Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Um, no.  That is not at all what you've done here, but if it makes you feel better to believe this, ok.  

[smac97]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Mostly because the concept of it persists among many an LDS.  She brings it up because that's what she believed. 

Actually, she characterizes this concept as one that she "learned while transitioning away from the faith of {her} childhood."

So no, I don't think "that's what she believed."  She came across it during her disaffection from the Church (and I really, really doubt she came across it in Church), and now she is parroting it as have so many other critics and dissidents.  Not because it is a concept taught in the Church (demonstrated by it's marked absence from any Church materials, and also because it conflicts with voluminous contrary statements in scripture and from modern prophets and apostles).

The concept is a convenient brickbat against the Church.  Good for shock value.  That's all.

Quote

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. 

Well, you're right.  She didn't pull it out of thin air.  She "learned {it} while transitioning away from the faith of {her} childhood."

Did she "learn" it in Church? Exceedingly unlikely.

Did she "learn" it by coming across any of dozens/hundreds of online citations to it, most of which are critics and dissidents quoting it to each other (with some faithful Latter-day Saints quoting it in order to dispute that it is a teaching in the Church)?  Yeah, I think that's far more likely.  

Quote

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.

But that's the problem.  There is only one "tree."  There is no "forest."    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?"

If there is a "forest" of instances where the Church has taught that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done," I think our enthusiastic crop of critics and dissidents would have been able to come up with references for them by now.

But they haven't.

So there was one tree.  Planted in error in June 1945.  And subsequently chopped down by President Smith.

There is no "forest."  Never has been.  Never will be.  The Church teaches us to read.  To study.  To ponder.  To obtain as much education as we can.  To attend Church.  And the temple.  And Seminary.  And institute.  And to do all these things on a regular basis.  This is not the profile of an organization determined to prevent its members from thinking.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  And that reality is inconvenient for folks who, acting lazily and without engaging in any real "thinking" of their own, trot out a 1945 Ward Teacher's message over and over.  Again and again.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Um, no.  That is not at all what you've done here, but if it makes you feel better to believe this, ok.  

Smac agrees with Scott.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Smac agrees with Scott.

LOL 

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

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

Funny. There we have it, in a nutshell:

The 1945 statement is wrong because prophets are not infallible.

Okay, can you give some examples of when they are infallible. 

No, we don't discuss such things.  But trust me, prophetic infallibility is not a part of our teachings or culture. 

[Jeanne]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

Scott?

I am waiting too..

[JulieM]

I wonder what Viegas-Haws would think if she read through this thread.  She'd probably think "Holy cow!  All that from just my first point?"

Edited May 11, 2016 by JulieM

[Ahab]

This is just all so very confusing. 

Am I supposed to think for myself or not?

When someone tells me that I should follow the prophet does that mean I should or should not follow him?

Or does it only mean THAT person thinks that I should follow the prophet?... that person being the person telling me that I should follow the prophet.

But what if the person telling me that I should just follow the prophet is WRONG in telling me that I should just follow the prophet?

And how am I supposed to know which prophet he is talking about, and whether or not that person really is the prophet.

How am I supposed to be figuring all of this out?

And if anyone were to give me the right answer then how would I know it?

I think I am starting to get a headache, but maybe I only think I am and I am not.

[smac97]

On 5/11/2016 at 4:00 PM, rockpond said:

Funny. There we have it, in a nutshell:

The 1945 statement is wrong because prophets are not infallible.

For the umpteenth time: The 1945 statement was not written by Pres. Smith, or by any other General Authority.  

The 1945 statement is wrong because it was written by a church functionary, because it was inadvertently not approved by those in authority, because it was subsequently published in error, because it was subsequently disavowed by Pres. Smith, and because it contravenes the voluminous statements in scripture and from modern prophets and apostles encouraging us to, in a word, "think."  All the time.

Quote

Okay, can you give some examples of when they are infallible. 

No, we don't discuss such things.  But trust me, prophetic infallibility is not a part of our teachings or culture. 

I retain the prerogative to share, or not share, sacred sentiments and thoughts in a forum populated in part with people who frequently ridicule, profane, and/or hold in contempt teachings and sentiments which are sacred to me.

That is not a reflection of my inability to defend my faith, but rather is a well-warranted lack of trust in some folks on this board.

