Jeanne Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said: I have always found it mildly amusing that those outside our faith (our critics in particular) cite our missionaries as though they are the ultimate repository of LDS doctrinal and historical knowledge, when in truth they are arguably among our least experienced and least knowledgeable members. That other members (who should know better) would view them as said repository is even more amusing. And that members would expect missionary training (which by its very nature must be limited in scope) to include the complexities and nuances of plural marriage history and family life and place it on a learning par equal with that of understanding and teaching the fundamental doctrine of Christ seems to me an absurd expectation. But what is not amusing is sending out young men and women who are unprepared to answer questions where so many know what questions to ask..I think it is mean. Some people are not so kind as to let false information go..I always feel bad for missionaries..especially in this day and age.
JLHPROF Posted October 12, 2016 Author Posted October 12, 2016 15 hours ago, Calm said: I think this is a great opportunity for you to write to the feedback for .Temple Square Tour they need to congratulate them on all the good stuff, but they need to take the next step and lose the myths and you can provide Widtsoe's and others' accounts or even just the church essay iirc. Cannot find anywhere online to submit feedback.
Calm Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 No online suggestion box for the tours, so I would use the Church History site instead since it relates to that: https://chl.libraryresearch.info/reft100.aspx?pmi=IEWCpIzo1D
Calm Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 You could also call or email the tour secretary: https://www.lds.org/locations/salt-lake-city-temple-square?lang=eng&_r=1
Calm Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 There is also the review page on Facebook. If you don't want public, maybe you can use the message service: https://www.facebook.com/templesquare/reviews/?ref=page_internal
Tacenda Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 55 minutes ago, Calm said: No online suggestion box for the tours, so I would use the Church History site instead since it relates to that: https://chl.libraryresearch.info/reft100.aspx?pmi=IEWCpIzo1D Hopefully they won't take him for being an anti. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 12, 2016 Author Posted October 12, 2016 12 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Hopefully they won't take him for being an anti. Which is why I kept my mouth shut on the tour. Who am I to point out an error in front of those who might choose to embrace the gospel based on the missionaries efforts? Not trying to be publicly contentious.
JLHPROF Posted October 12, 2016 Author Posted October 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: No online suggestion box for the tours, so I would use the Church History site instead since it relates to that: https://chl.libraryresearch.info/reft100.aspx?pmi=IEWCpIzo1D 1 hour ago, Calm said: You could also call or email the tour secretary: https://www.lds.org/locations/salt-lake-city-temple-square?lang=eng&_r=1 1 hour ago, Calm said: There is also the review page on Facebook. If you don't want public, maybe you can use the message service: https://www.facebook.com/templesquare/reviews/?ref=page_internal Thanks for these options Calm. The FB page is spammed by anti's (actual ones) and mostly full of gushing members. I doubt anyone is reading those. The email bounced and I don't think it's worth calling someone. And the Church History library link appears to be only for the library. I don't think public feedback is high on the agenda for missions. 1
The Nehor Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: The angel with a flaming sword makes me cringe. Pretty sure he brought the sword specifically to be intimidating. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Thanks for these options Calm. The FB page is spammed by anti's (actual ones) and mostly full of gushing members. I doubt anyone is reading those. The email bounced and I don't think it's worth calling someone. And the Church History library link appears to be only for the library. I don't think public feedback is high on the agenda for missions. I'm fairly certain the Beehive House is under the administration of the Temple Square Mission of the Church. The email address for the mission secertary (according to the link on lds.org) is tsq-secretary@ldschurch.org You might try that. Good luck.