Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.  

Yes, it's not like this message (that was published for all members to read, and who then assumed it was from their church leaders) wasn't being taught in every home of every member who received ward teachers during this time.

And, just because the disavowal came 6 months later in a private letter to a minister from another church, there is absolutely no reason why these members shouldn't have known this message had been taught to them erroneously...geesh. 

What a crazy discussion!

I'm moving on....

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 10:44 AM, ALarson said:

Yes, it's not like this message (that was published for all members to read, and who then assumed it was from their church leaders) wasn't being taught in every home of every member who received ward teachers during this time.

And, just because the disavowal came 6 months later in a private letter to a minister from another church, there is absolutely no reason why these members shouldn't have known this message had been taught to them erroneously...geesh. 

What a crazy discussion!

I'm moving on....

Right.  The Ward Teacher's Message from June 1945 merits discussion in May 2016 because critics and dissidents of the Church are retroactively concerned about the spiritual welfare of some members of the LDS Church 70+ years ago.

Or this discussion could be based on . . . something else.

This is indeed a crazy discussion.  The Ward Teacher's Message only merits present attention because critics and dissidents of the Church want to use it to make the Church look bad and falsely characterize it as teaching its members not to think.

Thanks,

-Smax

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

This is indeed a crazy discussion.  The Ward Teacher's Message only merits present attention because critics and dissidents of the Church want to use it to make the Church look bad and falsely characterize it as teaching its members not to think.

But it isn't just this one statement made in 1945, Smax.

This teaching is woven through every fiber of modern Mormonism.

As recently as a year or two ago, the adult members of the LDS Church were taught in priesthood and relief society that you should always obey the prophet, even if he is wrong.  But don't worry, he will never be wrong.

I am referring, of course, to the Ezra Taft Benson manual in which his 14 Fundamentals talk was regurgitated.

I am unable to see any distinguishable difference between advocating blind obedience to the prophet and saying that when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.

Or that when the leaders speak, the debate is over.

This is why I think some characterize this as "a crazy discussion."

 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  The Ward Teacher's Message from June 1945 merits discussion in May 2016 because critics and dissidents of the Church are retroactively concerned about the spiritual welfare of some members of the LDS Church 70+ years ago.

Yes, combined with other more recent statements from church leaders that are very similar, it does seem to merit discussion (look at the length of this thread  ).

But, I truly am moving on.  I think I've said all I have to say (and several times).  I do think it could be interesting to discuss some of the other points from the OP article, but I'm done with this topic. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I think it is important to understand the error in taking her statement #1 to be true when it is nonsensical and false.

As I’ve explained several times: It is false because one authority’s being right or wrong is no reason for a person to stop or begin thinking, yet her statement makes that assertion! Look at how “because” is used to link the two unrelated ideas: “1. When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done because he could be wrong...” Whatever she believed before or how, her current statement of belief is nonsensical.

Aside from focusing on his just being wrong (and notice that “I will/should not stop thinking because they could be wrong,” is as unreasonable as, “I will/should start thinking because they could be right”), how co-dependent can one get than in believing his thinking is driven by whether an authority could be right or wrong? Yet the thought is presented as a profound discovery of truth.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Regarding statement #1, I am unclear on what you think is foolish?

See the above.

Edited May 11, 2016 by CV75

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is indeed a crazy discussion.  The Ward Teacher's Message only merits present attention because critics and dissidents of the Church want to use it to make the Church look bad and falsely characterize it as teaching its members not to think.

Or perhaps it is a crazy discussion because so many people commenting on this thread decided to zero in on a phrase, link it to a 1945 article (which we don't know if she ever read), connect it with critics (again, we don't know if that's where she heard it, she very well may have heard it from active, faithful members), and not really think about what she actually meant!

We couldn't even advance the discussion to her other 9 points because so many here were up in arms that she used that particular quote.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it is important to understand the error in taking her statement #1 to be true when it is nonsensical and false.

