Doctrinal Mastery Changes

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Show me the waste?

You gotta be kidding......

[ALarson]

On 9/17/2016 at 7:52 AM, rongo said:

What is interesting (and unfortunate) about the Newsroom statement and the essay on the ban is:

1) It was written anonymously by design, with no names from the Q15 attached. This is obviously to provide "plausible deniability," if needed, and to keep their names detached from this powder keg.

What I find unfortunate is that the Prophet allows the Newsroom (or others) to speak for him (on this topic and on other topics such as the recent policy on ssm).  

Why don't we hear from President Monson on these topics is a question that members of our ward are now asking repeatedly.  Why have a living Prophet leading our church who remains silent when reported revelations have been received on important topics?

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Why don't we hear from President Monson on these topics is a question that members of our ward are now asking repeatedly.  Why have a living Prophet leading our church who remains silent when reported revelations have been received on important topics?

I think we all know the answer to that, but such speculation concerning health and current leadership would be frowned upon.
We may not be quite there yet, but I think we could heading into President Benson territory in the future as opposed to President Hinckley.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think we all know the answer to that, but such speculation concerning health and current leadership would be frowned upon.
We may not be quite there yet, but I think we could heading into President Benson territory in the future as opposed to President Hinckley.

Possibly.  But President Monson has certainly spoken since the new policy was put into the handbook and since Pres. Nelson spoke about it.  President Monson has had ample opportunity to speak to the members and relate how he received a revelation.  He has also spoken numerous times to member since the essays have been written and released.  But he's silent on these topics as well.

Member are taking note of this too as they become more familiar with the policy and the essays.

.

Edited September 19, 2016 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Possibly.  But President Monson has certainly spoken since the new policy was put into the handbook and since Pres. Nelson spoke about it.  President Monson has had ample opportunity to speak to the members and relate how he received a revelation.  He has also spoken numerous times to member since the essays have been written and released.  But he's silent on these topics as well.

Member are taking note of this too as they become more familiar with the policy and the essays.

.

True. And if it is perceived he is too feeble of body and mind to speak in explanation of something like the policy, the next logical question is, was he too feeble of body and mind to receive a revelation and adequately share it with the other brethren.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True. And if it is perceived he is too feeble of body and mind to speak in explanation of something like the policy, the next logical question is, was he too feeble of body and mind to receive a revelation and adequately share it with the other brethren.

I don't consider those go together at all.
I don't believe a feeble body and mind that may prevent public speaking in any way preclude God from sending a revelation to somebody.  I don't think revelation is limited by mortal weaknesses.

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't consider those go together at all.
I don't believe a feeble body and mind that may prevent public speaking in any way preclude God from sending a revelation to somebody.  I don't think revelation is limited by mortal weaknesses.

With the new policy that is a moot point.  President Monson was not too feeble in body or mind to speak publicly.  As stated previously, he has spoken publicly to the members since the policy was put in the handbook.

Same with the essays.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't consider those go together at all.
I don't believe a feeble body and mind that may prevent public speaking in any way preclude God from sending a revelation to somebody.  I don't think revelation is limited by mortal weaknesses.

So if he's not too feeble to receive the word of God and share it with the brethren, is it reasonable to think that he is capable enough to share it with the rest of us?

If it's not about being feeble or having diminished mental capacity, then why doesn't he speak about it? Is it not important? Sadly, this "revelation" will be one of Pres. Monson's legacies. I find that very sad.

[rongo]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- I absolutely see the church ban as racist. And yes, the definition of racism fits very well, buy my argument is not with the English language, but rather the perversion of the English language by those who reject meanings of words. "Racism doesn't really mean racism". Of course it was racist. Words have meanings for reasons. If we ignore those meanings we can say anything about anything and it would mean nothing. Racism has a meaning in the English language. English speakers denounced all "racism", past and present. I'd have to assume they are idiots that don't understand the basic meaning of the word. I guess I credit their intellect a little bit more than that.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. Excluding is racism, even if (hypothetically) God really desired and instituted it.

