inerrant"? Way to move the goal posts when you lose the argument.

The quotes show that over time the church has consistently taught that the prophet will not lead astray and therefore the thinking is done and the debate is over. This teaching has a great impact on church culture. It is clearly taught that Satan will lead you down to hell if you don't agree with everything the prophet says.

The prophet will never lead the church astray- Multiple teachings by multiple leaders

When the prophet speaks the debate is over- I demonstrated 2 separate direct quotes by different leaders

It's hard to understand why you won't accept the quotes and answer to the CFR you specifically asked for.

You misunderstand. While I understand the idea you are trying to put forth, I do not agree that it has been taught in Church talks and publications. While I understand how the quotes you provided can be misconstrued to mean “when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done,” that is is still a misconstruction, especially when looking at the original document where the phrase was used some 70 years ago. I also understand that no one really looks at that, but even so, the quotes you provided in context don’t mean “when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.”

Your interpretation of the quotes is simply very, very flawed. I don’t see Church culture reflecting the idea that, “when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.” Black-and-white thinking was mentioned earlier; some people suffer from it and some don’t, but it is not the culture. I would even say that those that insist black-and-white thinking and this misconstruction are the culture are suffering from it themselves.

Shorthand and uncritical thinking contribute to the black-an-white thinking and this misconstruction. The phrase is, “The Lord will never permit / let …” Even President Benson clarified what he meant by “Fourth” in the link you provided!

And as we often see, “debate” is often very, very far from “thinking.” And by definition debate entails opposing arguments. Typically, and I the context of your quotes, it is mentioned in terms of unhelpful debate. Debate may properly occur in the council process, but once the decision is made, yes, the debate is naturally over. But that is not what these quotes address.

These are some of the reasons you really can’t meet the CFR – I don’t think you understand the citations. It wouldn’t hurt you to try to look at them as I’ve suggested, and consider the culture from a broader perspective.

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

Sorry, I don't buy the "data dump" argument.  You gave a link with pages and pages of quotes and claimed that it contradicts what I've said.  Provide specifics or I'll assume you don't really have a case to make. 

I'm happy to still discuss Viegas-Haws statement #1.  What do you believe is false about it?

LOL data dump? The link is to one page. Two short documents. The ones you’ve been referencing yourself and discussing with me and others throughout this thread! Ridiculous.

Here you go (again... *sigh*...), at the risk of repeating exchanges we’ve already had:

Posted yesterday at 9:06 AM

Posted 22 hours ago

And remember these?

Posted Monday at 3:04 PM

Posted Monday at 3:35 PM

Posted Monday at 4:19 PM

Posted Monday at 7:31 PM

[stemelbow]

this debate is a weird one, I'd say.  Everyone seems to agree that we can actually continue to think after the prophet speaks.  We can perhaps even individually question a certain proposition uttered by a prophet wondering if its from God.  I'm glad Ms. Viegas-Haws does not think anymore that the thinking is done when the prophet speaks.  I do fear that sometimes members are a bit too trusting a bit to willing to accept or credulous when a leader speaks denying themselves opportunity to test and put into practice their personal working with God.  But I'm not sure you escape it with the way the Church is set up--it'll always produce members who don't want to question and challenge putting the appropriate kind of pressure on the leadership.  As of now, we get a lot of "Follow the prophet" chants, or a ton of cynicism directed at those who might bring up questions and concerns.  In light of this type of atmosphere I can see why Ms. Viegas-Haws says what she says.  Whether the exact quote is currently forwarded in publications or not, it is a pretty well-accepted notion within the Church, amongst some members. 

Like I said I'm not sure it's escapable with how the Church is set up and operates, but hopefully we can address it without all the slick denials so we don't have other members like Ms. Viegas-Haws feeling like it's front and center in our faith. 

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Here you go (again... *sigh*...), at the risk of repeating exchanges we’ve already had:

Posted yesterday at 9:06 AM

Posted 22 hours ago

 

And remember these?