As I’ve explained several times: It is false because one authority’s being right or wrong is no reason for a person to stop or begin thinking, yet her statement makes that assertion! Look at how “because” is used to link the two unrelated ideas: “1. When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done because he could be wrong...” Whatever she believed before or how, her current statement of belief is nonsensical.

Aside from focusing on his just being wrong (and notice that “I will/should not stop thinking because they could be wrong,” is as unreasonable as, “I will/should start thinking because they could be right”)? How co-dependent can one get than in believing his thinking is driven by whether an authority could be right or wrong? Yet the thought is presented as a profound discovery of truth.

See the above.

If you knew with 100% surety that what the Prophet taught was always completely correct and totally true, would you need to take time to consider whether or not to accept said teaching?

That's what I grew up believing... if the Prophet said something, I never needed to doubt, just follow.  In my 30's, that changed.  That's what I understand Viegas-Haws to be saying.

[consiglieri]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We couldn't even advance the discussion to her other 9 points because so many here were up in arms that she used that particular quote.

Okay, let's move to point number two, then:

Quote

2. To properly develop mentally and spiritually, I must follow my own conscience whether it is in opposition to the leaders or not. (Mormons are taught from a young age to always follow the prophet no matter what.)

*Cue the cacophony of voices claiming Mormons are not taught from a young age to always follow the prophet no matter what.*

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by consiglieri

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 11:11 AM, rockpond said:

Or perhaps it is a crazy discussion because so many people commenting on this thread decided to zero in on a phrase, link it to a 1945 article (which we don't know if she ever read), connect it with critics (again, we don't know if that's where she heard it, she very well may have heard it from active, faithful members), and not really think about what she actually meant!

We couldn't even advance the discussion to her other 9 points because so many here were up in arms that she used that particular quote.

There is no other reasonable reading of her statement other than a paraphrase of the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.  Mrs. Viegas-Haws attributes this concept to "the faith of {her} childhood," and yet the phrase "thinking has been done" appears exactly zero times on the LDS.org website.

Where else, besides the 1945 Teacher's Message, has this phrase or its substantive equivalent appeared in LDS literature, such that Mrs. Viegas-Haws could credibly claim to have been taught it?  What evidence do we have that this phrase or its substantive equivalent has remained in the folklore of the Church?  A google search using the offending phrase yields two broad categories of results: A) critics and dissidents quoting and crowing about it, and B) faithful Church members rebutting the aforementioned quoting and crowing.

I reject as false the assertion by Mrs. Viegas-Haws that "when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done" is a part of "the faith of {her} childhood,"  I do not believe she was taught it.  I do not believe it appears in the Church's teaching materials.  I instead believe she came across the concept online, with the source being critics and dissidents endlessly quoting it to each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Okay, let's move to point number two, then:

*Cue the cacophony of voices claiming Mormons are not taught from a young age to always follow the prophet no matter what.*

 

Great.  Now I have that song stuck in my head (sung in every primary program every, single year and all year long).  "Follow the Prophet, Follow the Prophet".  Thanks. 

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I reject as false the assertion by Mrs. Viegas-Haws that "when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done" is a part of "the faith of {her} childhood,"  I do not believe she was taught it. 

But this was once taught as a home teaching message to all members.  And, teachings are passed down from generation to generation from our parents and grandparents who may have been taught this, so she could have learned it in childhood.

And, even if she wasn't taught that exact quote, there are numerous others that teach the same concept and belief to the members.  

Edited May 11, 2016 by JulieM

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is no other reasonable reading of her statement other than a paraphrase of the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.  Mrs. Viegas-Haws attributes this concept to "the faith of {her} childhood," and yet the phrase "thinking has been done" appears exactly zero times on the LDS.org website.

Where else, besides the 1945 Teacher's Message, has this phrase or its substantive equivalent appeared in LDS literature, such that Mrs. Viegas-Haws could credibly claim to have been taught it?  What evidence do we have that this phrase or its substantive equivalent has remained in the folklore of the Church?  A google search using the offending phrase yields two broad categories of results: A) critics and dissidents quoting and crowing about it, and B) faithful Church members rebutting the aforementioned quoting and crowing.