You can continue to sneer at that, if you must.  But it will only further demonstrate to me why sharing sacred sentiments and thoughts of this sort with, well, people like you is ill-advised.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 11, 2016 by smac97

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For the umpteenth time: The 1945 statement was not written by Pres. Smith, or by any other General Authority.  

The 1945 statement is wrong because it was written by a church functionary, because it was inadvertently not approved by those in authority, because it was subsequently published in error, because it was subsequently disavowed by Pres. Smith, and because it contravenes the voluminous statements in scripture and from modern prophets and apostles encouraging us to, in a word, "think."  All the time.

But if a Prophet did state it and tell you it's correct, then you would agree with it and support it just as strenuously as you've opposed it here, correct?

If President Monson (or an Apostle) stated the exact same words in one of their speeches or wrote it in the Ensign, you'd support it, correct?

(And don't cop out and reply that this would never happen.  We hear statements close to it repeated by our leaders today.)

Edited May 11, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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

Scott?

Why should I share such a thing with you?

 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why should I share such a thing with you?

 

Right on cue.  I knew it.  

You fight vehemently and state that you believe Prophets are not infallible, but then refuse to give an example of when you've felt they made a mistake.  

That's ok.  Your non-answer is an answer.

.

Edited May 11, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

Right on cue.  I knew it.  

You fight vehemently and state that you believe Prophets are not infallible, but then refuse to give an example of when you've felt they made a mistake.  

That's ok.  Your non-answer is an answer.

.

And they wonder why we've said that prophetic infallibility or doctrinal inerrancy is part of the church culture and teachings.  Scott and Smac claim that we don't believe in prophetic infallibility but in practice it's a different story. 

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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," 

From what I've seen, you've highlighted just the opposite with your posts and example here.  It's quite apparent that even though you protest this teaching, you have chosen to live it.  I'm just curious as to why you don't embrace it and own it because if that works for you, then that's great.

[carbon dioxide]

For me, the closest one can get of when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done is when a revelation is canonized into the scriptures.  When something has been including into the standard works, the issue is settled or established until an new revelation is given to amend it.  In my opinion, God does not want us to not think about things.  He would rather us gain our own testimony of what the prophet says than simply following the prophet without thinking.  When one looks at the broader statements from the brethren over the decades and centuries, it is anything but the prophet speaks the thinking is done

 

President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when “Thus saith the Lord”, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill." (Charles W. Penrose, Millennial Star 54:191)

"We consider God, and him alone, infallible; therefore his revealed word to us cannot be doubted, though we may be in doubt some times about the knowledge which we obtain from human sources, and occasionally be obliged to admit that something which we had considered to be a fact, was really only a theory." (Lu Dalton, Woman's Exponent (Salt Lake City: 15 July 1882), p. 31)

"Many think that the people called Latter-day Saints are a deluded, ignorant set, led by cunning priestly leaders, who exercise power over them because of their shrewdness and ability, and that the people are a blind herd led at the will of these shrewd deceivers. We know that this is not the case. We know that the most frequent appeals that have been made to the Latter-day Saints have been to investigate for themselves and to know for themselves . . . every man and woman, boy and girl, ought to live so that they will have this testimony within them, that they may know concerning the doctrine and the counsel that is given; and when President Young speaks, we may know for ourselves whether it is from God or not, and when any other teacher among us speaks, we may know whether the doctrine he advances is from God or not; and so that, if necessary, we could go to the stake, and have no doubts on the subject." (George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses 17:342)

Joseph Fielding Smith: "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-204)

Edited May 12, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[smac97]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

For me, the closest one can get of when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done is when a revelation is canonized into the scriptures.  When something has been including into the standard works, the issue is settled or established until an new revelation is given to amend it.  In my opinion, God does not want us to not think about things.  He would rather us gain our own testimony of what the prophet says than simply following the prophet without thinking.  When one looks at the broader statements from the brethren over the decades and centuries, it is anything but the prophet speaks the thinking is done

I'm not sure I agree with you here.  I think "thinking" is never done.  For me, "thinking" is not synonymous with "doubting" or "disputing" or "complaining about."  "Thinking" involves study.  Study of the scriptures, of the messages of modern prophets and apostles, of "the best books."  Contemplation and pondering.  Prayer.  Discussion - not to argue or contend, but to enrich and refine and enlarge my understanding.  To some extent, this involves periodic reviews of and corrections to my understanding/assumptions about some things.  