Posted Monday at 3:04 PM

Posted Monday at 3:35 PM

Posted Monday at 4:19 PM

Posted Monday at 7:31 PM

The link you provided was to a lesson from an institute lesson manual.  It had many quotes.  If you have a specific point to make from that lesson, tell me what it is.  I have no interest in searching through pages and pages of quotes in the hopes of figuring out what your point might be.

Regarding all the posts you link above, I'm not going to go back through all of them since I had responded to many.  Here is the content of the most recent post you linked above:

Quote

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?

The phrase you wrote above, which I have bolded, is what her statement says.

I don't understand your last question.  Perhaps you'd care to clarify.

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by rockpond

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm glad Ms. Viegas-Haws does not think anymore that the thinking is done when the prophet speaks.  I do fear that sometimes members are a bit too trusting a bit to willing to accept or credulous when a leader speaks denying themselves opportunity to test and put into practice their personal working with God.  But I'm not sure you escape it with the way the Church is set up--it'll always produce members who don't want to question and challenge putting the appropriate kind of pressure on the leadership.  As of now, we get a lot of "Follow the prophet" chants, or a ton of cynicism directed at those who might bring up questions and concerns.  In light of this type of atmosphere I can see why Ms. Viegas-Haws says what she says.  Whether the exact quote is currently forwarded in publications or not, it is a pretty well-accepted notion within the Church, amongst some members. 

This.  Exactly.

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The link you provided was to a lesson from an institute lesson manual.  It had many quotes.  If you have a specific point to make from that lesson, tell me what it is.  I have no interest in searching through pages and pages of quotes in the hopes of figuring out what your point might be.

Regarding all the posts you link above, I'm not going to go back through all of them since I had responded to many.  Here is the content of the most recent post you linked above:

The phrase you wrote above, which I have bolded, is what her statement says.

I don't understand your last question.  Perhaps you'd care to clarify.

No, in the context of our conversation, it was this link: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

One page. Two short documents. The same ones you've discussed already.

If you're not going to go back to see where (and how) I've answered your question already, and you remember responding to my posts already, why ask the same question all over again? I think I have some insight into that here: Posted 19 hours ago

Don't worry about my last question; it was rhetorical and supports the reasons statement #1 is false.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm glad Ms. Viegas-Haws does not think anymore that the thinking is done when the prophet speaks.

Are you glad that her conclusion is based on a false argument which betrays the terribly misinformed underpinning of her dissatisfaction on the subject?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Are you glad that her conclusion is based on a false argument which betrays the terribly misinformed underpinning of her dissatisfaction on the subject?

 

There's no argument to be had.  She thought it as an active participating member.  No argument here.  Just saying she thought it, she got the impression from somewhere (afterall it was from a Church publication).  No doubt others think the same thing.  I hear messages that more or less correlate to some degree or another every week in Church. 

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 6:39 AM, ALarson said:

Pres. Smith stated that the "leaflet" was not prepared by one of the church leaders.  What "leaflet" was he referring to, do you know?  Was this something different than was published in the Era under the direction of The Presiding Bishopric to members who were to use it as a ward teaching message (6 months before President Smith wrote his letter)?

Here's the quote regarding the "leaflet" from the letter:

I wouldn't think that Pres. Smith was speaking of The Improvement Era and calling it a "leaflet".

He is referencing The Improvement Era.

1. Pres. Smith was responding to this 1945 letter from a Unitarian minister, which stated in pertinent part:

Quote

Last June there was delivered to my door a short religious editorial, prepared by one of your leaders, entitled “Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church.” Its message amazed me a great deal, and with the passing of weeks my disturbance became very acute. It might have passed, except that several members of your Church have come to me to discuss the subject. The most recent was a prominent doctor, who, because of this tract, he affirms, is losting [sic] his religious faith. He is a large man, and I became impressed with his deep sincerity as he broke down and wept like a boy. I am convinced that he is undergoing a very dangerous experience.

