Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[smac97]

On 5/12/2016 at 8:10 AM, stemelbow said:

You seem to be getting really defensive with an active LDS person. 

I take exception to people, like Mrs. Viegas-Haws, who substantially mischaracterize the teachings of the Church.  I've never encountered "an active LDS person" who advocates the sentiment that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done," or seeks to attribute this concept to the teachings of the LDS Church.

Quote

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. 

I agree with you.

Quote

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. 

I have objected to the false characterization of the Church as teaching that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."  That's the crux of my participation in this thread.

I'm not particularly interested in bemoaning the failure of some Latter-day Saints to take seriously their obligation to study their faith.  That is an unfortunate reality we all must work to improve.  However, I do not believe that "when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" is a concept that is taught to them by the Church.

I apologize to the extent I have given offense.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

This thread was about the whole piece she posted.  It was not originally about that quote at all.  the quote is not even used in her piece.  She does not use the quote itself.  She alludes to the concept.  The concept might not be taught by the Church per se, but the elements of it can be found among members.  All she indicates is she learned that that concept was not true.  And good for her on that.  Too bad she felt like she had to leave to learn it. 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 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.

She didn't say that.  She only said what she had learned. 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

 

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've never encountered "an active LDS person" who advocates the sentiment that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done," or seeks to attribute this concept to the teachings of the LDS Church.

You must read the statement different than I do.  "When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done" is a pithy way to convey the exact same message as the following quote which was consistently emphasized throughout my youth in the Church and my mission. Bellow is a quote from lds.org where Ezra Taft Benson quotes Marriot G. Romney quoting Heber J. Grant.  This was repeatedly taught and consistently emphasized:

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)

~Ezra Taft Benson, https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

What's interesting is that when I just did a google search on this phrase, the #2 result was a First Presidency Message on lds.org:

Recently, at the Churchwide fireside meeting held for the women of the Church, Young Women President Elaine Cannon made the following statement:

“When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over” (Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 108).

I was impressed by that simple statement, which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us. Wherever I go, my message to the people is: Follow the prophet. Why else has the Lord placed prophets on the earth throughout the dispensations of time? In his infinite wisdom, and as part of the plan of life and salvation for his children, God has given us the blueprint to follow, the leadership to direct us and keep us on course, and the Church organization to help us lay the foundation and develop the skills, or make the preparation necessary, to lead us back to our eternal home.

It is foolish to suppose that men can be left to their own devices and accomplish what God intended for them....

~N. Eldon Tanner  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/08/the-debate-is-over?lang=eng

Again, that is exactly the same message.  If we are to follow the Prophet, even when he is wrong, isn't the thinking over when he speaks?  Isn't the debate over?

I have a hard time seeing your objection here.  Perhaps it is the caveat that Tanner makes?  In that same article, he goes on to say,

Today there are many issues under debate as controversies rage all around us. It should be evident to all that we need divine direction, as men and women who argue their causes seem to be unable to come to workable or peaceable solutions. It is sad indeed that the world does not know or accept the fact that in our midst is a prophet through whom God can direct the solution of world problems.

True Latter-day Saints have no such dilemma. They know that the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and who themselves try to keep in tune with deity. They are not, as some would suggest, following blindly and acting without their own agency to speak and think for themselves. Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each of us can have the assurance that the course we choose has his divine approval. (emphasis added)

As he says, that does not contradict the basic point of his message.  In practice, "the thinking is done" and "the debate is over" mean the same thing.   

Edited May 12, 2016 by Analytics

[smac97]

On 5/12/2016 at 8:35 AM, stemelbow said:

This thread was about the whole piece she posted. 

Fair enough.  My comments in this thread have been principally (but not exclusively) about the false claim that the Church teaches that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Quote

It was not originally about that quote at all.  the quote is not even used in her piece. 

Yes, it was.  She interpolated a "NOT" into it.  But she used (okay, paraphrased) the quote.

Quote

She does not use the quote itself. 

Yes, she does.

Quote

She alludes to the concept. 

She falsely characterizes the concept that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" as the Church's teaching.  It is not.

Quote

The concept might not be taught by the Church per se,

It's not just that.  The concept is antithetical to what the Church teaches to its members.  