2-What if the Polygamy essay (Nauvoo) disclosed JS's marriages to 30+ women, including women who are already married and very young women/teens, many of whom lived in JS's house? And THEN, after suggesting the sexual exploits made the statement about "condemns all sexual assault, in any form, past and present"? Would it be reasonable to connect the condemnation with the subject it had just been speaking about? Of course.

I'm glad you put it this way. This is *exactly* how I see you (and others) throwing around the term "racism." You mentioned the polygamy essay "disclosing JS's marriages to 30+ women, including women who are already married and very young women/teens, many of whom lived in JS's house" --- which frames the polygamy issue nicely. So far, so good. THEN you leap from that calling this "sexual exploits" in the next sentence, and ask hypothetically what if the essay made the statement "condemns all sexual assault, in any form, past and present." You ask: "Would it be reasonable to connect the condemnation with the subject it had just been speaking about?" 

Going from an objective treatment of the issue to "sexual exploits" and a hypothetical blanket condemnation of "sexual assault" is an enormous stretch (and I don't think you were actually arguing that Joseph Smith's actions constituted sexual assault). Your point is try to link the essay on the ban and its condemnation of racism in any form in a similar way to this hypothetical. In order to do that, you have to perform the same amount of mental gymnastics. 

So when the church talks about the priesthood ban, doesn't know why it was instituted, and then in the same essay condemns all racism, past and present, then it's not difficult to connect those dots. It's in the same essay. Not connecting the dots requires a willful decision to change meanings of words.

The point of the essay is to discuss the issues surrounding the ban, reject past explanations and justifications for the ban, and make it clear that the Church today doesn't condone or support any racism. The problem today is the perception by some that LDS members and the Church are (today) racist. That is the reason for the inclusion of the denunciation. It is not because of a clear "house that Jack built" logic chain that links the ban itself as being racist, much less the very racism that the Church is condemning.

[rongo]

On 9/19/2016 at 7:30 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

1- Does it inspire confidence or seem Godly in any way to have the church speak in ways that give them plausible deniability? Of course not. One of the problems is, the church speaks boldly and with certitude on these topics, until they are proven wrong or the doctrine/argument becomes too tenuous to maintain. The church was very clear in teaching doctrines it now disavows. So now they have to allow themselves significant wiggle room so they can appear to speak for God while not actually putting their name to it. This strikes me as lacking faith in their message.

I agree. I've said before that I strongly dislike the influence of PR people and attorneys in crafting policy and dictating Church direction.

Quote

 

2- I think many agree with you that this essay was a PR move. But they find themselves in a catch 22 where if they say nothing it is viewed as approval of racism. If they come out against racism it opens the door to disregard prophetic doctrine. So what do they do? They try to walk the line. They failed and essentially alienated every side with this essay.

I think they (the PR people, historians, and other experts who wrote the essay) did as well as they reasonably could, given that they had to write an essay. I think it would have been better not to have written it than to write one that doesn't take a position on the ban.

Quote

 

The slippery slope you speak of is the recognition that prophets are fallible and therefore cannot always be trusted to be speaking the word of God. The race issue is a spectacular example of that.

The Church has always taught that prophets are fallible. The problem is that modern attempts to pooh-pooh what past prophets have said leave the door wide open to question what current prophets say (and don't say). Using the essay as an example, a future essay could just as easily argue that this essay was wrong and a clear example of the pressure of its times in toeing the political correctness line (more easily, since none of the Brethren's names are attached to it).

Edited September 20, 2016 by rongo

[rongo]

21 hours ago, ALarson said:

What I find unfortunate is that the Prophet allows the Newsroom (or others) to speak for him (on this topic and on other topics such as the recent policy on ssm).  

Why don't we hear from President Monson on these topics is a question that members of our ward are now asking repeatedly.  Why have a living Prophet leading our church who remains silent when reported revelations have been received on important topics?

This has been going on for some time, and predates President Monson. It is a conscious decision to have spokespeople and PR people talk to the press instead of the Brethren.

Edited September 20, 2016 by rongo

[rongo]

19 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True. And if it is perceived he is too feeble of body and mind to speak in explanation of something like the policy, the next logical question is, was he too feeble of body and mind to receive a revelation and adequately share it with the other brethren.

