Dissing Boyd K. Packer

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Can we assume that, in the San Fernando valley, they had a post office and delivered mail, including books, to your home.  That your local library participated in interlibrary loan program..... back in the day.  That is, if you get off your lazy rear end, stop whining about being a victim, and actually order the books.

If I hadn't heard of a book, why would I think to order it?

[Kevin Christensen]

Happy Jack said:

Quote

Packer's entire talk is clamping down against truths that aren't "useful". And keep in mind, this talk was given to seminary, institute, religion teachers who control what is taught in the church education system.

And yet my experience of the time was of excitement, discussion, exploration, and bountiful harvest of interesting resources.  And the reason for that is that Packer's talk was not the only voice, and not every seminary or institute teacher reacted in the same way, and the CES was not the only resource available for those who wanted to learn.  The cats, I found, were already out of the bag, and easy enough to find in the stacks.  And good books and good articles kept appearing, despite, and to a significant extent, because of the Great Public Relations Coup of September 93.  Indeed, the Joseph Smith Papers Project, among other things (such as the "Gospel Topics essays" on the LDS website), suggests that the LDS community as a whole since that time has not taken that 1981 talk as a guide to all things academic or pedagogical.

Just Saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Thinking said:

If I hadn't heard of a book, why would I think to order it?

I find this discussion pretty interesting.  It seems like some take issue with the notion that certain information was kept away from the general public.  I see that in a sense because surely anyone could consult the sources to find information.  The problem with that is, why consult sources when the source you trust is telling you something that is not found in those sources, quite often.  "well the Church isnt' about requiring history degrees"...which makes some sense.  But the problem remains, why was the Church advocating the notion that information should not be used?  That when stories of history were used they were used, at times, to give the wrong impression of what happened? 

Why some are afraid to admit the problems that we deal with even today, is beyond me. 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If I hadn't heard of a book, why would I think to order it?

Anyone with a personal interest in a topic takes the time to do a little research.  And even the most basic of research turns up further materials that can be pursued if the interest holds.

If my parents in England in the early 1980s could get their hands on any LDS books they wanted (approved or not approved) then I don't see why anyone else in the Western USA has an excuse.
I grew up with our living room bookshelf containing a full set of the Journal of Discourses, a full set of History of the Church, books by/about all the early Church prophets and apostles, and more.  Most of these my parents scrimped and saved to afford and had to have shipped over from the US.
But learning as much about the gospel as they could was priority 1.

There will always be some materials not available to the general public.  But for everything else, just takes taking an interest.

Edited November 1, 2016 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

There is always a subtle hint of derision when people tell this story.
Lucy Mack dictated her story when she was nearly 70.

She dictated Joseph's history shortly after he was killed (1844-1845) and gave incredible details regarding her young life as well as regarding Joseph's life.  Her memory was as sharp as a tack (read the history if you doubt this.).  

Here's info on this from an earlier discussion:

Quote

 

I would also point out that her book contains an insane amount of detail about people and events in the history of their family that took place in the late 1700s and early 1800s (many that had nothing to do with Joseph).  Just read the first 10 pages.  It is extremely odd that she would have clear recall of dollar amounts, distances between cities, or the price of a bushel of wheat, but forget about that time her son saw the creator of the universe in a nearby grove of trees. 

Especially odd in light of the fact that her objective in writing the book was to "write down every particular [of Joseph's upbringing and visions] as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure"

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67527-first-vision-accounts-getting-detailed-attention-in-ces-devotional/?do=findComment&comment=1209621640

 

And there is this statement by Lucy as well regarding how well she knew details:

Quote

She also stated that she had repeated the details many times to people in order "to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible".   So, it appears that she knew the details well (and it seems she would have been corrected by Joseph if she was reciting them over and over incorrectly, especially regarding something as important as this.)

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67527-first-vision-accounts-getting-detailed-attention-in-ces-devotional/?do=findComment&comment=1209621650

 

So your reasoning is flawed here, IMO.  

 

.

Edited November 1, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

She dictated Joseph's history shortly after he was killed (1844-1845) and gave incredible details regarding her young life as well as regarding Joseph's life.  Her memory was as sharp as a tack (read the history if you doubt this.). 

And yet she disagreed with the accounts that were actually made by Joseph himself, the only person to witness events in the grove or Moroni's visit.

Arguing her second hand 1845 account is more valid than any of Joseph's earlier first hand accounts seems a little strange for a history buff like yourself.
 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And yet she disagreed with the accounts that were actually made by Joseph himself, the only person to witness events in the grove or Moroni's visit.

Arguing her second hand 1845 account is more valid than any of Joseph's earlier first hand accounts seems a little strange for a history buff like yourself.
 

That's not what I'm doing here.  I was just stating that the first vision account (in the sacred grove) was not mentioned in Lucy Mack Smith's first edition of her history of Joseph Smith.  Where did I state (or agure) that her account was more valid?  

(My post was in response to Kevin Christensen listing Lucy's history with the books that had this account in it and I was clarifying that it not included in the 1st edition of her history.)

I do think that trying to state that Lucy's memory was faulty is not accurate though.  I have no idea why she left out the account, but it's true that she did.  It's also true that Brigham Young ordered the members to destroy their copies of her 1st edition of Joseph's history. 

.

Edited November 1, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

That's not what I'm doing here.  I was just stating that the first vision account (in the sacred grove) was not mentioned in Lucy Mack Smith's first edition of her history of Joseph Smith.  Where did I state (or agure) that her account was more valid? 