Quote

but the elements of it can be found among members. 

Which does not excuse her from falsely characterizing the concept as the Church's teaching.

Quote

All she indicates is she learned that that concept was not true. 

I don't think she learned it from the Church, but from the Church's critics and dissidents.

Let's not blind ourselves to the obvious.  The only utility of the quote/paraphrase in Mrs. Viegas-Haws' "Why I am Leaving the LDS Church" narrative (a meme that's getting a bit well-worn) is either A) to substantially mischaracterize the teachings of the Church B) to employ a "shock value" tactic against the Church, C) to make the Church look bad, or D) some combination of A-C.

Quote

And good for her on that. 

There's no "good" involved in Mrs. Viegas-Haws dredging up a disavowed Ward Teacher's Message from World War II and mischaracterizing it as the teaching of the Church.

Quote

Too bad she felt like she had to leave to learn it. 

Again, it is not a teaching of the LDS Church.  It never has been.  She never had to learn it because it was never taught.

Mrs. Viegas-Haws quoted/paraphrased the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message not to rebut a teaching of the Church, but to use as a a rhetorical "shock value" brickbat against the Church.  And shame on her for that.

Quote

Quote

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

She didn't say that.  She only said what she had learned. 

Right.  And if I say to you "Hey, Stemelbow, I'm glad to hear you are not beating your wife these days," and if you subsequently objected to being publicly accused of wife-beating, would you accept something like "Hey!  I didn't say that!  I only said I am glad you are not beating her now"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

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.

They don't want to get it..because most of them don't have it..and if they do, they can't deal with it.  It scares the living hell out of them!  I am talking about members that are my age..baby boomers.  Your whole life has revolved around a truth and when that changes or their interpretation of it changes, they walk away from it..hold on, or simply walk away.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I've never encountered "an active LDS person" who advocates the sentiment that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done," or seeks to attribute this concept to the teachings of the LDS Church.

I have. Heck, we've even had one active LDS person in this thread advocate that sentiment. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

You've repeated this argument several times in this thread, and for the record I don't find it convincing.  The sources of study that you list (other than secular courses at church schools) all have curriculums that are carefully correlated and approved by the same top-leaders of the Church we are instructed to follow.  Likewise, the meetings all feature the bearing of testimony, which is a powerful persuasion technique that overrides logical thinking.  "Indoctrination" is a better word to describe the process of going through the Church's educational system.

As an example, if they wanted the Saints to truly think, I'd expect guest lecturers with a variety of opinions to be invited to these classes.  But they never are.  A Sunday School teacher like Consig who does a lot of thinking and comes up with fresh insights will likely be released from his calling.

The purpose of doing the "thinking" in the context of the Church's indoctrination process is to get the student to conform, be faithful, and be obedient.  Sure, your own spiritual edification is nice too, but the success or failure of these programs is measured by how well they get the students to conform and obey.   

[Tacenda]

In my true believing state of mind, the only things I disagreed with the apostles on was the teaching of only one pair of earrings and tattoos.  And way back yonder, that of playing with face cards.  Because it seemed like rules that don't really help in the big picture.  Because at the time, families played face cards as a great way to be together, and I saw tattoos on men that served in the war etc.  Now my thinking is, that bodies just disintegrate when we die anyway.    

On the lower level of authority, I remember SP's telling things that seemed silly.  With the memo put out that women should wear shoes when their home teachers came to visit.  Or not having statues of Christ...that was a SP in my sister in law's stake, during the time we had classes and bought the Jesus figurines made out of plaster and put on wood stands in Relief Society.  My MIL currently has the one of Christ holding out his hands, the large one.  I have the one with Jesus and children, and the one of Jesus in Gethsemane.  And again my SIL's stake president, put the brakes on Bunco parties in her stake area, to this day she still belongs to a group. 

Then down the line to my RS president, who said not to wear Levi dresses/skirts to church.  Back when that's all I ever wore it seemed.  Just petty things, that I disagreed on.  But I don't recall ever not obeying the big things, or not believing the big things, like their reasons for Blacks not receiving the PH.  

