jkwilliams Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: 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. On that we agree. For my part, it seems pretty obvious that some church leaders over the years (the ones who have been quoted in this thread, for example) have overstated things in a way that some church members and critics alike have taken to convey the idea of prophetic infallibility and blind obedience.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: Sorry, but no, something posted on FairMormon does not constitute something being "widely published". You very definitely used the wrong words to describe what the truth is regarding this. This is where the letter is also found: 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 did not. . Well then we'll have to acknowledge a fundamental disagreement. I say that the presence of it on FairMormon.org, arguably the most prominent Mormon apologetics source on the Internet today, amounts to having been widely published. And as I said, that's not the only place where this matter has been taken up. There was a FARMS Review article about it earlier, as I recall. If it will mollify you, and if it will help us get beyond the quibbling, I will acknowledge that the above is what I had in mind when I said "widely published."
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: On that we agree. For my part, it seems pretty obvious that some church leaders over the years (the ones who have been quoted in this thread, for example) have overstated things in a way that some church members and critics alike have taken to convey the idea of prophetic infallibility and blind obedience. OK. I think we (you and I) have come about as close to agreement on this as we are going to be able to. Edited May 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: OK. I think we (you and I) have come about as close to agreement on this as we are going to be able to. I think you might get really worried if we ever agreed on anything.
ALarson Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Well then we'll have to acknowledge a fundamental disagreement. I say that the presence of it on FairMormon.org, arguably the most prominent Mormon apologetics source on the Internet today, amounts to having been widely published. Was FairMormon even in existence back in 1945? Where was it "widely published" at the time of the retraction or correction? When was it first posted on the FairMormon website? (Publishing something on one website is not "widely publishing" something and you have to know that this is not accurate language to use regarding this. As precise as you are with language, this is actually quite funny ) . Edited May 5, 2016 by ALarson 1
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 19 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. 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. If you want to claim that the prophet has disavowed something that was written in a church publication, it ought to be disavowed in that publication or in a manner that would have been readily accessible to the church membership. If you think that FairMormon is widely read by church members than you need to leave your bubble a bit more. As for your nanny-ing of my ethical obligations, if I had been speaking of that quote in particular I would have shared the entire backstory. But I wasn't. I was discussing Viegas-Haws' points and the validity of them from her perspective as a member of the church. I believe you knew and understood that but instead chose to derail the thread for several pages now. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, ALarson said: Was FairMormon even in existence back in 1945? . No, FairMormon did not come into existence until long after algore invented the Internet. Quote Where was it "widely published" at the time of the retraction or correction? I don't know. I doubt it was repeated in official Church sources thereafter. How many people even remembered that particular ward teacher's message before anti-Mormons dredged it up? I had never heard of it, and though I wasn't around in the '40s, I'm old enough to remember when ward teaching pre-dated home teaching, and that the ward teachers used to bring around a printed message every month. Quote When was it first posted on the FairMormon website? I don't know. I remember reading a Daniel Peterson treatment of it quite a number of years ago -- I'm thinking a decade ago or longer. It was probably in the Farms Review. It is common enough that defenders frequently mention it whenever this matter comes up. Quote (Publishing something on one website is not "widely publishing" something and you have to know that this is not accurate language to use regarding this. As precise as you are with language, this if actually quite funny ) If you are a baby boomer, as I am, and remember the dark ages before the Internet, having something instantly available worldwide without cost at the few clicks of a computer mouse amounts to it being widely published. I'm sorry if my definitions offend you. Can we get past this now? Edited May 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 I find it interesting that every former Mormon's story is different. Issues that are a big deal to some barely register, if at all, for others.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I think you might get really worried if we ever agreed on anything. I would herald your finally having come to your senses
jkwilliams Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I would herald your finally having come to your senses Right back at you.