Permit me to quote the passages which seem to be brought most in question:

“He (Lucifer) wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to ‘do their own thinking[.]”
“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….”

I do not know who is responsible for this statement, but I am sure it is doing inestimable harm to many who have no other reason to question the integrity of the Church leaders. 

2. The above quote is verbatim from the controversial June 1945 Ward Teachers article, the title of which was "Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church."  The minister references "a short religious editorial" published in "June {1945}."  There has never been any question that the minister was referring to the Ward Teacher's Message.

3. The June 1945 Improvement Era was a 60-page periodical (including the cover).  Here is a link to a .pdf copy of it.  It was apparently 11 inches tall (or perhaps diagonally), and so was fairly small for a "magazine."  I'm not sure there is a significant difference between a "magazine" and a "leaflet" here, particularly given the passage of 70+ years which may obscure some of the nuance in vocabulary usage used in the 1940s.

A few more thoughts:

4. For the record, I have never, in my 40+ years in the Church, heard the teaching/concept that "when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done."

5. I think the critics and dissidents of the LDS Church need to gain a sense of proportion and perspective when discussing those five controversial words published 70+ years ago ("the thinking has been done").  Daniel Peterson aptly summed things up here (a 1999 email response to John Smith, an evangelical anti-Mormon):

Quote

{JS} I have 2,500 books on Mormonism (by far the most pro-Mormon).

{DP} But have you understood -- actually mastered -- their contents? I do not wish to be uncharitable, but I've seen no sign in your writing that you have. Nor any sign in the Evangel and the Inner Circle that anybody there really has much of a clue.

...

{JS} My collection includes years of LDS Church News, years of the Ensign, and also quite an assortment of the Improvement Era, but it does not go back as far as June 1945 - the issue in which the "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 the controversy."

{DP} Odd, isn't it, that that statement, if it is so central to LDS belief and self-understanding, can only be found in a ward teacher's message -- a ward teacher's message! do you realize how far down the totem pole that is? -- from more than half a century ago?

By the way, though, do you think that turning your mind over to Matthew, Peter, Luke, Paul, John, and Mark makes you an independent thinker? Or do you -- as consistency might demand -- denounce the fundamentalist Protestant insistence that one has to believe what they wrote, and that their pronouncements are inerrant? Are you a slave to those old dead guys? When they speak, has the thinking been done? Is the question settled? Or do you feel free to disagree with the Bible?

6. I get that the Ward Teacher's Message was apparently not publicly disavowed by the Church, though it was disavowed in December 1945 in a private letter from Pres. George Albert Smith to a concerned Unitarian minister.  Perhaps it should have been, particularly since Pres. Smith acknowledged to the minister that "not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings" by the message, and that "General Authorities have been embarrassed."

But again, a sense of proportion and perspective is needed here.  The Ward Teacher's message was prepared in the first half of 1945, the last year of World War II.  Can we perhaps grant that Brethren, who prior to June 1945 were witnessing the conclusion of World War II, the most destructive and widespread war in the history of the world, which had been raging for many years and had resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people worldwide, just might have been a bit off their game in terms of editorial oversight of The Improvement Era?  

Can we, sitting in front of computers in 2016, really grasp the zeitgeist of early 1945?  

Are we really in a position to act as armchair quarterbacks and criticize what "should" have been done?

7. The general issue of the leadership of a group making an executive decision on a given subject is, for me, not a particularly controversial or disturbing concept.  That is not to say that the executive decision precludes "thinking" about the subject, only that a decision has been made by the leadership for the group.  That is their purpose and function: making decisions for the group.

When I was in the Army, I had some limited experience in working within a command structure of small groups (squads, platoons, companies).  The leader of the group often listened to input from the group, but then the leader made a decision, at which point the discussion is over.  It would have not made any sense to allow endless debate and defiance of the leader's decision.  In such circumstances unit cohesion would fail.  The mission's objectives would not be achieved.  That is not to say that the decisions made under such circumstances are always right, but rather that they must be made, and the subordinates must - in most circumstances - accept the decision and act in accordance with it.  This may sound abhorrent and terrible to people who have never been in the military (and to be fair, it's not a perfect system), but unit cohesion and mission objectives generally trump the individual's preferences.