I don't think it has anything to do with President Monson's relative feebleness. The decision to work this way predates President Monson and is not a result of feebleness. The Newsroom and essay approach to things would be in place and going strong even if President Monson was going strong. 

[rongo]

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

With the new policy that is a moot point.  President Monson was not too feeble in body or mind to speak publicly.  As stated previously, he has spoken publicly to the members since the policy was put in the handbook.

Same with the essays.

President Monson has never said anything except President Monson stories. Even when he was a counselor in the First Presidency. 

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

President Monson has never said anything except President Monson stories. Even when he was a counselor in the First Presidency. 

And that makes it ok?  How about he share how he received a revelation with the members?  Many just do not understand who are struggling with this new policy in our ward.

[HappyJackWagon]

53 minutes ago, rongo said:

The point of the essay is to discuss the issues surrounding the ban, reject past explanations and justifications for the ban, and make it clear that the Church today doesn't condone or support any racism. The problem today is the perception by some that LDS members and the Church are (today) racist. That is the reason for the inclusion of the denunciation. It is not because of a clear "house that Jack built" logic chain that links the ban itself as being racist, much less the very racism that the Church is condemning.

We disagree. That's ok. The Race and the Priesthood essay not only talks about past racism of teachings but it implicates all those who participated in spreading those teachings as racist. But...it then softens it a bit by stating they were products of their time and culture to suggest that it shouldn't be surprising that they had some racist leanings. This "product of their time and culture" issue also applies to Brigham Young who implemented the ban. Again, I think it is reasonable to accept that the leaders were products of their time and culture which explains past racist behavior and teachings.

[HappyJackWagon]

52 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree. I've said before that I strongly dislike the influence of PR people and attorneys in crafting policy and dictating Church direction.

It is interesting that the "mouthpiece of God" has a mouthpiece in the PR department who speaks for him. It's also interesting how much the church relies on legal counsel in teaching members. At this recent Freedom of Religion Conference one of the church's attorneys was one of the main speakers. I find that odd. I get that they're trying to make a legal argument, but I'd think that a few of the attorneys in the Q12, Cook, Christofferson, Oaks, could handle that without having an attorney speak to the church.

I think they (the PR people, historians, and other experts who wrote the essay) did as well as they reasonably could, given that they had to write an essay. I think it would have been better not to have written it than to write one that doesn't take a position on the ban.

They "had" to write an essay to address issues that the brethren weren't discussing because the church needed to provide some kind of content on the matters. From my POV the essays are half measures but they at least move the dialogue further than where they had been. We disagree because I think the race essay did take a position on the ban, but they did it in a way that members could also be comfortable in sticking with the idea that the ban was from God, even though there is no evidence to support that position.

The Church has always taught that prophets are fallible. The problem is that modern attempts to pooh-pooh what past prophets have said leave the door wide open to question what current prophets say (and don't say). Using the essay as an example, a future essay could just as easily argue that this essay was wrong and a clear example of the pressure of its times in toeing the political correctness line (more easily, since none of the Brethren's names are attached to it).

No. I don't think so. The church's version of prophetic fallibility is that the prophet has made mistakes in his past or may have personal weaknesses. But I don't think the church adequately teaches that prophets err in doctrine. Why shouldn't the door be wide open for questions. If past prophets have been massively wrong (or contradictory) on issues of racist teachings, Adam/God doctrine/theory, the eternal necessity of polygamy etc, then why shouldn't we view current proclamations cautiously? Whether past prophets are wrong, or the modern prophets acceptance of these essays is wrong, a prophet is wrong. Prophets do not always get things right, not even doctrinally. So we should be skeptical and not assume that every word from the mouth of the prophet or apostles is the direct word of God.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This has been going on for some time, and predates President Monson. It is a conscious decision to have spokespeople and PR people talk to the press instead of the Brethren.

Yes. And the reason is insulation from criticism and plausible deniability. That is some seriously weak sauce for prophets, seers, and revelators.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes. And the reason is insulation from criticism and plausible deniability. That is some seriously weak sauce for prophets, seers, and revelators.

