Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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).  

You're ignoring the question. If it was repudiated three-score and 10 years ago, why be dredging it up now as a weapon to bludgeon the Church of Jesus Christ?

Edited May 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're ignoring the question. If it was repudiated three-score and 10 years ago, why be dredging up now as a weapon to bludgeon the Church of Jesus Christ?

It's the way the Church operates, Scott.

It operated this way 70-years ago.

It operates that way today.

Follow the prophet, remember?

 

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 1:28 PM, ALarson said:

Come on Scott, you know that stating something was "promptly disavowed" gives an incorrect impression regarding what actually took place here.  

Pres. Smith responded to an inquiry three weeks after the inquiry was sent.  That sounds rather "prompt" for the snail mail days of the 1940s.

Also, I see there is a determined effort to utterly disregard the context here, but 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?

Quote

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).  

It's misleading to claim that the Church teaches the disavowed concept that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  That, I think, is Scott's point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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).  

It cracks me up that I get criticized by Scott just for mentioning the "thinking has been done" quote but Scott can continually and erroneously claim that it was promptly and widely disavowed when, in fact, it was neither.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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).  

Don't you get it?

It was "promptly disavowed" and then that was "widely published" 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It cracks me up that I get criticized by Scott just for mentioning the "thinking has been done" quote but Scott can continually and erroneously claim that it was promptly and widely disavowed when, in fact, it was neither.

Exactly  

Oh well....

.

Edited May 11, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're ignoring the question. If it was repudiated three-score and 10 years ago, why be dredging it up now as a weapon to bludgeon the Church of Jesus Christ?

Scott,

What do you think was meant by the original publication of "when church leaders speak, the thinking has been done"?

Do you think that person, operating under the presiding bishopric, literally meant "turn your brain off and become an automaton"?  I don't think that's what they meant.  I think they meant that when a church leader gives counsel it's the right thing to do.  We don't need to give it a "second thought" because it must be the Lord's plan and we'll be blessed for doing it.

I imagine that's what was meant.  And, that idea is still taught in the church.  I think that is what Viegas-Haws is referring to when she uses the "thinking has been done" quote.

[Jeanne]

57 minutes ago, 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.

Prayer, and what to do with it.  If you do as asked and seek the Lord in prayer on anything the apostles or the prophet has said, (and we have been asked to do this) what if those intense feelings reveal something that is not right.  You can't say anything?  Why is the spirit that speaks to me not valid?  We have to admit that unless we agree with the word from the 12 and the prophet, we are wrong and more than that, it is our fault that we are wrong.  What then, is the point of  prayer?

[Jeanne]

58 minutes ago, 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.

No Scott..that is the thing that is certain.  I lived it, learned it, and taught it myself by what is called authority in the LDS church.  We bring it up because it is still there!

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 1:46 PM, Jeanne said:

Quote

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

No Scott..that is the thing that is certain.  I lived it, learned it, and taught it myself by what is called authority in the LDS church.  We bring it up because it is still there!

You taught it to others?  From what manual?  CFR, please, for the Church literature from which you taught that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  I'm all ears.

I will again quote Daniel Peterson's 1999 remarks on this issue:

Quote

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?

Odd, indeed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pres. Smith responded to an inquiry three weeks after the inquiry was sent.  

I wonder if he would have written any disavowel if this minister hadn't written him questioning him about this teaching in a negative manner?  If President Smith felt it was not a correct teaching, why would it take this to get him to act and correct it?  And then, why not so members who may continue teaching and believing it were aware of the correction?

Edited May 11, 2016 by JulieM

[jkwilliams]

3 hours 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

I doubt very many people start with the presumption of cynicism. My point was that cynicism is often an outgrowth of repeated experience, and in that case, it's justified. I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, until they give me reason not to do so. But I readily admit that my experience with certain people and organizations has made it difficult, if not impossible, for me to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore. Some would call that cynicism, and it certainly fits the definition you have given. But I would think it's wise to be skeptical in cases where people or institutions have a long track record of acting in self-interest. 