Now I look back and see the error of my ways on believing that belief.  I think the essay on it not being doctrinal, opened the flood gates for many things possibly not being doctrine. Which I'm grateful for because it gives the members more cause to create their own conduit to the Lord and His word, not a middle man's.  Which really makes life different in my Mormon walk now. Though I do believe the LDS church gets revelation through it's leaders, and also their members through the spirit, how can it not, when you see the good that they do.  Through promptings, and through their own moral compasses.  

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In my true believing state of mind, the only things I disagreed with the apostles on was the teaching of only one pair of earrings and tattoos.  And way back yonder, that of playing with face cards.  Because it seemed like rules that don't really help in the big picture.  Because at the time, families played face cards as a great way to be together, and I saw tattoos on men that served in the war etc.  Now my thinking is, that bodies just disintegrate when we die anyway.    

On the lower level of authority, I remember SP's telling things that seemed silly.  With the memo put out that women should wear shoes when their home teachers came to visit.  Or not having statues of Christ...that was a SP in my sister in law's stake, during the time we had classes and bought the Jesus figurines made out of plaster and put on wood stands in Relief Society.  My MIL currently has the one of Christ holding out his hands, the large one.  I have the one with Jesus and children, and the one of Jesus in Gethsemane.  And again my SIL's stake president, put the brakes on Bunco parties in her stake area, to this day she still belongs to a group. 

Then down the line to my RS president, who said not to wear Levi dresses/skirts to church.  Back when that's all I ever wore it seemed.  Just petty things, that I disagreed on.  But I don't recall ever not obeying the big things, or not believing the big things, like their reasons for Blacks not receiving the PH.  

Now I look back and see the error of my ways on believing that belief.  I think the essay on it not being doctrinal, opened the flood gates for many things possibly not being doctrine. Which I'm grateful for because it gives the members more cause to create their own conduit to the Lord and His word, not a middle man's.  Which really makes life different in my Mormon walk now. Though I do believe the LDS church gets revelation through it's leaders, and also their members through the spirit, how can it not, when you see the good that they do.  Through promptings, and through their own moral compasses.  

Note:  Tacenda, the policy on earrings and such came out at the same time when 9-11 happened and there was a declaration of war.  So many important truths could have come from the general conference that day..and this is what we got.  I don't know.  Some of this stuff just simply doesn't make sense.  Wishing you peace and many good things in your struggles. 

Hugs..Jeanne

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it was.  She interpolated a "NOT" into it.  But she used (okay, paraphrased) the quote.

Yes, she does.

Well ok.  I agree with that.  She alluded to it.  But she clearly indicated she learned that that which was expressed in the quote is not true--meaning she once felt it was true. 

Quote

She falsely characterizes the concept that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" as the Church's teaching.  It is not.

I don't see it that way.  I think she is trying to convey that she personally felt the teaching was true as an active member and no longer feels it's true.  I grant the learning she received concerning the phrase seemed to come after she had left or decided to leave or while the process of her leaving was in place, but that is, in my estimation, part of the problem.  Some members hold that perception.  I'd probably say it's more widely held than you, but that is irrelevant to me. 

Quote

It's not just that.  The concept is antithetical to what the Church teaches to its members.

Well to be fair some statements by some leaders are antithetical to what other leaders teach.  So, your point here is kind of meaningless here. 

Quote

 

Which does not excuse her from falsely characterizing the concept as the Church's teaching.

I don't think she learned it from the Church, but from the Church's critics and dissidents.

I'm guessing she learned of the phrase from those who are critics and dissidents but surely we can agree critics and dissidents didn't make up the phrase.  it actually came from a Church publication.  The problem is when she heard it from critics and dissidents she said, "oh, oopss.  They are right, I did think that way."

Quote

Let's not blind ourselves to the obvious.  The only utility of the quote/paraphrase in Mrs. Viegas-Haws' "Why I am Leaving the LDS Church" narrative (a meme that's getting a bit well-worn) is either A) to substantially mischaracterize the teachings of the Church B) to employ a "shock value" tactic against the Church, C) to make the Church look bad, or D) some combination of A-C.

Or really the only point I'd like to mention is to say, well there is a problem in the church amongst the members and we need to identify it and address it.  I'm not concerned about her intention--not quite like you seem to be hung up on. 