Some, not all.  I do not think we are supposed to re-invent the wheel, so to speak.  For example, when we receive sufficient light and knowledge to know through faith that God exists, that He has particular attributes and perfections, that Jesus Christ is His Son, and so on, it is our responsibility to retain it in remembrance and build upon it.  As we are told in D&C 98:12: "For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith."  Failing to build "line upon line" places us within the ambit of those described in 2 Timothy 3:7: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."  

So I suppose I don't "think" much about the question of whether God exists.  At this point in my life and studies I take that as a given and proceed accordingly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

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.

I agree, Scott, as I've said in this thread many times.  But to think it came from no where is silly.  Members actually have such a mindset.  It's quite pervasively out there from what I've seen.  I can also understand where it comes from, as there is much in the Church that seems to promote things very close to that. 

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree, Scott, as I've said in this thread many times.  But to think it came from no where is silly. 

I don't think anyone has suggested this idea "came from no where."  It came from the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.

The question, I think, is who has been propagating this idea.  Since it was only published once by the Church 70+ years ago, and since there are no other references to it in Church literature, it seems very unlikely that the idea is being propagated by the Church or by its faithful members (who also, I have noticed, do not appear to be including this idea in their published paper-based or online writings, either).  In contrast, however, critics and dissidents cite it all the time, thus making it available to people like Julienna Viegas-Haws, who states that she learned about it "while transitioning away from the faith of {her} childhood."

Quote

Members actually have such a mindset. 

Perhaps some members do.  But I really don't think there are very many of them.  I've never met one.  I've never heard this idea taught in Church or conveyed privately.  I've never seen a faithful Latter-day Saint write about it approvingly.  I've never seen it in the Church's literature (except for the erroneous 1945 iteration).  In any event, such a mindset goes against the voluminous teachings in the Scriptures and from modern prophets and apostles.

Quote

It's quite pervasively out there from what I've seen. 

No, it's not.  It's quoted online principally by critics and dissidents, and then quoted by faithful Latter-day Saints when they rebut it.

I won't CFR you, but I sure would like to see some examples of Latter-day Saints stating that they agree with or approve of the concept that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Quote

I can also understand where it comes from, as there is much in the Church that seems to promote things very close to that. 

No, it doesn't.  "Follow the prophet" is not "very close to" "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

The Church teaches its members to study the Scriptures and "the best books."  To ponder.  To pray.  To regularly attend Church meetings where lessons about the Gospel are taught.  To attend the Temple.  To attend Seminary and Institute.  To seek personal revelation.  These exhortations cannot be reconciled with the concept that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2016 by smac97

[rodheadlee]

13 hours ago, ALarson said:

 

Right on cue.  I knew it.  

You fight vehemently and state that you believe Prophets are not infallible, but then refuse to give an example of when you've felt they made a mistake.  

That's ok.  Your non-answer is an answer.

.

I think they made a mistake in not being more clear on SSM in the PotF. I mean a lot of people tried to twist those words to suit their own meaning. Now we have a lot of people upset at the policy of SSM= Apostacy, when it really should have been no surprise. It was no surprise to me but some people allowed themselve to be deluded.

[Raingirl]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

And they wonder why we've said that prophetic infallibility or doctrinal inerrancy is part of the church culture and teachings.  Scott and Smac claim that we don't believe in prophetic infallibility but in practice it's a different story. 

It's posts like this and threads like these that just boggle my mind. I'm relatively new to the church and I understand what the church does or does not teach about prophetic infallibility, but people who purport to be long-time members with vast amounts of superior knowledge, don't get it.

But then, they don't want to get it, because then they would not be able to use it as part of their favorite past-time , attacking the church and it's leaders.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course it comes off as mind reading.  it sounds like you just don't like her and so conveniently all that you put on her makes your argument in this case meaningful.  Sadly, as it turns out no one needs to go far to see the concept expressed in the quote amongst current LDS people.  As I said, I'm sure I could join you this Sunday in your ward sit next to you and hear someone say something that in concept comes off as very similar.  I realize you'd deny it and we'd be at an impasse.  Which is really where we are now. 

 

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think anyone has suggested this idea "came from no where."  It came from the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.