As far as the church goes, that's a matter of judgment. I personally don't think the church always acts in self-interest, but I understand why some people feel that way. Obviously, the woman referred to in the OP is one of them.

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 1:43 PM, rockpond said:

Scott,

What do you think was meant by the original publication of "when church leaders speak, the thinking has been done"?

I suppose we could discuss that, but what would be the point?  It is a statement that A) did not originate with the leaders of the Church, B) was overlooked by the leaders of the Church, and therefore inadvertently and erroneously published, C) was subsequently disavowed, and D) is more than 70 years old.

I see no need to explain or theorize about this statement.  It carries no weight at all.

Quote

Do you think that person, operating under the presiding bishopric, literally meant "turn your brain off and become an automaton"?  I don't think that's what they meant.  I think they meant that when a church leader gives counsel it's the right thing to do.  We don't need to give it a "second thought" because it must be the Lord's plan and we'll be blessed for doing it.

I imagine that's what was meant.  And, that idea is still taught in the church.  I think that is what Viegas-Haws is referring to when she uses the "thinking has been done" quote.

I think Mrs. Viegas-Haws paraphrased this statement as a "gotcha," for its shock value, to make the LDS Church look bad, and to misrepresent the teachings of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I wonder if he would have written any disavowel if this minister hadn't written him questioning him about this teaching in a negative manner?  If President Smith felt it was not a correct teaching, why would it take this to get him to act and correct it?  And then, why not so members were aware of the correction?

It's odd that we don't have a record of some kind of published disavowal considering President Smith said that members were upset and GA's were embarrassed by the Ward Teachers message.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I suppose we could discuss that, but what would be the point?  It is a statement that A) did not originate with the leaders of the Church, B) was overlooked by the leaders of the Church, and therefore inadvertently and erroneously published, C) was subsequently disavowed, and D) is more than 70 years old.

I see no need to explain or theorize about this statement.  It carries no weight at all.

I think Mrs. Viegas-Haws paraphrased this statement as a "gotcha," for its shock value, to make the LDS Church look bad, and to misrepresent the teachings of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Gee... What would be the point of discussing what was meant by a phrase that appeared in an official church publication under the supervision of the presiding bishopric, edited by apostles and was only disavowed in a private letter to someone outside the church?  (We can both play the game.)

The reason we might discuss what was actually meant by it is to understand how that original message is still pervasive in LDS culture and teachings.  But I understand that you wouldn't want to go down that path.  The specific "thinking has been done" phrase may not have been repeated but the "debate is over", "will not lead the church astray", "follow the prophet, he knows the way", and what the prophet says is the Lord's plan are all still there.

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 1:59 PM, JulieM said:

Quote

Pres. Smith responded to an inquiry three weeks after the inquiry was sent.  

I wonder if he would have written any disavowel if this minister hadn't written him questioning him about this teaching in a negative manner?  If President Smith felt it was not a correct teaching, why would it take this to get him to act and correct it?  And then, why not so members were aware of the correction?

And I wonder if Pres. Smith may have had some matters on his mind a bit more pressing than an error in a Ward Teacher's message.  Again, all this took place in the waiting months of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the world.  Tens of millions of people had been killed.  Nuclear bombs were dropped a few months after the message's publication.  The Saints in Europe and elsewhere had been cut off from the Church for years.  Hundreds or thousands of Church members had been displaced, injured, killed, or traumatized by the horrors of war.

Yes, Pres. Smith could (and probably should) have corrected the Ward Teacher's Message more promptly and more broadly (he was aware of its ill effects on other members of the Church).  But it seems absurd to navel-gaze about such things 70+ years after the fact.

And more to the point: He did disavow it.  And it never appeared in any other Church publications.  So it seems extraordinarily unlikely that Mrs. Viegas-Haws, while a child in the Church in Belgium many decades later (her "childhood faith"), was nevertheless taught this so-important-the-Church-published-it-once-in-1945 Ward Teacher's Message that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  Such a claim strains credulity.