Quote

There's no "good" involved in Mrs. Viegas-Haws dredging up a disavowed Ward Teacher's Message from World War II and mischaracterizing it as the teaching of the Church.

Again, it is not a teaching of the LDS Church.  It never has been.  She never had to learn it because it was never taught.

Mrs. Viegas-Haws quoted/paraphrased the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message not to rebut a teaching of the Church, but to use as a a rhetorical "shock value" brickbat against the Church.  And shame on her for that.

Right.  And if I say to you "Hey, Stemelbow, I'm glad to hear you are not beating your wife these days," and if you subsequently objected to being publicly accused of wife-beating, would you accept something like "Hey!  I didn't say that!  I only said I am glad you are not beating her now"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure.  I wouldn't care, if someone asked those questions of me.  Of course I have no concern for guilt on this point, because I've never come close to beating my wife.  If I had come close to beating my wife and had entered into some gray area which might be thought to be beating my wife from some and I wanted to keep that hidden, I too might defensively respond to such questions even attacking the person by characterizing his motives in whatever way would be beneficial to me.  But, that's all hypothetical, luckily for my lovely wife.   

Edited May 12, 2016 by stemelbow

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.  

Here smac tips his hand and reveals he has been playing with a stacked deck.

He has been using a different definition of the word "think."

This is known as the logical fallacy of "equivocation."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Instead of using "think" to mean the ability to think about whether a prophetic utterance is right or wrong, he has been using it to mean the ability to think about what a prophetic utterance means.

This is a huge difference and his equivocation suggests bad faith on his part, and on the part of anybody else engaging in this type of rhetoric. 

The original point that generated these 25-pages of discussion made it clear that the sense in which she used the term "think" was to think about whether a prophetic utterance is right or wrong.

Quote

1. When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done because he could be wrong as many have been in the past and present time.

The reason we have been going back and forth with smac is because he has secretly been using a different definition of the word "think" than the one used in the original article.

So while I have been arguing that the "thinking" has been done when the Prophet speaks in the sense that no thought is permitted as to whether the prophetic utterance is right or wrong, smac has been arguing the "thinking" has not been done because it is permitted to think about what the Prophet meant.

Now that we have seen through the game, we will have to be more specific in our questions for smac and Scott.

Do you believe it is proper for a faithful Latter-day Saint to think about whether a prophetic utterance is right or wrong?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

 

 

I pull in resolution and begin

To doubt th' equivocation of the fiend

That lies like truth.

 

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Do you believe it is proper for a faithful Latter-day Saint to think about whether a prophetic utterance is right or wrong?

What exactly do you mean by "proper" ???

Are there no bounds to your obfuscation???

By the way, I like to try to understand what someone means when they say something before I even start to think about whether or not THEY are right or wrong because I could be either right or wrong in my understanding of what they meant.

Words are kinda tricky, sometimes, I think.

[Kevin Christensen]

Paradigms, we recall, are defined by standard examples from which a person generalizes about the larger territory.  The issue then is, how good are the predictions generated by that map when person then goes about exploring the territory.  It should be obvious that a map is not the territory.

So, we have a 1945 quote, and we have people who echo the attitude.  One simple but important and often neglected question is, "Is it an expression of God or a human expression?"  One simple and often neglected answer is the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth:

Quote

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently. 

If I take this observation as a map of human behavior, I should notice that expressions of this attitude towards a groups authorities ought to be visible in ANY and ALL human societies, if I care to look.  The usefulness of the map is in the accuracy of the predictions, and this map on this point strikes me as very accurate.

The tricky bit comes in taking the "When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" as a definitive and comprehensive map of LDS culture.  It seems to me that George Albert Smith's express rebuttal is NOT something that the map predicts.  Indeed, I've never seen critics who use the 1945 quote point to President Smith's statement, nor to the quotations from Brigham Young and Joseph Smith that he uses to justify the rebuttal. (Corrected reference.  Thanks Scott.)

So the issue is not whether or not you can find people who echo the 1945 attitude, but whether that attitude is a distinctly and officially scripturally based and officially and consistently enforced Mormon attitude, or simply, a human attitude, a human mode of dealing with complexity that is found among all human societies, including Mormons, many of whom, I understand, are human.

