Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

What are you talking about? Who is "she"? I was addressing ALarson. Is ALarson a 'she"? I don't think so. Didn't he say he is in a bishopric?

And what word did I make him an offender for?

Edited May 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I did not.  And 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.

"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."

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."

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:

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."

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

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

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.

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.

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

It's safe to conclude at this point, the two sides are not going to agree.  Some say the Church never taught it, even if it's found in a publication from years ago, and no statement or ideas presented since then are close to the concept this phrase expresses. 

I'm guessing if I went to Church with Smac this coming Sunday I'd probably hear something that I would interpret to be something quite similar to the phrase, but Smac no doubt would disagree, suggesting it is nowhere near the same.  And there's the impasse.  How OD1 or the 14 fundamentals don't come close to the same meaning is beyond me.  They are nearly explicitly identical to me.  So I guess it's time to shrug at the disagreement, unless I feel like saying something again. 

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

And it was definitely taught (members were instructed to teach it as part of their home teaching message).  These members believed it came from their leaders too.

When did that private disavowel even see the light of day?  How many years (after members were instructed in an official church publication, to teach this concept), did they learn it was erroneous?

Edited May 11, 2016 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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?

I agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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!)

I don't think you know what went on in 1945 any better than I do. Perhaps there were measures to correct any impression that might have been left by the errant message, efforts that  have been lost to history because there was no permanent record made of them.

One thing is certain: The errant message has not survived to this day except in the complaints and attacks by antagonists and dissidents.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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!)

I don't think you know what went on in 1945 any better than I do. Perhaps there were measures to correct any impression that might have been left by the errant message, efforts that  have been lost to history because there was no permanent record made of them.

One thing is certain: The errant message has not survived to this day except in the complaints and attacks by antagonists and dissidents.

[stemelbow]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think you know what went on in 1945 any better than I do. Perhaps there were measures to correct any impression that might have been left by the errant message, efforts that  have been lost to history because there was no permanent record made of them.

One thing is certain: The errant message has not survived to this day except in the complaints and attacks by antagonists and dissidents.

I wouldnt' count on that certainty.  It very well could have survived but there is no permanent record made of the survived attempts.  I don't think Ms. Viegas-Haws or anyone else is pretending the phrase is in every new publication that comes out.  Only that the concept of the teaching still finds place in Mormonism to some extent or another.  That's why she breathed it in the linked article after all and that's why her point one actually resonates with many of us members.  I know you deny it, but I don't know there's good grounding to so deny. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I wouldnt' count on that certainty.  It very well could have survived but there is no permanent record made of the survived attempts.  I don't think Ms. Viegas-Haws or anyone else is pretending the phrase is in every new publication that comes out.  Only that the concept of the teaching still finds place in Mormonism to some extent or another.  That's why she breathed it in the linked article after all and that's why her point one actually resonates with many of us members.  I know you deny it, but I don't know there's good grounding to so deny. 

As Smac has quite rightly pointed out, the phrase "the thinking has been done" does not appear in the immense body of instructional material available on lds.org.

And Google searches only turn up instances of critics and dissidents quoting it to each other and faithful members rebutting them.

I think it's quite safe to counton that certainty.

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 0:10 PM, JulieM said:

Quote

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.  

Correct.  That's why I prefaced my statement with "I do not believe..."

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.  

You can't possibly know that.

Also, how many "members who were taught this 70 years ago" (in the United States, as I think there is virtually zero chance that the Church was distributing the Improvement Era to Europe in June 1945) ended up teaching the church lessons given to Julienna Viegas-Haws in Belgium in the late 90s?

Also, how many members ended up fixating on one phrase ("when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done") to the exclusion of the voluminous statements by so many prophets and apostles about the importance of studying, pondering, praying, and so on?

Quote

This teaching could have been passed down from her parents to her.  