ALarson Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, ALarson said: Where was it "widely published" at the time of the retraction or correction? 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know. I doubt it was repeated in official Church sources thereafter. Where and when was the retraction or letter ever published in "official Church sources"? . Edited May 5, 2016 by ALarson 1
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Can we get past this now? Says the guy who insisted on taking us down this path. But, yeah, let's get past it... Given the position you have defended here, I take it you agree with these two statements: 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. 2. To properly develop mentally and spiritually, I must follow my own conscience whether it is in opposition to the leaders or not. (Mormons are taught from a young age to always follow the prophet no matter what.) If not, feel free to explain why. 2
consiglieri Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: It has been repeated by anti-Mormons and others -- including you just now -- without providing the crucial information that it was disavowed at the time by the Church president. That is inexcusable, rockpond. You should know better. It was disavowed by President Grant in a private letter. It was never disavowed publicly to the membership of the Church. Which allowed President N. Eldon Tanner to reiterate it the same idea decades later in a slightly different form as, "When the leaders speak, the debate is over." But I expect you know all this and are just out to score rhetorical points.
consiglieri Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: But I even used it in one of my seminary devotionals..no one told me this was incorrect. Why hasn't this been disavowed if it was just a ward thing in the 1940's?? It has not been disavowed because it is the foundational teaching of modern Mormonism.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, ALarson said: Where and when was the retraction or letter ever published in "official Church sources"? . The printed ward teachers message itself would amount to an official Church source. No?
JulieM Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 I have to say that I'd never heard of Fair Mormon before I started posting here. I've referred a few people to it for quotes or information on a topic and none of them were at all familiar with this website either. I think it may be getting a little better known now, but I would think that something would not be considered "widely published" for most members to read when something is only put on there and is not in any church publications. Those are what most members read!
jkwilliams Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: The printed ward teachers message itself would amount to an official Church source. No? Huh? No one disputes that the ward teachers message was published in an official source.
consiglieri Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: That Mormons are expected to let the president of the Church do their thinking for them? That's a scurrilous falsehood. Yes it is. But it is a scurrilous falsehood perpetuated by the LDS Church. No matter how much you want to pretend it isn't.
consiglieri Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Jeanne, your responses on this thread are getting less and less rational. Perhaps you need to take a break from it. Jeanne is just pointing out that your arguments by assertion aren't cutting it, no matter how frequently you repeat them. And as much as you would say that the FAIRMormon website somehow constitutes the Church itself widely publishing the private disavowal, I've got news for you . . . . . . FairMormon isn't the Church. Though sometimes it seems you think it is. Edited May 5, 2016 by consiglieri
thesometimesaint Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine
ALarson Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ALarson said: Where and when was the retraction or letter ever published in "official Church sources"? 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The printed ward teachers message itself would amount to an official Church source. No? The retraction or letter was in the ward teachers message? Edited May 5, 2016 by ALarson
jkwilliams Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Yes it is. But it is a scurrilous falsehood perpetuated by the LDS Church. No matter how much you want to pretend it isn't. I think the church has often reminded members that prophets are not infallible and that members have the right to their own personal revelation. Of course, I can't remember ever hearing a church leader say that ignoring prophetic counsel is ever justified. And I don't ever remember a teaching of the living prophet that we were told was to be taken with a grain of salt.
JulieM Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Scott, you may just want to say "uncle" i just read over the last few pages. You should just admit you were wrong about the letter being "widely published" because it was not. Now the letter is posted on a website (meaning today) but even that doesn't fit what you stated and it wasn't ever published by the church leaders, correct?
Tacenda Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Yes, I am familiar with President Smith's correction to Dr. Cope. Was it publicly disavowed to the body of the church? A retraction printed in the following Improvement Era? Or, did we continue to teach the same false doctrine in other ways: Marion G. Romney in 1960 Gen Con "even if it is wrong", N. Eldon Tanner in the Ensign in 1969 "debate is over", The 14 Fundamentals in the 80's and then repeated in Gen Con a few years back. As I said, I don't consider these statements to be true or correct but let's stop pretending that Viegas-Haws is just clueless... she is repeating what she was taught as a lifelong church member. You mean this talk General Conference talk where he discusses President Taft's fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet? With number one being this: “First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything” (1980 Devotional Speeches of the Year [1981], 26). https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng
JulieM Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I think the church has often reminded members that prophets are not infallible and that members have the right to their own personal revelation. Of course, I can't remember ever hearing a church leader say that ignoring prophetic counsel is ever justified. And I don't ever remember a teaching of the living prophet that we were told was to be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, just ask anyone about getting more than one ear piercing and you'll see this
Recommended Posts