The question, I think, is who has been propagating this idea.  Since it was only published once by the Church 70+ years ago, and since there are no other references to it in Church literature, it seems very unlikely that the idea is being propagated by the Church or by its faithful members (who also, I have noticed, do not appear to be including this idea in their published paper-based or online writings, either).  In contrast, however, critics and dissidents cite it all the time, thus making it available to people like Julienna Viegas-Haws, who states that she learned about it "while transitioning away from the faith of {her} childhood."

Perhaps some members do.  But I really don't think there are very many of them.  I've never met one.  I've never heard this idea taught in Church or conveyed privately.  I've never seen a faithful Latter-day Saint write about it approvingly.  I've never seen it in the Church's literature (except for the erroneous 1945 iteration).  In any event, such a mindset goes against the voluminous teachings in the Scriptures and from modern prophets and apostles.

No, it's not.  It's quoted online principally by critics and dissidents, and then quoted by faithful Latter-day Saints when they rebut it.

I won't CFR you, but I sure would like to see some examples of Latter-day Saints stating that they agree with or approve of the concept that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

No, it doesn't.  "Follow the prophet" is not "very close to" "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

The Church teaches its members to study the Scriptures and "the best books."  To ponder.  To pray.  To regularly attend Church meetings where lessons about the Gospel are taught.  To attend the Temple.  To attend Seminary and Institute.  To seek personal revelation.  These exhortations cannot be reconciled with the concept that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Thanks,

-Smac

Hey Smac, I'm just glad you acknowledge some members could very well have such a mindset.  I thought I was going crazy with all the denial, since I have seen it.  I'd agree the Church teaches, for the most part, a pretty balanced perspective most of the time.  That's not to say some statements by leaders here or there don't come off as too authoritarian, in my mind, nor that some do not come off as something pretty close to the phrase in question.  I realize you'd disagree that some do, but that's just the point of impasse, I guess. 

[smac97]

On 5/12/2016 at 7:13 AM, stemelbow said:

Of course it comes off as mind reading. 

As you like.  I think most people who read her published remarks will come away with the same understanding I have.  She is very hostile to the Church.  That, to me, seems patently obvious.

Quote

it sounds like you just don't like her

Speaking of "mind reading."  Ah!  I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!

I've never said or intimated that I "don't like her."  I presumptively do "like her."  She is (or was) a sister in the Gospel, and remains one in God's family.

I don't like the falsehoods and mischaracterizations of her published statements against the Church, that is true.  But I have still wished her will and expressed concern for her as a person.

Quote

and so conveniently all that you put on her makes your argument in this case meaningful. 

Bull.  My critique of her argument is based on reasoned analysis.  Context.  Evidence.  

Quote

Sadly, as it turns out no one needs to go far to see the concept expressed in the quote amongst current LDS people. 

Right.  "The thinking has been done" is so common a refrain in the Church that it has been frequently quoted by General Authorities in their talks and writings.  Oh wait, no, it's never been quoted by General Authorities, except by President Smith when he disavowed it.

So perhaps you mean that "the thinking has been done" is a theme that is repeated over and over and over in the Church's literature (magazines, manuals, website, etc.).  Oh wait, no, it's never been presented anywhere in the Church's publications except for the disavowed Ward Teacher's Message published 70+ years ago during World War II.

So perhaps you mean that "the thinking has been done" is a theme that is emphasized and encouraged by faithful writers in books, articles, online content, etc.  Oh wait, that doesn't happen (not that I have seen, anyway).  Instead, the presence of this "the thinking has been done" concept in LDS-related writings can be overwhelmingly attributed to A) critics and dissidents lazily cribbing it from each other (not much "thinking" required), and B) faithful Latter-day Saints rejecting the notion that this concept is taught in the Church.

So perhaps you mean that "the thinking has been done" is surreptitiously taught in the Church when it prohibits or strongly discourages its members from reading about or studying or pondering or praying and seeking personal revelation about the Restored Gospel.  When it has eliminated all lessons about the Restored Gospel from Church meetings.  When it has shut down CES, including Seminaries and Institutes, and all of the Church schools.  Oh, wait.  The Church hasn't done any of these things.  Instead, the Church spends huge amounts of time, money and effort in encouraging the Saints to study the Gospel (both in personal study and in structured settings like Church meetings, Seminaries and Institutes, etc.), in providing study materials to the Saints, in encouraging the Saints - under divine mandate - to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

Nevertheless, I must concede you have a point here.  The quote cited by Mrs. Viegas-Haws was, I think, characterized as a teaching of the Church.  I think that is a manifest falsehood for which she should be ashamed.  Nevertheless, there are members of the Church who are not attentive to their study of the Restored Gospel, who are content to go along to get along.  Who fail to make use of the vast resources of information available to them that could enhance and enrich their understanding of the Restored Gospel.  Who, in a word, don't "think" much about it.  That is very unfortunate.  It is deleterious to one's faith and testimony.  It is a contravention of what the Church, the Scriptures, prophets and apostles, have taught us to do.

