Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 9 minutes ago, Jeanne said: When????? Gees..why didn't someone correct me time and time again??? Why didn't my seminary teacher let me know..I graduated from seminary in 1974..no internet..but heck, if in the 1940's this what taught and then disavowed, why didn't everyone in my ward and stake know anything about this?? Edited to add: My Dad used this phrase over and over again in talking gospel principles in the home. This is why so much of what I loved about JS was such a huge disappointment. Does the church realize yet that honesty could really pay off??? I can't respond to your anecdotes. There is no way to verify or falsify them.
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Where has his CFR been answered? And I repeat that I'm not obligated to answer a CFR for a claim I didn't make. I answered it my response to Smac. So we agree that the prophet did not publicly disavow the 1945 Ward Teachers message to the body of the church?
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Just now, Jeanne said: You are on the hot seat and don't know know what to do about it. On the hot seat? That's ridiculous. I'm quite comfortable and confident in my position. Perhaps you can explain why you think I'm obligated to answer a CFR for a claim I didn't make. rockpond and HJW appear unable to do so.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: I answered it my response to Smac. So we agree that the prophet did not publicly disavow the 1945 Ward Teachers message to the body of the church? I don't know whether he did or not. His disavowal certainly has been widely published by now. Why did you repeat the attack without acknowledging that crucial information? As far as your having answered smac's two CFRs, assuring people that they can have confidence in the leadership of the prophets and apostles is not the same thing as saying "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done." If you can't see an esssential difference, I believe our disagreement is insoluable. Edited May 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
jkwilliams Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I can't respond to your anecdotes. There is no way to verify or falsify them. Well, as I asked, could you please explain the functional difference between "the debate is over" and "the thinking is done"? As I said, I don't know very many church members who believe that these are calls to unquestioning obedience, but then I know some who do. And they get this notion from some of the things that have been said over the years. I think it's fine to say that, as a church, we do not believe in blind obedience, but it seems awfully silly to deny that some things have been said from the pulpit and in church magazines that have come pretty close to that. 1
Jeanne Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I can't respond to your anecdotes. There is no way to verify or falsify them. That is how I feel about everything you post.
ALarson Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 15 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Ps; Long time no see JK. Glad to see you here here. Yes, we've missed you jkwilliams!! Hope you stick around.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: That is how I feel about everything you post. Jeanne, your responses on this thread are getting less and less rational. Perhaps you need to take a break from it.
Jeanne Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: On the hot seat? That's ridiculous. I'm quite comfortable and confident in my position. Perhaps you can explain why you think I'm obligated to answer a CFR for a claim I didn't make. rockpond and HJW appear unable to do so. Because you would definitely..yourself..demand a CFR. It works both ways Scott. The CFR was for you!
jkwilliams Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Just now, ALarson said: Yes, we've missed you jkwilliams!! Hope you stick around. Thanks. Just recovering from a whirlwind trip to Utah for my daughter's wedding. No matter how hard I try, they just keep getting married in the temple.
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Whether or not there was a published disavowal to the Church (there may or may not have been; I haven't researched it enough to know) is an issue separate and apart from the fact that the president of the Church did make that disavowal, that the disavowal has been widely published by now, and that it is irresponsible and reckless at best, dishonest at worst, to continue to repeat this statement without providing the essential information that it was disavowed by the Church president. FairMormon posting a private letter is considered "widely published"? I said that the idea was taught. It was. To my knowledge it has never been publicly disavowed to the body of the church, instead it has been repeated in various forms throughout the decades since. But you have succeeded in diverting attention from the original thread. Viegas-Haws first two points are correct. Nobody seems to be able to counter other than to try to distract from what she has actually written. 2
ALarson Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know whether he did or not. His disavowal certainly has been widely published by now. Where was it "widely published"? (Honest question as I've never seen it in any actual church publications or magazines). I haven't kept up with this thread, so maybe it was already posted. . Edited May 5, 2016 by ALarson
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know whether he did or not. His disavowal certainly has been widely published by now. Why did you repeat the attack without acknowledging that crucial information? As far as your having answered smac's two CFRs, assuring people that they can have confidence in the leadership of the prophets and apostles is not the same thing as saying "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done." If you can't see an esssential difference, I believe our disagreement is insoluable. Because it hasn't been widely published to the body of the church. If it has, where? What church publication was it in? You think there is a significant difference between saying "the debate is over" and "the thinking has been done" and the principles taught in 14 Fundamentals (along with the other quotes I cited)?