As an attorney, I often attend hearings and, occasionally, trials.  The U.S. legal system is carefully and clearly designed to allow adversaries to submit their legal dispute to a judge, who then has the authority to render a decision.  So while the judge is bound by the law, and while the law prescribes remedies for when the judge makes a mistake in judgment, there is no question that the judge is the person who is responsible for making that decision.  He/she wears a black robe, sits on a chair ("Bench") elevated above every other chair in the room, does not answer to anyone in the room, and dictates to the parties and court staff what the decision of the court is, what the parties must do or not do, and so on.  This may sound abhorrent and terrible to people who have little experience with the legal system (and to be fair, it's not a perfect system), but as a general rule our society's need to have an authority in place to decide disputed issues trumps the individual's preferences.

As an employee, I get to provide input and feedback to my employer.  However, once my employer makes a decision for the company, that pretty much settles the matter.  As long as my employer is acting within legally permissible bounds, I am obligated to submit to its decisions (or quit).

I could give other examples, but I hope the point is made.  I think the problem here is that critics and dissidents fail to conceive of the LDS Church and its form and function.  It is a community of faith.  It claims to have been founded by God through a prophet and led by prophets and apostles who seek and obtain revelatory guidance and instruction from God.  It is hierarchical, not a democracy.   It has a visible, discernible, not-in-dispute-that-it-exists hierarchy.  Its decision-making processes take into account input from rank-and-file members and involve discussion and study, but at the end of the day decisions are to be based on revelatory principles and on The Spirit.  In that sense, the leaders of the rank-and-file members are not a "constituency" to which the leaders are answerable.  

This is, I think, where faithful, observant Latter-day Saints part ways with the critics and dissidents.  The latter folks seem to construe the Church not what it is and claims to be, but rather as a political entity.  That is, the rank-and-file members are a "constituency" ("a body of voters in a specified area who elect a representative to a legislative body ... a body of customers or supporters").  When viewed in this way, the perspective and conduct of critics and dissidents (as pertaining to issues like the above-referenced Ward Teacher's Message) begins to make a bit more sense to me.

When viewed in this way, the tactics and strategies used by critics also begin to make a bit more sense.  In Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," a book specifically designed to affect society change through, inter alia, political action, Rule #5 is "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon."  There are all sorts of exhortations in the scriptures and from modern prophets and apostles which encourage us to read and to study and to seek guidance from the Spirit in all times and in all places.  And yet here we have critics and dissidents reaching back in time 70+ years for a five-word phrase ("the thinking has been done") that A) was not written by a general authority, B) was not approved by the General Authorities tasked with reviewing the Church's publications, and C) was inadvertently allowed to be published in the Church's official magazine.  The only fathomable reason for this is . . . ridicule.  Ridicule is a potent weapon in politics.  It has no place amongst the Saints, but dissidents among us use it because, I think, they view the Church as a political or quasi-political entity.

Alinsky's Rule #12 is "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  In the Ward Teacher's Message we have a five-word phrase that that A) was not written by a general authority, B) was not approved by the General Authorities tasked with reviewing the Church's publications, C) was inadvertently allowed to be published in the Church's official magazine, D) was published 70+ years ago, E) was published in the waning months of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the world (and which therefore might explain why the GAs of the time were perhaps distracted by the death and destruction, and not totally attentive to their editorial duties), F) contravenes extensive writings by ancient and modern prophets and apostles regarding the importance of studying and "thinking" about things important to us, and G) was subsequently disavowed by the President of the Church (albeit not in a widespread way).  And yet critics and dissidents have "picked the target," and frozen and polarized the bejeebers out of it.  I think the only people who pick and freeze and polarize a 70+-year-old Ward Teacher's Message are . . . people who view the Church as a political or quasi-political entity.