It seems much more likely that Mrs. Viegas-Haws was not taught this at all.  In fact, she all but admits this.  She prefaces her reference to the Ward Teacher's Message with this: "Here are 10 things I've learned while transitioning away from the faith of my childhood."  So she does not seem to be referencing things she was taught in Church while she was growing up.  Rather, she came across it online from any of a hundred sources who all parrot each other in quoting it.  It's not like any of these folks, while doing their own studying and "thinking" just happened to come across an absurdly obscure periodical published by the Church in June 1945.  Of course not.  This chestnut has been making the rounds among the critics and dissidents for many, many years.  No "thinking" involved.  Just copy and paste.

A think it extraordinarily unlikely that Mrs. Viegas-Haws came across this concept as a teaching in the Church Church.  I think it all but certain that she found it online during or after her disaffection from the Church, "while transitioning away from the faith of {her} childhood."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Scott,

What do you think was meant by the original publication of "when church leaders speak, the thinking has been done"?

Do you think that person, operating under the presiding bishopric, literally meant "turn your brain off and become an automaton"?  I don't think that's what they meant.  I think they meant that when a church leader gives counsel it's the right thing to do.  We don't need to give it a "second thought" because it must be the Lord's plan and we'll be blessed for doing it.

I imagine that's what was meant.  And, that idea is still taught in the church.  I think that is what Viegas-Haws is referring to when she uses the "thinking has been done" quote.

 

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suppose we could discuss that, but what would be the point?  It is a statement that A) did not originate with the leaders of the Church, B) was overlooked by the leaders of the Church, and therefore inadvertently and erroneously published, C) was subsequently disavowed, and D) is more than 70 years old.

I see no need to explain or theorize about this statement.  It carries no weight at all.

I think Mrs. Viegas-Haws paraphrased this statement as a "gotcha," for its shock value, to make the LDS Church look bad, and to misrepresent the teachings of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I will incorporate Smac's response within my own by reference and will simply add that the relevant question here is not what was meant by the original author of the statement, but rather what Viegas-Haws intended with her taunting allusion to it in a piece intended to denounce the Church of Jesus Christ.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You taught it to others?  From what manual?  CFR, please, for the Church literature from which you taught that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  I'm all ears.

I will again quote Daniel Peterson's 1999 remarks on this issue:

Odd, indeed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course I taught others..I taught them what I learned.  I gave seminary devotionals attributed to the words here.  It was a constant in my teen years as how to hold and avoid temptation.  I had a catholic friend that was interested and I told her when she asked about prophets and revelations.  Is that not what we were taught to do?  Missionaries..all of us!

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It cracks me up that I get criticized by Scott just for mentioning the "thinking has been done" quote but Scott can continually and erroneously claim that it was promptly and widely disavowed when, in fact, it was neither.

Perhaps the back-and-forth on this might have been avoided if you and others had candidly acknowledged the impropriety of using a 70-year-old, disavowed statement to denounce the Church of Jesus Christ. I, for one, might have been mollified by that.

Instead, you and others dug in your heels and tried to rationalize what, in the final analysis, is indefensible, bad-fatih behavior.

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 2:07 PM, rockpond said:

Gee... What would be the point of discussing what was meant by a phrase that appeared in an official church publication under the supervision of the presiding bishopric, edited by apostles and was only disavowed in a private letter to someone outside the church?  (We can both play the game.)

But it's not a game.  What's the point of analyzing a statement that was not made or approved by a leader of the Church?  There is no reasonable question about it not coming from a General Authority, so what's the value of discussing it?

Quote

The reason we might discuss what was actually meant by it is to understand how that original message is still pervasive in LDS culture and teachings.  

I'm not persuaded that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" has ever been "pervasive in LDS culture and teachings," let alone that it is "still" so.

Again, this statement was published once.  70 years ago.  During wartime.  And it was published without approval or oversight by the Church's general authorities.  And it was subsequently disavowed.  As Daniel Peterson put it: "Odd, isn't it, that that statement, if it is so central {NOTE: or, as you put it, "pervasive"} 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?"

Quote

But I understand that you wouldn't want to go down that path.  

Apparently you do not understand at all.  Again, this statement was published once.  70 years ago.  During wartime.  And it was published without approval or oversight by the Church's general authorities.  And it was subsequently disavowed.