This may surprise you, but I kind of agree with this.
It's certainly not how things were done in the early days of the Church.  But we do live in a different time now.
Makes me wonder exactly what has changed so much in the membership (and the world at large) that this is now seen as necessary.

Then again, after reading the skepticism and criticism just on this board alone maybe I don't need to wonder.

[HappyJackWagon]

56 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think it has anything to do with President Monson's relative feebleness. The decision to work this way predates President Monson and is not a result of feebleness. The Newsroom and essay approach to things would be in place and going strong even if President Monson was going strong. 

Maybe. Maybe not. President Hinkley sure spoke more directly. He spoke to the people and to the media. He was loved for it but he also received some criticism. Perhaps that's why things have shifted to the point where it feels like the prophet is using the PR department as a shield. Prior to Hinkley we had other prophets who were feeble and of diminished capacity so it feels like the PR department is prepared to step in should the prophet be unable to take the issues to the people himself.

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes ago, rongo said:

President Monson has never said anything except President Monson stories. Even when he was a counselor in the First Presidency. 

Not true. President Monson used to be revered as an excellent speaker. True, everyone loved his stories but they weren't always about him. That would have been quite narcissistic. He used to be a very capable speaker. Now he's not. Old age is a reasonable reason for that and he can't be faulted for that. At the same time, it must be recognized that his diminished capacity does have an impact within the church. 

[rongo]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

And that makes it ok?

I never said it did.

 How about he share how he received a revelation with the members?

I would love that. I think the last time that happened was in 1978 (several apostles discussed that).

 

 

[rongo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It is interesting that the "mouthpiece of God" has a mouthpiece in the PR department who speaks for him. It's also interesting how much the church relies on legal counsel in teaching members. At this recent Freedom of Religion Conference one of the church's attorneys was one of the main speakers. I find that odd. I get that they're trying to make a legal argument, but I'd think that a few of the attorneys in the Q12, Cook, Christofferson, Oaks, could handle that without having an attorney speak to the church.

Like I've said, I would rather hear from them --- even if they aren't legal experts or tightly "on message." I would also like to hear their their own views, especially because I understand that they aren't infallible or remote-controlled by God. I don't care for some things that Elder McConkie said and how he said them, but I would love for apostles to comfortably and confidently teach like he did. Even when I don't agree with him.

They "had" to write an essay to address issues that the brethren weren't discussing because the church needed to provide some kind of content on the matters. From my POV the essays are half measures but they at least move the dialogue further than where they had been. We disagree because I think the race essay did take a position on the ban, but they did it in a way that members could also be comfortable in sticking with the idea that the ban was from God, even though there is no evidence to support that position

I agree with most of this. I'm glad that the essay left room for people to believe that the ban was from God. It is also good to have other perspectives. When helping people with this issue, I have used the Darius Gray/Marvin Perkins approaches when helpful. I have made it clear what I think (and why), but I also point out that other thoughtful LDS see it differently (and why). Sometimes their approach (closer to yours) is more effective or helpful than my approach. What's interesting is that I don't see any reciprocation. That is, when it sometimes would be more helpful in helping someone to uphold the ban as of God, I don't see the "progressives" offering that as an option. This is interesting to me because the "conservatives" on doctrine and history are supposed to be the ones who are intractable and dig in, while the "progressives" are supposed to be the ones who are "nuanced" and "flexible."

No. I don't think so. The church's version of prophetic fallibility is that the prophet has made mistakes in his past or may have personal weaknesses. But I don't think the church adequately teaches that prophets err in doctrine. Why shouldn't the door be wide open for questions. If past prophets have been massively wrong (or contradictory) on issues of racist teachings, Adam/God doctrine/theory, the eternal necessity of polygamy etc, then why shouldn't we view current proclamations cautiously? Whether past prophets are wrong, or the modern prophets acceptance of these essays is wrong, a prophet is wrong. Prophets do not always get things right, not even doctrinally. So we should be skeptical and not assume that every word from the mouth of the prophet or apostles is the direct word of God.