Alinsky's Rule #8 is "Keep the pressure on. Never let up."  I think critics and dissidents who rely on the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message as a substantive argument against the LDS Church are really doing themselves a disservice.  It comes across as contrived.  Desperate.  Pathetic.  And yet they keep the pressure on and never let up.  This has no place amongst the Saints, but critics and dissidents among us use it because, I think, they view the Church as a political or quasi-political entity.

Alinsky's Rule #3 is "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. ... {L}ook for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty."  Latter-day Saints are taught to study, ponder and pray.  Constantly.  "{B}ehold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you..."  (D&C 9:8).  In contrast, the controversial 5-word phrase "the thinking has been done" appears nowhere on LDS.org.  Given the voluminous literature available to the Saints about their faith, I think it would be quite understandable for even the most studious amongst us to not include in our studies a 70+-year-old Ward Teacher's Message.  So the only reason I can think that critics and dissidents keep bringing up this 5-word phrase ("the thinking has been done") is . . . as a rhetorical "gotcha."  As a way "to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty" in the hearts and minds of Latter-day Saints who are - rather understandably - "outside the{ir} expertise" when dealing with a 70+-year-old Ward Teacher's Message.  Such measures have no place among the Saints, but critics and dissidents among us use it because, I think, they view the Church as a political or quasi-political entity.

Alinsky's Rule #2 is "Never go outside the expertise of your people.”  There is a reason, I think, why critics and dissidents constantly re-hash the same complaints and criticisms against the Church over and over.  Many of these criticisms fall within the ambit of this statement by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen (published in 1997, I think, and so even more relevant today):

Quote

The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

This is perhaps why Jeremy Runnells is enjoying 15 minutes of fame at the moment.  His CES Letter typifies the lazy and unstudied nature of so many criticisms harped on by critics and dissidents.  Posting criticisms of the Church as "questions," then ignoring (as pretending they don't exist) serious and thoughtful published efforts to address those "questions," and then re-asking the criticisms-dressed-up-as-questions is, I think, an exercise in "{n]ever go{ing} outside the expertise of your people."  It is acutely hypocritical for critics and dissidents to accuse us of discouraging "thinking" by resorting in 2016 to something as lazy and thoughtless as copying and pasting a complaint about a 5-word phrase from a 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.  Not a single one of these folks originated this criticism.  They are just parroting it after having heard it from their fellow online critics.  Endlessly.  For years.  If that is not a failure to "think," I don't know what is.

And so it goes.  I am open to legitimate critique and criticism of my faith.  I don't really enjoy it per se, but it makes me think and study and ponder more than I would otherwise.  At the end of it all, I wind up feeling rather comfortable with my faith and my perception of it.  By constantly pointing out perceived (and, I admit, some actual) flaws in the Church, our enemies make us confront and work out these thorny issues.  In contrast, my take is that any critic or dissident who seriously resorts to such stale complaints as a 1945 Ward Teacher's Message is in the thrall of lazy, uncritical thoughtlessness.  

Mosser and Owen quoted Hugh Nibley as saying: "We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes."  He was quite correct.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 11, 2016 by smac97

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Pres. Smith stated that the "leaflet" was not prepared by one of the church leaders.  What "leaflet" was he referring to, do you know?  Was this something different than what was published 6 months earlier in the Improvement Era under the direction of The Presiding Bishopric to members who were to use it as a ward teaching message?

Here's the quote regarding the "leaflet" from the letter:

Quote

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” 

 

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He is referencing The Improvement Era.

So, you believe that Pres. Smith stated that The Improvement Era did not come from the leaders of the church?  Who do you think approved what was published then?

(And this private letter from Pres. Smith was written 6 months after the ward teaching message was published in the Era, the disavowal wasn't immediately after it was published.)

.