I reject as false the assertion by Mrs. Viegas-Haws that "when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done" is a part of "the faith of {her} childhood,"  I do not believe she was taught it.  I do not believe it appears in the Church's teaching materials.  I instead believe she came across the concept online, with the source being critics and dissidents endlessly quoting it to each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

I heard the phrase growing up.

Quotes and articles have been provided on this thread that express the similar principle.

The Primary song:  Follow the Prophet

OD1

The 14 Fundamentals talk... repeated in general conference just a few years ago.

The list goes on.

Your conclusion that there is "no other reasonable reading of her statement other than a paraphrase of the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message" is ridiculous.  In reality, we have no idea how many times, within the church, by faithful and well-meaning members, the exact phrase has been repeated and the same idea has been taught.

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 11:34 AM, JulieM said:

But this was once taught as a home teaching message to all members.  

It was taught in error.  70+ years ago.  To some members (those who read the Ward Teacher's Message or had it taught to them).  I do not believe this concept was ever taught to Julienna Viegas-Haws.  It's not in the Church's materials.  The people who know about and comment on it are A) critics and dissidents quoting and crowing about it, and B) faithful Church members rebutting the aforementioned quoting and crowing.  

Moreover, the message did not originate with and was not approved by the leaders of the Church.  Amasa Lyman, an early apostle in the Church, gave several sermons in which he "all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ."  He was subsequently stripped of his apostleship and was later excommunicated.  Now, no reasonable person can point to Lyman's remarks and claim that they represent the teachings of the LDS Church.  Even though he spoke such things in his official capacity as an apostle.  It would simply be dishonest to do so.  It would be bad faith to do so.

Critics and dissidents cite the Ward Teacher's Message attempt to falsely characterize the Church's teachings by citing the Ward Teacher's Message, a message 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).  Now, no reasonable person can point to the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message and claim that it represents the teachings of the LDS Church.  Even though the Message was officially - though erroneously - published in the Church's magazine.  It would simply be dishonest to do so.  It would be bad faith to do so.

Quote

And, teachings are passed down from generation to generation from our parents and grandparents who may have been taught this, so she could have learned it in childhood.

Julienna Viegas Haws, the daughter of an adult convert to the Church from the Belgian Congo, was raised in the Church in Belgium.  I am rather skeptical that the Saints in Belgium used a Ward Teacher's Message published in Salt Lake City in 1945 as a resource for teaching Mrs. Viegas-Haws during her formative years.

Quote

And, even if she wasn't taught that exact quote, there are numerous others that teach the same concept and belief to the members.  

No, there are not "others that teach the same concept and belief."  There is no "concept" in the Church wherein the Saints are taught that "the thinking has been done."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

6 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:

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

.

You don't have a clear memory of the days of ward teaching, as I do.

Ward teaching preceded home teaching in the Church. When the ward teachers would come around, they would read a printed message in the home of each family or person they visited. They would then leave a copy of that message with the family.

I have a clear memory of those monthly printed messages. Copies of the message were printed on a sheet of paper that was perforated so each copy could be detached and left with the family. That detached copy could easily be characterized as a leaflet.

The reason I remember them so clearly is that the copies left by our ward teachers would remain on the piano in our living room, where I would see them day after day.

Undoubtedly, the same message was printed in the Improvement Era (forerunner to the Ensign) for the sake of convenience.

Quote

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?  

Go back to the link and read the letter from President George Albert Smith. Again, I see no good reason for calling him a liar.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It was taught in error.  70+ years ago.  To some members (those who read the Ward Teacher's Message or had it taught to them).  I do not believe this concept was ever taught to Julienna Viegas-Haws.

You can't possibly know that.  Also, members who were taught this 70 years ago believed it came from their leaders and didn't see anything stating it was taught in error.  This teaching could have been passed down from her parents to her.  It's a common statement (along with others similar like "the debate is over" when a Prophet speaks.)

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You don't have a clear memory of the days of ward teaching, as I do.

Ward teaching preceded home teaching in the Church. When the ward teachers would come around, they would read a printed message in the home of each family or person they visited. They would then leave a copy of that message with the family.