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Thanks for these options Calm. The FB page is spammed by anti's (actual ones) and mostly full of gushing members. I doubt anyone is reading those. The email bounced and I don't think it's worth calling someone. And the Church History library link appears to be only for the library. I don't think public feedback is high on the agenda for missions. I'm fairly certain the Beehive House is under the administration of the Temple Square Mission of the Church. The email address for the mission secertary (according to the link on lds.org) is tsq-secretary@ldschurch.org You might try that. Good luck. Edited to add: The Church Historian and Recorder, Elder Steven E. Snow, a General Authority Seventy who oversees the Church Histori Department, regularly speaks at the annual Seminar for New MTC Presidents and Visitors Center Directors. He does so because newly called directors of Church historic sites are trained at this seminar. So he might have some influence in the content of guided tours at Church historic sites. So perhaps it would be worthwhile to contact him. I do know that the Church History Department is emphasizing transparency these days. Edited October 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2016 Popular Post Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) The story is told that in the 1960s, President Henry D. Moyle, a counselor to President David O. McKay, was in favor of tearing down the Beehive and LIon Houses to make way for a driveway from a parking terrace. Florence Jacobsen, who, among other things, was a curator of historic sites for the Church, had great affection for the buildings, as she remembered visiting her grandfather, President Joseph F. Smith, when he lived in the Beehive House as president of the Church. She was very pronounced in her opposition to the razing of the structures and was not at all backward about saying so to President Moyle. Reportedly, he told her that all the buildings did was remind people of polygamy. Her response: "I'm not ashamed of it; are you?" His reply: "That's not a fair question." Before he could move forward with his intent, he died. Ultimately, the Beehive and Lion houses were preserved and became what they are today. I think that is rather ironic, considering JLHPROF's reported experience here. Edited to add: Could this have been a case of the Lord removing a Church leader from his place before he could inflict some lasting damage? Edited October 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 5
Tacenda Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The story is told that in the 1960s, President Henry D. Moyle, a counselor to President David O. McKay, was in favor of tearing down the Beehive and LIon Houses to make way for a driveway from a parking terrace. Florence Jacobsen, whose among other things, was a curator of historic sites for the Church, had great affection for the buildings, as she remembered visiting her grandfather, President Joseph F. Smith, when he lived in the Beehive House as president of the Church. She was very pronounced in her opposition to the razing of the structures was not at all backward about saying so to President Moyle. Reportedly, he told her that all the buildings did was remind people of polygamy. Her response: "I'm not ashamed of it; are you?" His reply: "That's not a fair question." Before he could move forward with his intent, he died. Ultimately, the Beehive and Lion houses were preserved and became what they are today. I think that is rather ironic, considering JLHPROF's reported experience here. Church history tours and buildings are high on my list of things to do, and my family is the opposite, so I've gone by myself before. Glad they preserved these sites! When I was baptised at eight, I was able to have my birthday party at the Lion House or Beehive House, can't remember and it was such a fun experience, I felt like a princess, haha. Needless to say my parents didn't give me a party every year so very memorable. Edited October 13, 2016 by Tacenda 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Church history tours and buildings are high on my list of things to do, and my family is the opposite, so I've gone by myself before. Glad they preserved these sites! When I was baptised at eight, I was able to have my birthday party at the Lion House or Beehive House, can't remember and it was such a fun experience, I felt like a princess, haha. Needless to say my parents didn't give me a party every year so very rememberable. It was probably the Lion House where you had your party. They'll put on birthday parties there for children even to this day. Did you tour the Beehive House, and if so, were they still passing out pieces of that nasty horehound candy back then? I know it was supposed to give visitors a taste of the pioneer experience, but yuck! 2