I've made the case at length that Joseph Smith and our scriptures, far from encouraging us to stay at Position 2, actually encourage and guide us to move to Position 9.

Quote

POSITION 9.  Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace  other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains  strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

Again, if the 1945 quote is an accurate and sufficient guide to desirable LDS behavior, this is just the kind of thing that should be utterly impossible for me to justify so easily with well-known quotes from LDS scripture and examples from key leaders.  The map of LDS thought that is based on the 1945 quote, I submit, is not the territory, nor a reasonable guide.  And who the hell would want to live in such a place? People only use the quote as an excuse to avoid the real territory, or to justify their departure.  A map based on the Perry Scheme provides a far broader range of thought and human behavior, and is far more accurate and useful as a guide to the diversity and goals of LDS culture.

See my discussion woven into a long review here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

And consider the Perry Scheme here:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/Perry%20Scheme.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited May 12, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[smac97]

On 5/12/2016 at 11:22 AM, consiglieri said:

Here smac tips his hand and reveals he has been playing with a stacked deck.

He has been using a different definition of the word "think."

This is known as the logical fallacy of "equivocation."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Instead of using "think" to mean the ability to think about whether a prophetic utterance is right or wrong, he has been using it to mean the ability to think about what a prophetic utterance means.

This is a huge difference and his equivocation suggests bad faith on his part, and on the part of anybody else engaging in this type of rhetoric. 

The original point that generated these 25-pages of discussion made it clear that the sense in which she used the term "think" was to think about whether a prophetic utterance is right or wrong.

The reason we have been going back and forth with smac is because he has secretly been using a different definition of the word "think" than the one used in the original article.

So while I have been arguing that the "thinking" has been done when the Prophet speaks in the sense that no thought is permitted as to whether the prophetic utterance is right or wrong, smac has been arguing the "thinking" has not been done because it is permitted to think about what the Prophet meant.

Now that we have seen through the game, we will have to be more specific in our questions for smac and Scott.

Do you believe it is proper for a faithful Latter-day Saint to think about whether a prophetic utterance is right or wrong?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

 

 

I pull in resolution and begin

To doubt th' equivocation of the fiend

That lies like truth.

 

I have used the word "think" and its variated forms based on its general, normative, dictionary-derived definition.  

Beyond that, and with respect, I decline to enter into a substantive discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have used the word "think" and its variated forms based on its general, normative, dictionary-derived definition.  

Translation: smac used the word "think" and some of its variated forms based ON MORE THAN ONLY ONE OF its general,  normative, dictionary-derived DEFINITIONS.

Let's all realize that words have more than only one definition/meaning, shall we???

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

They don't want to get it..because most of them don't have it..and if they do, they can't deal with it.  It scares the living hell out of them!  I am talking about members that are my age..baby boomers.  Your whole life has revolved around a truth and when that changes or their interpretation of it changes, they walk away from it..hold on, or simply walk away.

As a fellow baby-boomer and lifelong member (from age of accountability), I have to say my perception has been dramatically different than yours.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I have. Heck, we've even had one active LDS person in this thread advocate that sentiment. 

I must have missed that. I wonder who it was.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Paradigms, we recall, are defined by standard examples from which a person generalizes about the larger territory.  The issue then is, how good are the predictions generated by that map when person then goes about exploring the territory.  It should be obvious that a map is not the territory.

So, we have a 1945 quote, and we have people who echo the attitude.  One simple but important and often neglected question is, "Is it an expression of God or a human expression?"  One simple and often neglected answer is the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth:

If I take this observation as a map of human behavior, I should notice that expressions of this attitude towards a groups authorities ought to be visible in ANY and ALL human societies, if I care to look.  The usefulness of the map is in the accuracy of the predictions, and this map on this point strikes me as very accurate.

The tricky bit comes in taking the "When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" as a definitive and comprehensive map of LDS culture.  It seems to me that Heber J. Grant's express rebuttal is NOT something that the map predicts.  Indeed, I've never seen critics who use the 1945 quote point to President Grant's statement, nor to the quotations from Brigham Young and Joseph Smith that he uses to justify the rebuttal.