Edited May 11, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

I will say an argument can certainly be made that the teaching is not front and center in Mormonism.  I for one, don't know that I've ever accepted it or anything near it.  But I may be odd in that.  That does not mean many members do not view it that way and that their impression came from somewhere.  Now, everyone thinks for themselves to some extent or another.  The concern I'd say is, many members seem to want to stop exploring certain feelings and thoughts for fear they end up opposed to Church leaders.  That's my concern.  It may not reflect perfectly the ideal presented in the quote, but I think there is at least a shadow of the concept quite heavily ingrained in many members. 

We should address that.  Ms. Viegas-Haws was not the only member to think that way. 

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, in the context of our conversation, it was this link: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

One page. Two short documents. The same ones you've discussed already.

If you're not going to go back to see where (and how) I've answered your question already, and you remember responding to my posts already, why ask the same question all over again? I think I have some insight into that here: Posted 19 hours ago

Don't worry about my last question; it was rhetorical and supports the reasons statement #1 is false.

Ah the FairMormon link.  If we've discussed them already, what point do you want to make or question do you have?

In the post you linked from "19 hours ago" you wrote:

Quote

I'm sure you are eminently qualified in acing tests. And that you would also say you are highly educated (in a manner of speaking). Nevertheless... it would take an unreasonable amount of twisting to create a false dichotomy out the actual quote and the others included in the link I provided.

Does this mean you don't want to discuss the foolishness of statement #1 anymore, now that defending the individual who wrote it and miscalling the general Church culture haven't proven effective in defending your position that the statement is true

I believe I responded.  The dichotomy exists.  I explained it.  Others on here have.  Again, I'm not sure what your point it.  You are just claiming there isn't a dichotomy.  Okay.  I disagree.

Regarding statement #1, I am unclear on what you think is foolish?  Her implied previous belief that when the prophet speaks the thinking is done?  We all agree that is wrong.  She agrees that is wrong.  Her statement SAYS that it is wrong.  What is foolish about her statement?

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 9:13 AM, ALarson said:

So, you believe that Pres. Smith stated that The Improvement Era did not come from the leaders of the church?  

I think Pres. Smith was referring specifically to the Ward Teacher's Message.  I don't know if it was separately copied out as a "leaflet" (much like we currently do when we print out the First Presidency Message and take it to our home teaching families).

Context matters.  The Unitarian minister did not present as a concern the entirety of the June 1945 Improvement Era, nor even the entirety of the Ward Teacher's Message within it.  He quoted, verbatim, the controversial passages "which seem to be brought most in question."  Those two passages were:

Quote

“He (Lucifer) wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to ‘do their own thinking[.]”

“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….”

These are the passages at issue, and which were subsequently addressed by Pres. Smith, as follows:

Quote

I have read with interest and deep concern your letter of November 16, 1945, in which you make special comment on “a short religious editorial prepared by one of our leaders entitled “Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church'”. You say that you read the message with amazement, and that you have since been disturbed because of its effect upon members of the Church.

I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter, and thank you for having taken the time to write to me.

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.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church...

Pres. Smith goes on to quote several Church sources about the importance of "thinking," "agency" and associated concepts.

Quote

Who do you think approved what was published then?

According to Pres. Smith, the above-referenced controversial portions were not approved.  Apparently the Presiding Bishopric was supposed to review and approve it.  Above the "Ward Teaching" title is the following: "CONDUCTED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOPRIC. EDITED BY LEE A. PALMER."  Did Lee Palmer write the message?  Did someone else?  We don't know.  What we do know, however, is that Pres. Smith stated that the Ward Teacher's Message (or, more specifically, the controversial passages above) were not prepared by a general authority (presumably that is what Pres. Smith had in mind when he told the minister "The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not 'prepared' by 'one of our leaders.'").  We also know that the Ward Teacher's Message was supposed to be published "under the supervision" of the Presiding Bishopric (see above), that "one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored," and that they (the general authorities tasked with approving/supervising the content of the Ward Teacher's Message were "embarrassed" by this oversight.