So yes, I admit that there are some Latter-day Saints who essentially say to themselves "the thinking has been done."  But when they do, they are acting in violation of, not in accordance with, what they have been taught by the Church.  The Church encourages us to study and ponder and pray and discuss and think.  All the time.

Quote

As I said, I'm sure I could join you this Sunday in your ward sit next to you and hear someone say something that in concept comes off as very similar. 

There seems to be a huge amount of wiggle room in "comes off."

I know the critics and dissidents really want this accusation to stick.  They really want to be able to claim that the Church teaches its members that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  But this concept does not exist in the Church's materials.  It contravenes what the Church does teach.  So the critics and dissidents are left with lassoing in attenuated concepts like "follow the prophet," a teaching that says nothing about "the thinking has been done."

Context matters.  The critics and dissidents of the Church who want this accusation to stick can only attempt to make their case by ignoring the voluminous teachings in scripture, by modern prophets and apostles, and in the Church's programs (CES, schools, etc.) and published materials that center on encouraging study of and "thinking" about the Restored Gospel.  I just don't think that works.

Quote

I realize you'd deny it and we'd be at an impasse.  Which is really where we are now. 

I guess we can call it an impasse.  My point has been that the Church does not teach that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  This is not in the Church's published materials.  It is not a concept taught by the General Authorities.  It is not encouraged or propagated by faithful rank-and-file Latter-day Saints in their published writings.  I have never heard it taught in Church, nor have I ever heard a teacher presenting a concept comparable to "the thinking has been done."

We are exhorted to study and ponder and pray.  All. The. Time.  These exhortations are simply incompatible with the sentiment that "the thinking has been done."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you like.  I think most people who read her published remarks will come away with the same understanding I have.  She is very hostile to the Church.  That, to me, seems patently obvious.

Speaking of "mind reading."  Ah!  I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!

I've never said or intimated that I "don't like her."  I presumptively do "like her."  She is (or was) a sister in the Gospel, and remains one in God's family.

I don't like the falsehoods and mischaracterizations of her published statements against the Church, that is true.  But I have still wished her will and expressed concern for her as a person.

Bull.  My critique of her argument is based on reasoned analysis.  Context.  Evidence.  

Right.  "The thinking has been done" is so common a refrain in the Church that it has been frequently quoted by General Authorities in their talks and writings.  Oh wait, no, it's never been quoted by General Authorities, except by President Smith when he disavowed it.

So perhaps you mean that "the thinking has been done" is a theme that is repeated over and over and over in the Church's literature (magazines, manuals, website, etc.).  Oh wait, no, it's never been presented anywhere in the Church's publications except for the disavowed Ward Teacher's Message published 70+ years ago during World War II.

So perhaps you mean that "the thinking has been done" is a theme that is emphasized and encouraged by faithful writers in books, articles, online content, etc.  Oh wait, that doesn't happen (not that I have seen, anyway).  Instead, the presence of this "the thinking has been done" concept in LDS-related writings can be overwhelmingly attributed to A) critics and dissidents lazily cribbing it from each other (not much "thinking" required), and B) faithful Latter-day Saints rejecting the notion that this concept is taught in the Church.

So perhaps you mean that "the thinking has been done" is surreptitiously taught in the Church when it prohibits or strongly discourages its members from reading about or studying or pondering or praying and seeking personal revelation about the Restored Gospel.  When it has eliminated all lessons about the Restored Gospel from Church meetings.  When it has shut down CES, including Seminaries and Institutes, and all of the Church schools.  Oh, wait.  The Church hasn't done any of these things.  Instead, the Church spends huge amounts of time, money and effort in encouraging the Saints to study the Gospel (both in personal study and in structured settings like Church meetings, Seminaries and Institutes, etc.), in providing study materials to the Saints, in encouraging the Saints - under divine mandate - to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

Nevertheless, I must concede you have a point here.  The quote cited by Mrs. Viegas-Haws was, I think, characterized as a teaching of the Church.  I think that is a manifest falsehood for which she should be ashamed.  Nevertheless, there are members of the Church who are not attentive to their study of the Restored Gospel, who are content to go along to get along.  Who fail to make use of the vast resources of information available to them that could enhance and enrich their understanding of the Restored Gospel.  Who, in a word, don't "think" much about it.  That is very unfortunate.  It is deleterious to one's faith and testimony.  It is a contravention of what the Church, the Scriptures, prophets and apostles, have taught us to do.