Derl Sanderson Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 Sorry, guys. There are elements of your arguments that I just can't accept. JHLPROF on the missionaries at the Beehive House: " ...the missionaries claimed polygamy was only due to a shortage of men and only those specifically called by leaders lived it and they didn't know why." This is a confusing statement to me. You seem to be saying that the missionaries claimed simultaneously that polygamy practice was due to male shortages AND that the missionaries didn't know why the practice was undertaken. Those are mutually exclusive claims. The same holds if they meant that they (the missionaries) didn't know why men were called to live the principle after they had just stated that its purpose was because there were so few men. If this exemplifies how "well trained and scripted" they are, then what they are "promoting" is beyond "false/semi-false." It is entirely incoherent. This smacks more of 19-year-olds flying by the seat of their pants (yeah, I'm including the new sister dress code) than of well-crafted, tightly-controlled scripting that passed correlation. Alternately, they have bad memories and garbled their script (in that case, it is interesting that both of them have exactly the same memory failure given that "the first companion stated it and then a few minutes later the second companion repeated it word for word"). Somebody is missing something ... probably me (squirrel!). In the pre-1978 days things were about as tightly scripted for missionaries as I could ever imagine them being. The printed discussions were expected to be memorized word-for-word. Yet I never received any scripting on how to deal with race and priesthood, an issue that at the time was a little more pressing than plural marriage. Where was THE CHURCH to give me smooth half-truths and obfuscations to spout instead of leaving me to my own admittedly pathetic devices in the face of tough questions that I tried to answer with embarassingly lame reasoning but were of a quality level you'd about expect from a snot-faced 20-year-old who had been an inactive party boy for half his life and didn't have an MTC experience because such did not yet exist. My best guess is that the reason for this is that THE CHURCH wants its missionaries to preach priorities that have more eternal import than the ins and outs of plural marriage, which may explain why Preach My Gospel is so woefully lacking in addressing the topic. As far as the claim you leveled at me that begins "You know as well as I do" ... well, I'll just let that stand as the presumptuous nonsense that it is (unless you've done that Vulcan Mind Meld on me unawares). HappyJackWagon: "The church sets them (missionaries) up as the authorities for speaking about the church." I can't agree with that. I can agree that they are "set apart as messengers for Jesus Christ" and as such their main function is to strive to bring people to faith in that master. But "authorities for speaking about the church?" Are there or should there be limits to this authority you think they are given? Again, the most comprehensive and tightly scripted source I see is Preach My Gospel, and I just can't find anything there that would lead one to believe that a missionary is an "authority for speaking about the church" in any vastly broad sense. What they are to preach is pretty narrowly focused (see the first paragraph in chapter 1, for example). And Gray, if we could find a way to rein-in any of us goofy Mormons from spouting folklore as genuine history and doctrine (regardless of their age), what would the smart kids at Infants on Thrones do for fun (heck, even the erudite Glenn cites his least favorite scripture or GA quote as being "I never said it would be easy. I only said it would be worth it"). Too bad the quote exists in neither category (unless Mae West was general Relief Society President). 2
JLHPROF Posted October 12, 2016 Author Posted October 12, 2016 7 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said: JHLPROF on the missionaries at the Beehive House: " ...the missionaries claimed polygamy was only due to a shortage of men and only those specifically called by leaders lived it and they didn't know why." This is a confusing statement to me. You seem to be saying that the missionaries claimed simultaneously that polygamy practice was due to male shortages AND that the missionaries didn't know why the practice was undertaken. Those are mutually exclusive claims. The same holds if they meant that they (the missionaries) didn't know why men were called to live the principle after they had just stated that its purpose was because there were so few men. If this exemplifies how "well trained and scripted" they are, then what they are "promoting" is beyond "false/semi-false." It is entirely incoherent. Actually, they meant that the men called to live it were obedient without fully understanding why it was necessary. Not speaking of their own understanding. And given the teachings of the time I don't think that is accurate at all. I reported exactly what the missionaries said. Quote As far as the claim you leveled at me that begins "You know as well as I do" ... well, I'll just let that stand as the presumptuous nonsense that it is (unless you've done that Vulcan Mind Meld on me unawares). Sorry if you were offended. Perhaps I should have said "it is generally understood that the missionaries memorize scripts and talking points". Would that have made you happier? Wouldn't want to assume you share the general understanding...I know how some people hate to be pigeonholed.