I am not afraid of the quote.  I simply find it irrelevant.  It appears to have been written by a well-intentioned-but-overzealous functionary under such circumstances that it slipped by the General Authorities tasked with speaking on behalf of the Church.  It was a mistake, that's all.  And it's been disavowed and never re-published.  Can you provide any citations to subsequent publications of "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done?"  Even one?  Or perhaps I should not ask that.  I understand that you wouldn't want to go down that path.

Quote

The specific "thinking has been done" phrase may not have been repeated but the "debate is over", "will not lead the church astray", "follow the prophet, he knows the way", and what the prophet says is the Lord's plan are all still there.

None of which are equivalent or similar to "the thinking has been done."  Statements like  "the debate is over" are 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.

Declarations that the Prophet "will not lead the Church astray," and that we should "follow" him are expressions of faith entirely in line with Judeo-Christian belief systems the world over.  And nothing about following a prophet necessarily requires the abandonment of "thinking."  To the contrary, we have been told many, many times in scripture and by modern prophets and apostles to ready, study, ponder, pray, all components of "thinking."

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

That the quoted portion is not found in publication misses the point I think she wanted to highlight.  She had to learn that the teaching of the thinking being done through her transition--meaning she once actually thought that.  I grant it's likely she didn't hear the exact phrase, at least not much.  But the concept of it was well ingrained in her.  You deny that it was.  I don't.  I think examples given in this thread also express the same type of concept.  I also hear the same type of concept expressed in Church all the time.  I think many members see it that way. 

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Mrs. Viegas-Haws paraphrased this statement as a "gotcha," for its shock value, to make the LDS Church look bad, and to misrepresent the teachings of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

That comes off as too much mind-reading to me.  And almost a hostile mind-reading too.  I mean, you could be right about her intention, but if you are it'd be a lucky guess. 

[Jeanne]

35 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I wonder if he would have written any disavowel if this minister hadn't written him questioning him about this teaching in a negative manner?  If President Smith felt it was not a correct teaching, why would it take this to get him to act and correct it?  And then, why not so members who may continue teaching and believing it were aware of the correction?

Exactly.  This is been my biggest frustration on the thread..if someone knew..why wasn't I told or corrected.  At the time, I would have loved to have had this information.

[stemelbow]

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Scott,

What do you think was meant by the original publication of "when church leaders speak, the thinking has been done"?

Do you think that person, operating under the presiding bishopric, literally meant "turn your brain off and become an automaton"?  I don't think that's what they meant.  I think they meant that when a church leader gives counsel it's the right thing to do.  We don't need to give it a "second thought" because it must be the Lord's plan and we'll be blessed for doing it.

I imagine that's what was meant.  And, that idea is still taught in the church.  I think that is what Viegas-Haws is referring to when she uses the "thinking has been done" quote.

Well said. 

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 2:27 PM, Jeanne said:

Of course I taught others..I taught them what I learned.  I gave seminary devotionals attributed to the words here. 

And yet neither you nor any other critic has ever been able to point to a re-issue of "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  It was published once.  In 1945.  During wartime.  It was written by a Church functionary, not by a general authority of the Church.  The GAs tasked with editing it failed to notice it and - as clearly contemplated in Pres. Smith's letter - correct or remove it.  It has never been re-published by the Church.  

As Daniel Peterson put it: "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?"

Quote

It was a constant in my teen years as how to hold and avoid temptation. 

No, it wasn't.  "When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" was erroneously published by the Church once in 1945.  It has never been re-published.

I do not believe this concept has ever been a "constant" teaching in the Church.  

Quote

I had a catholic friend that was interested and I told her when she asked about prophets and revelations.  Is that not what we were taught to do?  Missionaries..all of us!

Apart from the erroneous publication in June 1945, the Church has never taught that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  The Church has taught many principles in contravention of such a notion, principles pertaining to studying, pondering, prayer, study, attending Church, attending the Temple, attending Seminary and Institute, and on and on and on.  All of these principles encourage us to "think."  So I utterly reject as a false claim that the Church has taught as a "constant" that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Thanks,

-Smac