So yes, I admit that there are some Latter-day Saints who essentially say to themselves "the thinking has been done."  But when they do, they are acting in violation of, not in accordance with, what they have been taught by the Church.  The Church encourages us to study and ponder and pray and discuss and think.  All the time.

There seems to be a huge amount of wiggle room in "comes off."

I know the critics and dissidents really want this accusation to stick.  They really want to be able to claim that the Church teaches its members that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  But this concept does not exist in the Church's materials.  It contravenes what the Church does teach.  So the critics and dissidents are left with lassoing in attenuated concepts like "follow the prophet," a teaching that says nothing about "the thinking has been done."

Context matters.  The critics and dissidents of the Church who want this accusation to stick can only attempt to make their case by ignoring the voluminous teachings in scripture, by modern prophets and apostles, and in the Church's programs (CES, schools, etc.) and published materials that center on encouraging study of and "thinking" about the Restored Gospel.  I just don't think that works.

I guess we can call it an impasse.  My point has been that the Church does not teach that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  This is not in the Church's published materials.  It is not a concept taught by the General Authorities.  It is not encouraged or propagated by faithful rank-and-file Latter-day Saints in their published writings.  I have never heard it taught in Church, nor have I ever heard a teacher presenting a concept comparable to "the thinking has been done."

We are exhorted to study and ponder and pray.  All. The. Time.  These exhortations are simply incompatible with the sentiment that "the thinking has been done."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You seem to be getting really defensive with an active LDS person.  I do not want anyone in the Church to ever think that they should stop thinking on a subject if the prophet draws a conclusion about it.  They should remain open to new information on a subject no matter what.  But I do fear many LDS take the follow the prophet mantra too far, much like the author of the trib article did, and actually think when the prophet speaks on a topic there is no more to learn about it. 

When I say things like "it sounds like" or "you seem" I am not concluding reality, I'm notifying the impression your words and tone are giving off to me.  I realize I may be wrong. 

[smac97]

On 5/12/2016 at 7:17 AM, stemelbow said:

Hey Smac, I'm just glad you acknowledge some members could very well have such a mindset. 

Church members also fail to conduct Family Home Evening.  Or they fail to adhere to The Word of Wisdom.  Or the Law of Chastity.  And so on.

We are all sinners.  "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."

This thread has been about whether the Church teaches that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  It doesn't.  Some Latter-day Saints are not sufficiently attentive to their duty to study and ponder and pray and think about the Restored Gospel, and I suppose could be described as willing to let do the "thinking" for them.  But that is not what the Church teaches.

Mrs. Viegas-Haws falsely attributed this concept to the Church.  I take exception to that.

Quote

I thought I was going crazy with all the denial, since I have seen it. 

Where did I deny that "some members could very well have such a mindset?"

Quote

I'd agree the Church teaches, for the most part, a pretty balanced perspective most of the time.  That's not to say some statements by leaders here or there don't come off as too authoritarian, in my mind, nor that some do not come off as something pretty close to the phrase in question.  I realize you'd disagree that some do, but that's just the point of impasse, I guess. 

I guess.  But then we're left with the voluminous exhortations in scripture and by modern prophets and apostles to study and ponder and pray and think.  We're left with the Church's enormous expenditures in time, money and effort in arranging for and encouraging the Saints to study and think.  Church meetings and lessons.  Seminaries and institutes.  Church schools.  The LDS.org website.  The Gospel Library App.  The Church is moving heaven and earth to encourage the Saints in their studying and thinking.  And yet here comes Mrs. Viegas-Haws, who lazily trots out a disavowed Ward Teacher's Message published during wartime 70+ years ago and publicly presents it as the teaching of the Church.  That is a brazen falsehood, for which she should be ashamed.

Thanks,

-Smac