Tacenda Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It was probably the Lion House where you had your party. They'll put on birthday parties there for children even to this day. Did you tour the Beehive House, and if so, were they still passing out pieces of that nasty horehound candy back then? I know it was supposed to give visitors a taste of the pioneer experience, but yuck! Yep! But I liked it for some strange reason.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 31 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said: And Gray, if we could find a way to rein-in any of us goofy Mormons from spouting folklore as genuine history and doctrine (regardless of their age), what would the smart kids at Infants on Thrones do for fun (heck, even the erudite Glenn cites his least favorite scripture or GA quote as being "I never said it would be easy. I only said it would be worth it"). Too bad the quote exists in neither category (unless Mae West was general Relief Society President). My favorite GA quote is "And, in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make." Oh wait, that wasn't spoken by a GA. It was John Lennon and Paul McCartney in "Golden Slumbers." 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said: Sorry, guys. There are elements of your arguments that I just can't accept. In the pre-1978 days things were about as tightly scripted for missionaries as I could ever imagine them being. The printed discussions were expected to be memorized word-for-word. Yet I never received any scripting on how to deal with race and priesthood, an issue that at the time was a little more pressing than plural marriage. Where was THE CHURCH to give me smooth half-truths and obfuscations to spout instead of leaving me to my own admittedly pathetic devices in the face of tough questions that I tried to answer with embarassingly lame reasoning but were of a quality level you'd about expect from a snot-faced 20-year-old who had been an inactive party boy for half his life and didn't have an MTC experience because such did not yet exist. My best guess is that the reason for this is that THE CHURCH wants its missionaries to preach priorities that have more eternal import than the ins and outs of plural marriage, which may explain why Preach My Gospel is so woefully lacking in addressing the topic. HappyJackWagon: "The church sets them (missionaries) up as the authorities for speaking about the church." I can't agree with that. I can agree that they are "set apart as messengers for Jesus Christ" and as such their main function is to strive to bring people to faith in that master. But "authorities for speaking about the church?" Are there or should there be limits to this authority you think they are given? Again, the most comprehensive and tightly scripted source I see is Preach My Gospel, and I just can't find anything there that would lead one to believe that a missionary is an "authority for speaking about the church" in any vastly broad sense. What they are to preach is pretty narrowly focused (see the first paragraph in chapter 1, for example). Serving a mission in the 70's while the race and priesthood issue was so hot would have been a real challenge. I think you ask a great question. Where was the church in preparing missionaries for that issue? It sounds like you're suggesting they did little to nothing to prepare you for this trial. That is really unfortunate. Likewise, I think it's very unfortunate that missionaries today are unprepared and know little about the church essays that contradict part of their usual discussion talking points. We can quibble about what it means to be an authority but I think it's clear that missionaries are official representatives of the church. Would you agree? If so, is it reasonable to think that an official representative of the church should have accurate information about the church being represented? And what good is a representative teaching about the church if the representative has no authority? Edited October 12, 2016 by HappyJackWagon
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Yep! But I liked it for some strange reason. I think they stopped giving it out when the visiting schoolchildren would throw it on the sidewalks after exiting the Beehive House. Edited October 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
JLHPROF Posted October 12, 2016 Author Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Quote even the erudite Glenn cites his least favorite scripture or GA quote as being "I never said it would be easy. I only said it would be worth it"). Too bad the quote exists in neither category (unless Mae West was general Relief Society President). My favorite GA quote is "And, in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make." Oh wait, that wasn't spoken by a GA. It was John Lennon and Paul McCartney in "Golden Slumbers." My least favorite is "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." Edited October 12, 2016 by JLHPROF