I have a clear memory of those monthly printed messages. Copies of the message were printed on a sheet of paper that was perforated so each copy could be detached and left with the family. That could easily be described as a leaflet.

The reason I remember them so clearly is that the copies left by our home teachers would remain on the piano in our living room, where I would see them day after day.

Undoubtedly, the same message was printed in the Improvement Era (forerunner to the Ensign) for the sake of convenience.

Go back to the link and read the letter from President George Albert Smith. Again, I see no good reason for calling him a liar.

In the recent thread on Elder Holland's remarks about stake growth you said that we shouldn't make him an offender for a word.

In this case, as well, I'd suggest looking beyond the phrase she pulled from Mormon vernacular and look at the meaning behind her words.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think it is important to understand the error in taking her statement #1 to be true when it is nonsensical and false.

As I’ve explained several times: It is false because one authority’s being right or wrong is no reason for a person to stop or begin thinking, yet her statement makes that assertion! Look at how “because” is used to link the two unrelated ideas: “1. When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done because he could be wrong...” Whatever she believed before or how, her current statement of belief is nonsensical.

Aside from focusing on his just being wrong (and notice that “I will/should not stop thinking because they could be wrong,” is as unreasonable as, “I will/should start thinking because they could be right”), how co-dependent can one get than in believing his thinking is driven by whether an authority could be right or wrong? Yet the thought is presented as a profound discovery of truth.

See the above.

While maybe not a profound discovery of truth to you, it apparently was to her.  It doesn't matter if she was wrong or not.  She no longer thinks she needs to stop thinking about some particular subject because a prophet drew a conclusion about it.  In this, I agree with you.  No one's thinking should be dependent or co-dependent on an authority's rightness or wrongness.  The initial statement upon which she draws upon is terrible and a waste, and it should never have been published. 

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Go back to the link and read the letter from President George Albert Smith. Again, I see no good reason for calling him a liar.

But, he could be mistaken.  Prophets are not infallible and do make mistakes.   

(I think that's one thing we all agree on.)

I also think if it was that important to correct, the Prophet would have made sure the church members who read, taught or heard that message would also hear or read the disavowal (and sooner than six months later!)

Edited May 11, 2016 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Julienna Viegas Haws, the daughter of an adult convert to the Church from the Belgian Congo, was raised in the Church in Belgium.  I am rather skeptical that the Saints in Belgium used a Ward Teacher's Message published in Salt Lake City in 1945 as a resource for teaching Mrs. Viegas-Haws during her formative years.

 

I'm not sure why you insist the published phrase must have been quoted to her for her to have accepted the concept while in her growing up and pre-leaving the Church adult years.  Degrees of the concept of accepted throughout the Church, as others have pointed out in this thread.  She need not have had even heard the phrase to accept the teaching of it. 

It's a good thing that many members hear the phrase now and think it absurd or wrong.  But that doesn't discount that many members behave as though that phrase is true--whether they've heard it or not.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You can't possibly know that.  

He can read the letter written by President George Albert Smith -- as you can.

And he said he doesn't believe the concept was ever taught to Viegas-Haws and has given a reasonable rationale for that belief.

Quote

Also, members who were taught this 70 years ago believed it came from their leaders and didn't see anything stating it was taught in error.  This teaching could have been passed down from her parents to her.

In 1945, the Church was much smaller than it is today and was mostly centered along Utah's Wasatch Front. It is highly doubtful that Viegas-Haws would have been reared by Wasatch Front Mormons.

I was born in the mid-1950s, a decade later, and as I have indicated, I have no memory of this idea being taught in the Church.

Quote

 It's a common statement (along with others similar like "the debate is over" when a Prophet speaks.)

It's only common because adversaries of the Church in later years have used it as an occasion to attack the Church. And, as has already been pointed out here, it is unlike "the debate is over." People can still go on thinking what they like, even after a debate has concluded; most do, in fact.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Okay, let's move to point number two, then:

*Cue the cacophony of voices claiming Mormons are not taught from a young age to always follow the prophet no matter what.*

 

it might sound even more crazy to address this point than the craziness that has come out by those defensively responding to the first point.  Come on, if the "Follow the prophet" chant doesn't apply to 1 it is nothing but a support for 2. 