Her mother was an adult convert and raised her in the Church in Belgium.  You are proposing that one statement from one ward teacher's message published once in the United States in 1945 during the waning months of World War II was somehow A) never re-published in any other Church materials, but B) was nevertheless of such enduring importance that it somehow was transmitted across the Atlantic and across the decades, such that C) the Church members in Belgium somehow became aware of it (despite it never appearing in any Church materials other than the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message published in Salt Lake) and, during the late 90s (presumably when Mrs. Viegas-Haws was growing up) incorporated it into the Primary and Sunday School curricular taught to Mrs. Viegas-Haws, or else was taught to her mother.

You can believe that if you like.  I find it rather . . . implausible.

Quote

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

No, it's not "a common statement."   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.

Also, "the debate is over" is nothing like "the thinking has been done."  The former is a matter-of-fact declaration of reality (which does appear in Church literature, but only very rarely and only from one source) that allows for differences of opinion ("thinking") despite a decision having been made.  The latter seemingly dispossesses the Saints their right to "think," and instead allocates that gift to the leaders of the Church.  Such a concept is foreign and hostile to the scriptures and to the many statements made by modern prophets and apostles about the importance of studying, pondering, praying, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 11, 2016 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

Thank you for demonstrating my point: that is not what statement #1 suggests to the objective reader, or at least to one that didn’t know / believe as you did.

You place “knowing with 100% surety” on a par with believing. That reveals some pretty black-and-white thinking, not to say that faith and grace can’t work with it. In the meantime, beliefs can change even as black-and-white thinking persists.

The statement had to have been prepared for publication with a great deal of care thought, so the faulty reasoning runs pretty deep.

Now you might say I read it with as much prejudice as you do, just a different brand, but I typically think about what the prophet says, regardless of not being able to say, “I know with 100% surety that what he teaches is always completely correct and totally true,” or that I believe “if the Prophet said something, I never needed to doubt, just follow.” Or even say that I picked up on such nonsense as a feature of any LDS culture that I’ve been exposed to, wherever I've lived.

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I'm not making this about her. I'm commenting on the actual statement she put into print and how it doesn't make sense (and that is why is not a profound discovery of truth).

[JulieM]

What is  also a certainty is that at one time, members were instructed to teach this exact concept.  It was published for them to teach and they obediently taught it to other members.

What isn't a certainty is if or when any of these members learned this teaching was disavowed in a private letter by their Prophet addressed to a minister for another church.

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by JulieM

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What are you talking about? Who is "she"? I was addressing ALarson. Is ALarson a 'she"? I don't think so. Didn't he say he is in a bishopric?

And what word did I make him an offender for?

She: Viegas-Haws.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

She: Viegas-Haws.

Well if you're trying to denounce an entity, quoting a 70+ year-old statement that was promptly disavowed is a poor way to do it. And it's not making someone an offender for a word to say so.

Moreover, once that errant quotation is removed from her arsenal, it pretty much eviscerates her argument, as there is really nothing else of substance to substantiate it.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for demonstrating my point: that is not what statement #1 suggests to the objective reader, or at least to one that didn’t know / believe as you did.

You place “knowing with 100% surety” on a par with believing. That reveals some pretty black-and-white thinking, not to say that faith and grace can’t work with it. In the meantime, beliefs can change even as black-and-white thinking persists.

The statement had to have been prepared for publication with a great deal of care thought, so the faulty reasoning runs pretty deep.

Now you might say I read it with as much prejudice as you do, just a different brand, but I typically think about what the prophet says, regardless of not being able to say, “I know with 100% surety that what he teaches is always completely correct and totally true,” or that I believe “if the Prophet said something, I never needed to doubt, just follow.” Or even say that I picked up on such nonsense as a feature of any LDS culture that I’ve been exposed to, wherever I've lived.

I already said that her thinking was black and white (and to a degree, still is even after her faith transition).

But that appears to be how she believed.  I think that's the message that she was trying to communicate.  The idea that we don't need to question or doubt what the prophet says is, I believe, quite prevalent in LDS culture if not LDS doctrine.

[JulieM]

This is actually a good example of members following their leaders even when they were wrong.  Members obediently taught this message.  Later a Prophet disavowed what they were teaching.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What is  also a certainty is that at one time, members were instructed to teach this exact concept.  It was published for them to teach and they obediently taught it to other members.