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: My least favorite is "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." I, on the other hand, quite like it and consider it to be true when considered in context: Quote 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.’ [In Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78] I also like these quotes, which I found in the process of looking up the above one: Quote President Wilford Woodruff declared that we can have full confidence in the direction the prophet is leading the Church: “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”). Quote President Harold B. Lee taught this same principle: “You keep your eye upon him whom the Lord called, and I say to you now, knowing that I stand in this position, you don’t need to worry about the President of the Church ever leading people astray, because the Lord would remove him out of his place before He would ever allow that to happen” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 533). Quote President Gordon B. Hinckley gave similar assurance to Church members: “The Church is true. Those who lead it have only one desire, and that is to do the will of the Lord. They seek his direction in all things. There is not a decision of significance affecting the Church and its people that is made without prayerful consideration, going to the fount of all wisdom for direction. Follow the leadership of the Church. God will not let his work be led astray” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1983, 68–69; or Ensign, Nov. 1983, 46; emphasis added). And this from President Kimball" Quote “I bear witness to the world today that more than a century and a half ago the iron ceiling was shattered; the heavens were once again opened, and since that time revelations have been continuous. … “Since that momentous day in 1820, additional scripture has continued to come, including the numerous and vital revelations flowing in a never-ending stream from God to his prophets on the earth. … “… We testify to the world that revelation continues and that the vaults and files of the Church contain these revelations which come month to month and day to day. We testify also that there is, since 1830 when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, and will continue to be, so long as time shall last, a prophet, recognized of God and his people, who will continue to interpret the mind and will of the Lord. “Now, a word of warning: Let us not make the error of the ancients. Numerous modern sectarians believe in the Abrahams, the Moseses, and the Pauls, but resist believing in today’s prophets. The ancients also could accept the prophets of an earlier day, but denounced and cursed the ones who were their contemporaries. “In our day, as in times past, many people expect that if there be revelation it will come with awe-inspiring, earth-shaking display. For many it is hard to accept as revelation those numerous ones in Moses’ time, in Joseph’s time, and in our own year—those revelations which come to prophets as deep, unassailable impressions settling down on the prophet’s mind and heart as dew from heaven or as the dawn dissipates the darkness of night. “Expecting the spectacular, one may not be fully alerted to the constant flow of revealed communication. I say, in the deepest of humility, but also by the power and force of a burning testimony in my soul, that from the prophet of the Restoration to the prophet of our own year, the communication line is unbroken, the authority is continuous, a light, brilliant and penetrating, continues to shine. The sound of the voice of the Lord is a continuous melody and a thunderous appeal. For nearly a century and a half there has been no interruption” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1977, 114–15; or Ensign, May 1977, 77–78.
JLHPROF Posted October 12, 2016 Author Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I, on the other hand, quite like it and consider it to be true when considered in context: Context matters. And I understand the "not being led astray" doctrine. But in no case can you say that you will be blessed for doing wrong. And less so if you know it to be wrong. Edited October 12, 2016 by JLHPROF
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Context matters. And I understand the "not being led astray" doctrine. But in no case can you say that you will be blessed for doing wrong. And less so if you know it to be wrong. I think the concept is that for some people, the distinction between right and wrong is not always clear-cut -- and that's when they need to rely on divinely called prophets, secure in the knowledge that even if they are misled by the prophet, they will be blessed for their obedience -- but that it's a moot point anyway, because God will not allow His prophet to mislead them. If you say that people can always be counted on to know right from wrong, I'll respond that today, as much as any time in my lifetime, we are seeing that isn't the case -- even among our own people. Edited October 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think the concept is that for some people, the distinction between right and wrong is not always clear-cut -- and that's when they need to rely on divinely called prophets, secure in the knowledge that even if they are misled by the prophet, they will be blessed for their obedience -- but that it's a moot point anyway, because God will not allow His prophet to mislead them. If you say that people can always be counted on to know right from wrong, I'll respond that today, as much as any time in my lifetimes, we are seeing that isn't the case -- even among our own people. So was instituting polygamy the Prophet leading the church in the wrong since a future prophet Wilford Woodruff ended polygamy.
Recommended Posts