So the issue is not whether or not you can find people who echo the 1945 attitude, but whether that attitude is a distinctly and officially scripturally based and officially and consistently enforced Mormon attitude, or simply, a human attitude, a human mode of dealing with complexity that is found among all human societies, including Mormons, many of whom, I understand, are human.

I've made the case at length that Joseph Smith and our scriptures, far from encouraging us to stay at Position 2, actually encourage and guide us to move to Position 9.

Again, if the 1945 quote is an accurate and sufficient guide to desirable LDS behavior, this is just the kind of thing that should be utterly impossible for me to justify so easily with well-known quotes from LDS scripture and examples from key leaders.  The map of LDS thought that is based on the 1945 quote, I submit, is not the territory, nor a reasonable guide.  And who the hell would want to live in such a place? People only use the quote as an excuse to avoid the real territory, or to justify their departure.  A map based on the Perry Scheme provides a far broader range of thought and human behavior, and is far more accurate and useful as a guide to the diversity and goals of LDS culture.

See my discussion woven into a long review here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

And consider the Perry Scheme here:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/Perry%20Scheme.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I've already taken consiglieri to task for this, so out of fairness and consistency, I must point out to you as well that the President of the Church who sent the letter to the Unitarian leader disavowing the statement in the ward teachers message was George Albert Smith, not Heber J. Grant.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have used the word "think" and its variated forms based on its general, normative, dictionary-derived definition.  

Beyond that, and with respect, I decline to enter into a substantive discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

You have been caught off first base, smac.

It's okay to admit it. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

 

I suspect that, in at least some cases, it is such individuals who end up being blind-sided by anti-Mormon narratives and then accuse the Church of having failed to be "transparent," when, in reality, it is their own inattentiveness that is at least partly to blame. To absolve themselves of any responsibility, they have to claim they were taught this "thinking-has-been-done" idea at Church.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

On 5/12/2016 at 1:51 PM, consiglieri said:

You have been caught off first base, smac.

It's okay to admit it. 

 

If I've demonstrated anything in this thread, it's that I'm willing to explain my position and its underlying reasoning.  

Beyond that, and with respect, I decline to enter into a substantive discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Translation: smac used the word "think" and some of its variated forms based ON MORE THAN ONLY ONE OF its general,  normative, dictionary-derived DEFINITIONS.

Let's all realize that words have more than only one definition/meaning, shall we???

Nice try to give cover for smac (and Scott).

It doesn't wash.

The original quote from the Tribune article stated the way in which "think" was used.  I quoted it for you in case you forgot.

That is the definition that is germane to this entire conversation.  Why?  Because that is what we have been talking about!

Smac, et al, have been using a different definition of "think" to argue that it is okay, and even expected, for Mormons to "think" after the Prophet has spoken.

This is equivocation at its finest.

But the question remains as to why smac, et al, went to such lengths to obfuscate the issue.

Why are they so dogmatic about not wanting to admit the truth of what was contained in the Tribune op-ed piece, point number one?

I think that answer to that is pretty obvious . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You have been caught off first base, smac.

It's okay to admit it. 

 

What utter BS!

[consiglieri]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've already taken consiglieri to task for this, so out of fairness and consistency, I must point out to you as well that the President of the Church who sent the letter to the Unitarian leader disavowing the statement in the ward teachers message was George Albert Smith, not Heber J. Grant.

Still dodging the issue, Scott?

I have pointed out the game you and smac have been playing with the definition of "think."

Time for you to man up and give an answer.

And this time, use the definition of "think" that was used in the original Trib op-ed.

Not a different definition that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Okay?

[Jeanne]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As a fellow baby-boomer and lifelong member (from age of accountability), I have to say my perception has been dramatically different than yours.

I am sure your perception is different.  I am just regular folk.  No mission, no intense studying at home in libraries or at BYU.  FairMormon was unheard of until a few years ago and basically just a regular old member.

All I had was Children's Friend, The Improvement ERA, then the Ensign and relied fully on General Conferences, talks, my teachers through the years and meeting in general every week.  I relied on my parents and what they knew, my grandmothers and the teachings from the pulpit of the apostles and the prophet.