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He can read the letter written by President George Albert Smith -- as you can.

I was referring to Smac not possibly being able to know that this "concept" was not ever taught to Viegas-Haws.

Edited May 11, 2016 by JulieM

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 11:45 AM, rockpond said:

I heard the phrase growing up.

I did not.  Strange how the people who claim to have "heard" this phrase are unable to point to any literature or source other than the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.  If "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" really was such a widespread teaching in the Church, why is it so hard to find attributions to it (other than the original 70+-year old source)?

Again, it does not appear anywhere on the LDS.org website, and its online manifestations consist primarily of A) critics/dissidents citing the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message for the false proposition that the LDS Church teaches that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done", and B) when faithful Latter-day Saints deny that this is the teaching of the Church.

Quote

Quotes and articles have been provided on this thread that express the similar principle.

"Similar principle" seems to have a huge amount of wiggle room in it.

The LDS Church does not teach its members that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Quote

The Primary song:  Follow the Prophet

Here are the lyrics, none of which come close to the falsehood that the LDS teaches that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Quote

OD1

Here's the Official Declaration - 1.  Nothing in it comes close to the falsehood that the LDS teaches that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

There is an excerpt from a statement by Wilford Woodruff, as follows:

Quote

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

I'm not sure if this is canonized, but I think it presents a correct extrapolation of scriptures about the posture and destiny of the Church in the Latter Days (Daniel 2:31-45 and D&C 65:2 come to mind).  But this comes nowhere close to the falsehood that the LDS teaches that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Quote

The 14 Fundamentals talk... repeated in general conference just a few years ago.

Here's the talk.  Here are the 14 fundamentals:

Quote

• First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
• Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
• Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
• Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
• Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
• Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
• Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
• Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
• Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
• Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.
• Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
• Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
• Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
• Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

Nothing in this list comes close to the falsehood that the LDS teaches that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Quote

The list goes on.

No, it doesn't.  There is no thought.  No reason.  No discussion.  No analysis.  No thinking.  Just one critic quoting another.  Just copying and pasting.  Just laziness.  Ironic, that.

Quote

Your conclusion that there is "no other reasonable reading of her statement other than a paraphrase of the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message" is ridiculous.  

It is the only reasonable surmise.  She did not fabricate the statement on her own.  She is attributing it to the "faith of {her} childhood."  And yet the only time her statement appears in the Church's literature is in the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.

I will concede that she is not directly quoting the 1945 message.  She is simply parroting the lazy and easy tropes propagated by critics and dissidents of the Church and falsely attributed to the Church.  And she's trying to persuade us that this incredibly obscure source somehow found its way into the Primary and Sunday School curricula she experienced as a child growing up in Belgium 50-60 years after the source was published in Salt Lake City.

Quote

In reality, we have no idea how many times, within the church, by faithful and well-meaning members, the exact phrase has been repeated and the same idea has been taught.

Right.  The Church members in Belgium, when teaching Julienna Viegas-Haws during her childhood (presumably in the late 1990s), relied on World Ward II-era magazines published in Salt Lake City for primary lessons and such.

Yes, that's a reasonable assessment.

</SARCASM>

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 11, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

Just now, JulieM said:

I was referring to Smac not possibly being able to know that this "concept" was ever taught to Viegas-Haws.

It's interesting because the phrase was published in a Church publication.  It wasn't pulled out of thin air--meaning even if the phrase is largely ignored today it's not like the teaching or attitude of it isn't found anywhere in the Church.  Talk to enough members and you'll hear the idea behind the phrase pretty well ingrained in many members. 

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

...No one's thinking should be dependent or co-dependent on an authority's rightness or wrongness. 

Because it really doesn't matter at all if what a leader says is right or wrong.  Everyone should feel free to think whatever they want to think even if some leader is trying to tell them what is right or what is wrong.

Right?   Or is that not what you were thinking?