I agree. I wrote a whole paper on this topic:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/well-nigh-as-dangerous

I think the Church in our day hasn't learned to come to grips with good members questioning things. I'm spoiled because both sides of my family are heavily into Mormon history and writings, so I grew up in an environment where polygamy, Adam/God, the ban, etc. were regularly discussed at family reunions and gatherings. What a joy it was, even for me as a young boy, to listen and take part in these discussions! I realize that most people don't have this type of background and environment, but it would be great for them and for the church if more people did. Difficult questions can be asked by people who fully believe in the Church and the gospel, but we're nowhere near having such an environment be the default setting. And the current environment of tightly-controlled "newsrooms," PR, and spokespeople isn't conducive to it.

[rongo]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe. Maybe not. President Hinkley sure spoke more directly. He spoke to the people and to the media.

Yes, but he also is partially responsible for this PR-centric atmosphere. His  interviews with Time, 60 Minutes, Larry King, SF Chronicle, etc., where he was PR-evasive, were not good in that respect.

I had a missionary in a former ward ask me if the Church didn't teach eternal progression in its fullness any more. I answered, "Of course we do." He brought up President Hinckley's comments ("I don't know that we teach it," "I don't know much about it," etc.), and I showed him that the Joseph Smith manual contained the King Follett Sermon --- which directly addressed what he was concerned about and what President Hinckley had said we don't teach and don't know much about. "But what about what President Hinckley said?" I told him that President Hinckley said about this was just wrong, and that he knew it and I knew it, which was why we were having this conversation. 

Yes, we discussed why he said what he did, and how he said it (PR considerations, the venue, not wanting to get out in the weeds when it isn't a setting where you can be assured of getting back on track, etc.). But I think it would have been better for him, Mitt Romney, etc. to just go ahead and answer the standard "weird Mormon" questions without such a heavy PR consideration. 

And I should say that I really empathize with President Hinckley, Elder Holland, etc. in interviews, shows, etc. I've been interviewed three times on the radio about Mormonism, and people who haven't sat in the studio doing that live have no idea how hard it is. The time just melts away, and you often have a very limited time to talk --- and don't have a lot of control as a guest. President Hinckley did a remarkably good job, overall. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by rongo

[rongo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not true. President Monson used to be revered as an excellent speaker.

He has *always* used the story format --- often the same stories. I can't recall very many instances at all where he taught doctrines, expounded policies, or got after the members. Not like Elder Oaks, President Packer, etc. His teaching always comes in sets of three, alliterated ("Brethren, let us strive to make in our lives a legacy of learning, a family of faith, and storehouse of service.").

 Old age is a reasonable reason for that and he can't be faulted for that. At the same time, it must be recognized that his diminished capacity does have an impact within the church.

He still speaks just as strongly and well when he speaks as he did back in the 1980s. It's just that it's the same talks, told the same way. Since it's been that way the whole time, it isn't old age or decreased capacity. He speaks less now due to age and frailty, but when he speaks, it's Thomas S. Monson.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree with most of this. I'm glad that the essay left room for people to believe that the ban was from God. It is also good to have other perspectives. When helping people with this issue, I have used the Darius Gray/Marvin Perkins approaches when helpful. I have made it clear what I think (and why), but I also point out that other thoughtful LDS see it differently (and why). Sometimes their approach (closer to yours) is more effective or helpful than my approach. What's interesting is that I don't see any reciprocation. That is, when it sometimes would be more helpful in helping someone to uphold the ban as of God, I don't see the "progressives" offering that as an option. This is interesting to me because the "conservatives" on doctrine and history are supposed to be the ones who are intractable and dig in, while the "progressives" are supposed to be the ones who are "nuanced" and "flexible."

 

You may be right about the lack of reciprocation for acceptance of the ban but I see a significant difference.

Rejecting the ban is often based on 1) a lack of evidence that it came from God and 2) the harm that it has caused to an entire race of people and those who love them. Rejecting the ban causes no loss or harm but accepting the ban does cause harm.

To reciprocate and accept the ban despite the lack of evidence that it came from God, even though the ban and the associated doctrines/theories hurt people deeply, adds to the hurt. There is no benefit to the victimized group in accepting it where there is benefit to the victimized group to reject it.