Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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.

"taunting allusion"

Yeah, you're really approaching this with an open mind.

[stemelbow]

1 hour 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?

Mostly because the concept of it persists among many an LDS.  She brings it up because that's what she believed.  I agree she had a wrong impression about what our LDS faith is if she feels that way, but she didn't just pull it out of thin air just like the author of the 1945 piece didn't pull it out of thin air.  You seem so focused on the phrase you seem to be missing the forest for the trees all because you are worried this lady has no interest but to hurt the Church or something, it seems.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Disavowed in private correspondence, outside of the church.

And it's an a principle that continues to be taught -- as I've discussed.

So, no, I didn't dig my heels in about anything.  I didn't rationalize anything.  It isn't indefensible, bad faith behavior on the part of Viegas-Haws or myself.  It is a reflection of our experience in the church.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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?"

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.  

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

I still say you are hung up on the phrase itself.  the phrase is poorly worded.  One other poster here attested that it doesn't make sense.  It's not the phrase the Ms. Viegas-Haws seems concerned about even if she alluded to it in her explanation.  The whole concept of suggesting we need not question authorities words is pervasive in LDS thought.  Examples have already been given int his thread.  You disagree that these other sources and phrases obviously reflect the same concepts, but that's your opinion.  It doesn't mean the concept of it isnt' still found among LDS people. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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?

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?"

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.

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

You see no equivalence between that statement and current teachings.  I can't change that.

Viegas-Haws disavows the statement just as President Smith did (except she did it publicly).

Since you don't seem to have an interest in discussing anything beyond that one phrase, I guess we're done.

[consiglieri]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

.

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."

 

 

It does not appear your position allows for any thinking as to whether what the Prophet says is right or true.

Indeed, if the Prophet "will not lead the Church astray," and we are to "follow" him, what is the point of thinking at all?

 

 

Caesar:
Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.

[rockpond]

We're all talking in circles and not getting anywhere.  I'm out.  Enjoy.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I like the way Smac expressed it a couple of posts above yours:

Quote

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."

To equate the above with the notion that Latter-day Saints are neither required nor permitted to think once the president of the Church has made a statement is wrong-headed at best. If that was the understanding that Viegas-Haws had, she was wrong. If that's the interpretation you're putting on Church teachings, you are wrong.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

We're all talking in circles and not getting anywhere.  I'm out.  Enjoy.

And thus Scott obtains a Pyrrhic victory through a series of tactics designed to obfuscate the issue.

Chalk another one up for the apologists. 

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 2:33 PM, stemelbow said:

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.

That comes off as too much mind-reading to me. 

Not really.  

First, she said she's learned this concept "while transitioning away from the faith of {her} childhood."

Second, there is no legitimate reason for her to quote an obscure 70+-year-old Ward Teacher's Message except for its utility as a "gotcha," for its shock value, etc.

Third, the tone and tenor of her entire article, as well as many other things she has written against the Church, make mindreading unnecessary.  Her antipathy is on public display.

Quote

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. 

Not lucky at all.  Just observant.  Her article is objectively hostile to the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 2:47 PM, consiglieri said:

It does not appear your position allows for any thinking as to whether what the Prophet says is right or true.

That is nothing close to my position.

Quote

Indeed, if the Prophet "will not lead the Church astray," and we are to "follow" him, what is the point of thinking at all?

With respect, I decline to enter into substantive discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And thus Scott obtains a Pyrrhic victory through a series of tactics designed to obfuscate the issue.

Chalk another one up for the apologists. 

Scott obfuscated some 19 pages ago choosing to take thread down this ridiculous path of the 1945 Ward Teachers message.  He can't see beyond those words.  For Scott, Viegas-Haws use of that phrase de-legitimizes everything else she has to say.  So we haven't discussed what she wrote beyond that phrase, or what she meant, or what her experience was.  We can't even discuss what that phrase might have meant back when it was written and how the idea is still in our culture and teachings to this day.  It's just a denial that the principle or anything similar to it exists in our doctrine.  No discussion beyond that.

And yet, when they are asked to cite examples of when the prophet has been wrong... crickets.

[JulieM]

1 hour 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 do wish that Scott would answer these questions in his own words.  I would like to hear his thoughts on this (and not rely on a quote from someone else).

I also think it's not surprising to see two of the most blindly obedient members of this forum (from my observations), here being the most vocal and very defensive on this topic.  

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"taunting allusion"

Yeah, you're really approaching this with an open mind.

Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Mostly because the concept of it persists among many an LDS.  She brings it up because that's what she believed.  I agree she had a wrong impression about what our LDS faith is if she feels that way, but she didn't just pull it out of thin air just like the author of the 1945 piece didn't pull it out of thin air.  You seem so focused on the phrase you seem to be missing the forest for the trees all because you are worried this lady has no interest but to hurt the Church or something, it seems.

I don't say she pulled it out of thin air.

I believe it is a pervasive meme that is tossed about like a beach ball among antagonists and dissenters and that she is simply joining the party.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Chalk another one up for the apologists. 

Ha!  Not even close.