Quote

(And this private letter from Pres. Smith was written 6 months after the ward teaching message was published in the Era, the disavowal wasn't immediately after it was published.)

Yes.  And?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Is cynicism always unjustified? It seems to me that, when you deal with a person or an organization who has a consistent history of always acting for his/her/its own self-interest, one would be quite justified in one's cynicism. The logic here seems to be that, because the church obviously does not deserve cynicism or skepticism, so the fault must lie with the person. That's the real issue, not whether this person is to be hated or pitied.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Is cynicism always unjustified? It seems to me that, when you deal with a person or an organization who has a consistent history of always acting for his/her/its own self-interest, one would be quite justified in one's cynicism. The logic here seems to be that, because the church obviously does not deserve cynicism or skepticism, so the fault must lie with the person. That's the real issue, not whether this person is to be hated or pitied.

Sure.  and for those of us in the Church we should be wise enough to see this and say, "wait...what's causing her concerns" instead of hearing her message and getting all defensive about her messaging not really reflecting what we believe, or whatever. 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  And?

It's been stated here that this message was "promptly" disavowed.  The disavowal came 6 months later (and even then in a private letter to a minister from another church) and may have never happened if someone hadn't questioned it.  But we can't know that, of course.  IIRC, it probably wasn't even under Pres. Smith's leadership as a Prophet when that publication of the Improvement Era was written (he was sustained right around that time).

Either way, similar statements have been made since by church leaders  (as Happy Jack Wagon and others have posted here).  So, for the sister in the OP to have maybe believed it at one time, is not uncommon.

So, maybe it's time to move on to one of the other points mentioned in the article linked to in the OP?  This one point has been discussed quite thoroughly, IMO.

.

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 9:44 AM, jkwilliams said:

Is cynicism always unjustified? It seems to me that, when you deal with a person or an organization who has a consistent history of always acting for his/her/its own self-interest, one would be quite justified in one's cynicism. The logic here seems to be that, because the church obviously does not deserve cynicism or skepticism, so the fault must lie with the person. That's the real issue, not whether this person is to be hated or pitied.

I think cynicism is generally an unhealthy presumption for critics to use when critiquing the LDS Church.  It is essentially a presumption against the Church of dishonesty, of bad faith, of ill will, of malice.  After all, the Church is a community of believers, the fourfold mission of which is to "1) Perfect the Saints, 2) Proclaim the Gospel, 3) Redeem the Dead, and 4) Care for the Poor and Needy."

Cynicism is defined as "an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism."  Such an inclination is rather hard to square with what the Church does.  How is "perfect{ing} the Saints" a manifestation of "pure" self-interest?  How is "redeem{ing} the dead" a manifestation of "pure" self-interest?  How is "car{ing} for the poor and needy" a manifestation of "pure" self interest?  How is "proclaim{ing} the Gospel" a manifestation of "pure" self-interest?

Cynicism aimed at an entire group of people is not healthy.  It sounds more like prejudice and bigotry and lazy thinking than anything else.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think cynicism is generally an unhealthy presumption for critics to use when critiquing the LDS Church.  It is essentially a presumption against the Church of dishonesty, of bad faith, of ill will, of malice.  After all, the Church is a community of believers, the fourfold mission of which is to "1) Perfect the Saints, 2) Proclaim the Gospel, 3) Redeem the Dead, and 4) Care for the Poor and Needy."

Cynicism is defined as "an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism."  Such an inclination is rather hard to square with what the Church does.  How is "perfect{ing} the Saints" a manifestation of "pure" self-interest?  How is "redeem{ing} the dead" a manifestation of "pure" self-interest?  How is "car{ing} for the poor and needy" a manifestation of "pure" self interest?  How is "proclaim{ing} the Gospel" a manifestation of "pure" self-interest?