jkwilliams Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Just now, rockpond said: Because it hasn't been widely published to the body of the church. If it has, where? What church publication was it in? You think there is a significant difference between saying "the debate is over" and "the thinking has been done" and the principles taught in 14 Fundamentals (along with the other quotes I cited)? I for one am glad President Smith disavowed it, even if it was just in private. Unfortunately, the sentiment he disavowed has been repeated widely in the years since then. Following the prophet while following one's conscience can be a difficult balancing act. In my experience, we were taught that we have the right to pray about the prophet's counsel and have the Holy Ghost confirm it is right. But from what I have seen, if we still feel the counsel is wrong, we are supposed to follow anyway because the prophet won't lead us astray. It boggles my mind to hear people say that such things haven't been taught in the church. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, ALarson said: Where was it "widely published"? (Honest question as I've never seen it in any actual church publications or magazines). I haven't kept up with this thread, so maybe it was already posted. . So if something hasn't appeared in Church publications or magazines, you do not regard it has having been widely published? Clearly you and I are working under differing definitions.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 10 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Because you would definitely..yourself..demand a CFR. It works both ways Scott. The CFR was for you! You're not getting the point, Jeanne. A person is not obligated to provide references for -- or to retract -- something he never said in the first place.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Well, as I asked, could you please explain the functional difference between "the debate is over" and "the thinking is done"? Tried to answer this before but computer glitch wouldn't let me. See my prior resonse to rockpond. Quote As I said, I don't know very many church members who believe that these are calls to unquestioning obedience, but then I know some who do. And they get this notion from some of the things that have been said over the years. I think it's fine to say that, as a church, we do not believe in blind obedience, but it seems awfully silly to deny that some things have been said from the pulpit and in church magazines that have come pretty close to that. Beyond a concerted and continuous effort to teach pure and true doctrine -- which it undertakes at great effort, time and expense -- the Church is not responsible for the errant notions and misinterpretations that some members may harbor. Edited May 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I for one am glad President Smith disavowed it, even if it was just in private. Unfortunately, the sentiment he disavowed has been repeated widely in the years since then. Following the prophet while following one's conscience can be a difficult balancing act. In my experience, we were taught that we have the right to pray about the prophet's counsel and have the Holy Ghost confirm it is right. But from what I have seen, if we still feel the counsel is wrong, we are supposed to follow anyway because the prophet won't lead us astray. It boggles my mind to hear people say that such things haven't been taught in the church. See my prior responses. Being assured of the trustworthiness of leaders is not the same thing as being told that "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done." 1
ALarson Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So if something hasn't appeared in Church publications or magazines, you do not regard it has having been widely published? Clearly you and I are working under differing definitions. Well, when you state that something was "widely published" by the church leaders, where would you expect to see it? So I ask again. Where was it "widely published"? (Maybe you just misspoke? If so, that's fine. But otherwise, please name where it was published that causes you to believe it was "widely published".) . Edited May 5, 2016 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 14 minutes ago, rockpond said: Because it hasn't been widely published to the body of the church. If it has, where? What church publication was it in? You think there is a significant difference between saying "the debate is over" and "the thinking has been done" and the principles taught in 14 Fundamentals (along with the other quotes I cited)? Already answered. It is not reasonable to believe something has not been widely published unless it has been published directly by the Church. FairMormon website is not the only place where this matter has been explained, but it is a source that is widely and freely accessible -- and globally, as it is on the worldwide web. And I repeat, if you already know the backstory, you are ethically obligated to provide it if you are going to dredge this thing up repeatedly.
Ahab Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Some of you guys and gals are missing it. Even if all of us Mormons are supposed to believe everything any President of the Church ever says, we are NOT doing that. None of us are, or ever will. We are not robots and we do not act like robots as if "the thinking has been done" even if someone is trying to tell us that we don't need to think for ourselves or get our own revelation from God to know what he thinks. So little miss former Mormon is just giving us a little red herring, because none of us accepts that idea anyways. And it's at least a little bit silly to be looking for some kind of retraction from someone who is saying we should believe everything we are told by so-and-so President of the Church because even if he said it and meant it none of us would be taking him at his word anyways.
jkwilliams Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Tried to answer this before but computer glitch wouldn't let me. See my prior resonse to rockpond. Beyond a concerted and continuous effort to teach pure and true doctrine -- which it does at great effort, time and expense -- the Church is not responsible for the errant notions and misinterpretations that some members may harbor. I've never thought so, either. That's why I'm bewildered at the denial of teachings that have been repeated since long before I was born. If those teachings are functionally different from "the thinking has been done," that's what we should be talking about, not denying that those things have been taught widely. I'm assuming you meant this response" Quote As far as your having answered smac's two CFRs, assuring people that they can have confidence in the leadership of the prophets and apostles is not the same thing as saying "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done." If you can't see an esssential difference, I believe our disagreement is insoluable. It seems to me that having confidence in the leadership of the prophets and apostles is quite different from "when the prophet speaks, the debate is over" or telling someone to follow the prophet even when he or she thinks the prophet is wrong. Is there something wrong in acknowledging that a few church leaders have overstated things in the past? Why not just acknowledge it and say, "No matter what these leaders said, we don't believe in prophetic infallibility or blind obedience" ? 1
stemelbow Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Alright...who let Mr. Williams back in? Hah. Just kidding. Glad to see you. 1
ALarson Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Already answered. It is not reasonable to believe something has not been widely published unless it has been published directly by the Church. FairMormon website is not the only place where this matter has been explained, but it is a source that is widely and freely accessible -- and globally, as it is on the worldwide web. Sorry, but no, something posted on FairMormon does not constitute something being "widely published" by the church. You very definitely used the wrong words to describe what the truth is regarding this. This is where the letter is also found: Quote This letter can be found in the George A. Smith Papers (Manuscript no. 36, Box 63-8A), Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. So, this letter was not "widely published" for the members of the church to see and read. I'm not sure how you can even state that with a straight face, Scott. I dare say a very tiny fraction of a percentage of members ever read this letter and you give the impression that it was given wide circulation or exposure. It was not and that's a fact. . Edited May 5, 2016 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I've never thought so, either. That's why I'm bewildered at the denial of teachings that have been repeated since long before I was born. If those teachings are functionally different from "the thinking has been done," that's what we should be talking about, not denying that those things have been taught widely. I'm assuming you meant this response" It seems to me that having confidence in the leadership of the prophets and apostles is quite different from "when the prophet speaks, the debate is over" or telling someone to follow the prophet even when he or she thinks the prophet is wrong. Is there something wrong in acknowledging that a few church leaders have overstated things in the past? Why not just acknowledge it and say, "No matter what these leaders said, we don't believe in prophetic infallibility or blind obedience" ? I will go so far as to say that I don't believe past expressions by Church leaders ought to be interpreted as conveying the idea of infallibility or blind obedience.
Recommended Posts