What isn't a certainty is if or when any of these members learned this teaching was disavowed in a private letter by their Prophet addressed to a minister for another church.

 

The crux of the argument seems to be that the one-time publication 70+ years ago of that errant and promptly repudiated statement  became pervasive in the inter-generational consciousness of the Latter-day Saints. That assumption has not been established, and the fact that the statement cannot be found anywhere on lds.org very strongly argues against it.

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The crux of the argument seems to be that the one-time publication 70+ years ago of that errant and promptly repudiated statement  became pervasive in the inter-generational consciousness of the Latter-day Saints. That assumption has not been established, and the fact that it cannot be found anywhere on lds.org very strongly argues against it.

 

You forgot to mention to whom it was promptly (6 months later) repudiated.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I already said that her thinking was black and white (and to a degree, still is even after her faith transition).

But that appears to be how she believed.  I think that's the message that she was trying to communicate.  The idea that we don't need to question or doubt what the prophet says is, I believe, quite prevalent in LDS culture if not LDS doctrine.

But that speaks nothing to the problems with the actual statement, only to other problems with black-and-white thinking.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

This is actually a good example of members following their leaders even when they were wrong.  Members obediently taught this message.  Later a Prophet disavowed what they were teaching.  

Which members "obediently taught the message"? The letter from President Smith to the Unitarian leader indicated that many members were upset by it. If anything, that argues against your assumption.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You forgot to mention to whom it was promptly (6 months later) repudiated.

When you resort to quibbling, that doesn't speak very highly of the strength of your contention.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well if you're trying to denounce an entity, quoting a 70+ year-old statement that was promptly disavowed is a poor way to do it.

You keep saying this, but does promptly = 6 months to you?  And who knows when the members actually saw this disavowal?   I wouldn't use the word "promptly" when something wasn't done until 6 months after the fact.  

When was this private letter made public for the first time?  That would be when members knew about it.  

(Sorry, I said I was done.  But you keep stating this Scott and it simply is not the truth.)

.

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When you resort to quibbling, that doesn't speak very highly of the strength of your contention.

Quibbling?  You've already instructed me on the ethical obligation of including the full story and that doing otherwise is dishonest.  I'm just following your lead and trying to help you out.

As for the actual discussion of Viegas-Haws op-ed... you derailed that many pages back when you decided to make her an "offender for a word" and pick on a specific phrase she used, claiming that it ties her to antagonists/critics of the church.  Rather than have a reasonable discussion about her op-ed we've been firing back and forth about this ridiculous 1945 Ward Teachers message.  That was your doing, Scott.  Not mine.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You keep saying this, but does promptly = 6 months to you?  And who knows when the members actually saw this disavowal?   I wouldn't use the word "promptly" when something wasn't done until 6 months after the fact.  

When was this private letter made public for the first time?  That would be when members knew about it.  

(Sorry, I said I was done.  But you keep stating this Scott and it simply is not the truth.)

.

 

Six months is prompt enough that neither you nor anyone else ought to be dredging it up 70+ years later.

By the way, did you get my post responding to your complaint about President Smith calling it a leaflet? Given the custom of ward teachers leaving slips of paper with the message printed on them, he was no doubt correct in calling it a leaflet.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One thing is certain: The errant message has not survived to this day except in the complaints and attacks by antagonists and dissidents.

And in at least one talk per General Conference over the past three decades.

The position you advocate has nothing to do with the reality of Mormonism.

It is a Mormonism conceived exclusively in your own mind.

It is Mormonism as you may wish it to be, but it is not Mormonism as it really is.

I think you must know that on some level.

Edited May 11, 2016 by consiglieri

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Six months is prompt enough that neither you nor anyone else ought to be dredging it up 70+ years later.

Come on Scott, you know that stating something was "promptly disavowed" gives an incorrect impression regarding what actually took place here.  It's misleading and you have to know that.  Especially considering what the actual disavowal was (in a private letter to a person who wasn't even a member of the church).