Cynicism aimed at an entire group of people is not healthy.  It sounds more like prejudice and bigotry and lazy thinking than anything else.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Using that definition of cynicism, I don't think Viegas-Haws' op-ed was cynical.

[Tacenda]

IMO, I think members are more believing that the prophet is infallible today than in the past 50 or so years ago, at least those that are entrenching more with so much opposition now.  But luckily, we aren't hearing commands that more than one pair of earrings or tattoos aren't acceptable.  I'm hoping this won't surface again.  I don't recall hearing much over the pulpit that would give many pause, except for the November policy on gays, that was a biggy.  And IMO, it's why many are leaving the church.  They apparently, don't believe the prophet is infallible or speaks directly with the Lord on answers with the policy.

So members on this board that believe the prophet is fallible, how do you choose which of the prophet's directions come from the Lord and those that do not.  You are a lucky soul that has that ability.  That's why I think members that believe everything over the pulpit, don't have to stress out as much, and that's why I believe they do think the prophet speaks for the Lord and they shouldn't disagree for that reason only.  If not, why is the mantle called prophecy?  Why have a prophet, if he doesn't speak with the Lord?  Then he becomes like anyone out there giving good advice.  I see a problem there.   

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by Tacenda

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 9:48 AM, ALarson said:

It's been stated here that this message was "promptly" disavowed.  The disavowal came 6 months later (and even then in a private letter to a minister from another church) and may have never happened if someone hadn't questioned it.  

Oh, come on.  Let's not quibble.  The Ward Teacher's Message was published in June 1945.  The Unitarian minister wrote a letter to Pres. Smith dated November 16, 1945, and Pres. Smith responded via a letter dated December 7, 1945.  Are you really going to criticize a three-week gap between November 16 and December 7?

I suppose we can play armchair quarterback and criticize Pres. Smith for not addressing an erroneous Ward Teacher's Message prior to December.  It's not like anything else was going on between June and December 1945.  Oh, except for the conclusion of World War II, including the conclusion of the war in Europe, American naval and amphibious forces also moved towards Japan, taking Iwo Jima by March, and Okinawa by the end of June, American bombers attacking Japanese cities (also in June), American submarines cutting off Japanese imports (also in June), the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (in August), the surrender of Japan (also in August) and so on.

Or . . . we can perhaps seek to place the Ward Teacher's Message in context and approach it reasonably (and without cynicism).

Quote

Either way, similar statements have been made since by church leaders  (as Happy Jack Wagon and others have posted here).  

No, there haven't.  "Similar" is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.  

Quote

So, for the sister in the OP to have maybe believed it at one time, is not uncommon.

With respect, I can't agree with that.  She said: "When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done."  That is plainly a reference to the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.  I simply do not believe that the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message was used as a resource by teachers giving lessons to Mrs. Viegas-Haws.  Her citation to it is too cute.  To pat.  To on-the-nose.  The only people who cite this 1945 Ward Teacher's Message are critics and dissidents who quote it to each other (which is rather hilarious, since they are hardly "thinking" for themselves when they merely parrot a tired trope that others have been passing around for years).

So no, I don't believe she "believed it at one time."  It's a convenient and lazy potshot, that's all.

Quote

So, maybe it's time to move on to one of the other points mentioned in the article linked to in the OP?  This one point has been discussed quite thoroughly, IMO.

As you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

Smac - A quick sidebar, counselor.  There is no requirement that every post be a fully formed Motion for Summary Judgment.  Brevity can be a virtue.  Just sayin'.

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 10:30 AM, ttribe said:

Smac - A quick sidebar, counselor.  There is no requirement that every post be a fully formed Motion for Summary Judgment.  Brevity can be a virtue.  Just sayin'.

Okay.  Thanks for the feedback.  Conversely, sometimes the desire to be terse and brief eliminates the possibility of exploring the contours and nuances of an issue.

Also, not all my posts are long. 

Also, I try to front-load my thoughts on a given subject rather than dole them out piecemeal.

Thanks,

-Smac