[consiglieri]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Scott obfuscated some 19 pages ago choosing to take thread down this ridiculous path of the 1945 Ward Teachers message.  He can't see beyond those words.  For Scott, Viegas-Haws use of that phrase de-legitimizes everything else she has to say.  So we haven't discussed what she wrote beyond that phrase, or what she meant, or what her experience was.  We can't even discuss what that phrase might have meant back when it was written and how the idea is still in our culture and teachings to this day.  It's just a denial that the principle or anything similar to it exists in our doctrine.  No discussion beyond that.

And yet, when they are asked to cite examples of when the prophet has been wrong... crickets.

It's okay.

Smac will clear it up.

Oh, wait.

He appears to decline to enter into "substantive discussion" on the issue.

Does that qualify as "crickets"?

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I do wish that Scott would answer these questions in his own words.  I would like to hear his thoughts on this (and not rely on a quote from someone else).

I said that I incorporated Smac's response by reference as part of my own. That is a legal concept. It means that I am embracing the words he wrote in his post as though I myself had said them. That is sufficient to the moment. If you want to quarrel with me, take up what Smac said in his post.

Quote

I also think it's not surprising to see two of the most blindly obedient members of this forum (from my observations), here being the most vocal and very defensive on this topic.

 

If you are referring to me with this remark, it is a bad rap, and I reject it.

If you are referring to Smac, I say you are seriously misjudging him.

 

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you.

I know there has been a lot of back and forth on this thread, Scott.

But I want to remind you that I have asked you a question you have failed to answer.

The question is whether you can give a specific example of a time when you felt the Prophet was wrong on an issue, and if so, what was the issue.

If you want to have any credibility in your position that the thinking has not been done when the Prophet speaks, I think it reasonable for you to produce at least one example of when you thought the Prophet was wrong.

Thanks in advance. 

 

[Jeanne]

26 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And thus Scott obtains a Pyrrhic victory through a series of tactics designed to obfuscate the issue.

Chalk another one up for the apologists. 

I can't chalk one up for people who have not yet learned to think for themselves.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Scott obfuscated some 19 pages ago choosing to take thread down this ridiculous path of the 1945 Ward Teachers message.  He can't see beyond those words.  For Scott, Viegas-Haws use of that phrase de-legitimizes everything else she has to say.  So we haven't discussed what she wrote beyond that phrase, or what she meant, or what her experience was.  We can't even discuss what that phrase might have meant back when it was written and how the idea is still in our culture and teachings to this day.  It's just a denial that the principle or anything similar to it exists in our doctrine.  No discussion beyond that.

And yet, when they are asked to cite examples of when the prophet has been wrong... crickets.

As I said before, if you had honestly acknowledged that it is disingenuous to use a 70-year-old, disavowed statement against an entity, perhaps all this back and forth about the legitimacy of that allusion might have been avoided.

[consiglieri]

Just now, Jeanne said:

I can't chalk one up for people who have not yet learned to think for themselves.

Oh, but they do think for themselves.

It just so happens that by some mysterious and Spirit-driven coincidence, all their thoughts coincide perfectly with what Church leaders say.

That's how they know they are thinking correctly. 

 

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And yet, when they are asked to cite examples of when the prophet has been wrong... crickets.

Correct (and it's still being ignored).  Scott?

11 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

But I want to remind you that I have asked you a question you have failed to answer.

The question is whether you can give a specific example of a time when you felt the Prophet was wrong on an issue, and if so, what was the issue.

Scott?

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 3:00 PM, rockpond said:

Scott obfuscated some 19 pages ago choosing to take thread down this ridiculous path of the 1945 Ward Teachers message.  He can't see beyond those words.  For Scott, Viegas-Haws use of that phrase de-legitimizes everything else she has to say.  

There were several point-by-point treatments of Mrs. Viegas-Haws' article.

Quote

So we haven't discussed what she wrote beyond that phrase, or what she meant, or what her experience was.  We can't even discuss what that phrase might have meant back when it was written and how the idea is still in our culture and teachings to this day.  It's just a denial that the principle or anything similar to it exists in our doctrine.  No discussion beyond that.

To be honest, I'm not particularly interested in trying to parse out the non-published personal opinions of Mrs. Viegas-Haws.  When she presents the Church's teachings in a false light, as I think she has done here, I will comment.  I will also state - again - that I wish her well.

Quote

And yet, when they are asked to cite examples of when the prophet has been wrong... crickets.

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "when the prophet has been wrong."  "Wrong" in what sense?  

Second, how are "examples of when the prophet has been wrong" germane to the article written by Mrs. Viegas-Haws?

Third, this inquiry would seem to touch upon sacred beliefs and difficult feelings which a particular person may have about them.  Why would you expect a faithful Latter-day Saint to readily divulge sacred sentiments and heart-felt concerns in a venue such as this, in the presence of persons who frequently criticize, ridicule, and/or hold in contempt those sacred things?

I can't speak for others, but I am not inclined to divulge such heartfelt, sensitive things.  I don't think this is an appropriate forum for 'em.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And thus Scott obtains a Pyrrhic victory through a series of tactics designed to obfuscate the issue.

Chalk another one up for the apologists. 

A Pyrrhic victory, by definition, is a victory that is won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor.

If I have helped highlight and drive home the point that the Church of Jesus Christ does not teach that "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done," I'm content that the effort has been worthwhile.