That's always the implication when Brigham Young's complaints about her account are brought up.  The implication that Brigham created the historical narrative according to his own machinations.  You must have witnessed that sideways accusation in all your reading.
Part of the all too common  "blame Brigham" game which I consider revisionist history.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's always the implication when Brigham Young's complaints about her account are brought up.  The implication that Brigham created the historical narrative according to his own machinations.  You must have witnessed that sideways accusation in all your reading.
Part of the all too common  "blame Brigham" game which I consider revisionist history.

I never said that, I'm just giving the facts.  People can look at them (and research more on the topic) and make up their own mind regarding what they think happened. 

Here's more info and the statement from Brigham Young:

Quote

 

After its publication, Brigham Young declared the book to be a "tissue of lies" and wanted corrections made.

 In the Millennial Star in 1855, he said,

"There are many mistakes in the work… I have had a written copy of those sketches in my possession for several years, and it contains much of the history of the Prophet Joseph. Should it ever be deemed best to publish these sketches, it will not be done until after they are carefully corrected."

In 1865, Young ordered the church members to have their copies destroyed. There was no "corrected" version until the church published a 1901 serialization and 1902 book, which were done under the direction of Joseph F. Smith, Lucy’s grandson.

 

 

[cdowis]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not what I'm doing here.  I was just stating that the first vision account (in the sacred grove) was not mentioned in Lucy Mack Smith's first edition of her history of Joseph Smith.

snip

.  I have no idea why she left out the account, but it's true that she did.  It's also true that Brigham Young ordered the members to destroy their copies of her 1st edition of Joseph's history. 

.

To me she is obviously relating the First Vision account, but some the details seem to be conflated with the account of the angel Moroni.  It is not "missing" at all. And BY rightfully removed that confused account from the general narrative.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, cdowis said:

To me she is obviously relating the First Vision account, but some the details seem to be conflated with the account of the angel Moroni.

You have no idea that she "conflated" the two accounts.  And why would you say she "obviously" was relating the 1st vision account?  It's not obvious at all..  She only relates the story of the angel appearing in Joseph's bedroom.  She does not mention the sacred grove, or that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph.  (Not even close to being the same, other than the reasons she gave for Joseph's pondering).  If helps you to make that huge jump, go ahead and make it, I guess.  But, do you ever take off your generic apologist hat and just think for yourself with some logical thinking and good research skills?  

Lucy's account is below for anyone wanting to read it:

Quote

About this The 3 harvest time had now arrived since we  opened our new farm and all the our sons were actively  employed in assisting their Father to cut down the grain  and storing it away in order, for winter One evening  we were sitting till quite late conversing upon the  subject of the diversity of churches that had risen up  in the world and the many thousand opinions in existence as to the truths contained in scripture  Joseph who never said many words upon any subject  but always seemed to reflect more deeply than common persons of his age upon everything of a religious  nature This After we ceased conversation he went to  bed <and was pondering in his mind which of the churches were the true one.> an but he had not laid there long till <he saw> a bright  <light> entered the room where he lay he looked up and  saw an angel of the Lord stood <standing> by him The angel spoke  I perceive that you are enquiring in your mind which is  the true church there is not a true church on Earth No  not one Nor <and> has not been since Peter took the Keys <of the Melchesidec priesthood after the order of God> into the  Kingdom of Heaven the churches that are now upon the Earth are all man made churches.

 

Edited November 1, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You have no idea that she "conflated" the two accounts.  And why would you say she "obviously" was relating the 1st vision account?  It's not obvious at all..  She only relates the story of the angel appearing in Joseph's bedroom.  She does not mention the sacred grove, or that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph.  (Not even close to being the same other than the reasons she gave for Joseph praying).  But if helps you to make that huge jump, go ahead and make it.  But, do you ever take off your generic apologist hat and just think for yourself with some logical thinking and good research skills?

And once again, the implication is made.
That the First Vision official account is a fabrication.

And once again, based on a second hand account from an old woman who didn't witness the event.
Instead of the first hand witness.

Bottom line:
- if Lucy's account is accurate, then Joseph blatantly lied, and her account is still false because the visions were fabricated.
- if Lucy's account is incorrect, that still allows for the visions to have occurred according to Joseph's history.

In other words, there is no scenario where Lucy's account can be the historically accurate one.  How's that for logic?

Edited November 1, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

Can we assume that, in the San Fernando valley, they had a post office and delivered mail, including books, to your home.  That your local library participated in interlibrary loan program..... back in the day.  That is, if you get off your lazy rear end, stop whining about being a victim, and actually order the books.

 

In my years of growing up in the church, I had never even thought to search out books about the church. Now I wish I had. So you are right about the not searching on your own, deal. 

But you've got to admit the curriculum people portrayed the church in a different light, often. I guess people have to search for the meat. Really never heard this concept in my growing up years. Just did as I was taught...got married in the temple, had children, held callings etc. 

I did read a few books at the Deseret Bookstore, funny how a few books that were at this church owned bookstore discontinued some books, such as "In Sacred Loneliness" and "Mormon Enigma".

Edited November 1, 2016 by Tacenda

[ALarson]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

And once again, the implication is made.
That the First Vision official account is a fabrication.

Good grief.  I'm just stating the facts.  Do you dispute any of these facts or do want to just continue making assumptions here?   I have no idea why Lucy did not mention or relate a first vision account in her history of Joseph Smith. But, the fact remains that she did not.

 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, ALarson said:

 I have no idea why Lucy did not mention or relate a first vision account in her history of Joseph Smith. But, the fact remains that she did not.

 

And as my edit above describes, her account is clearly wrong, logically speaking.

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Good grief.  I'm just stating the facts.  Do you dispute any of these facts or do want to just continue making assumptions here?   I have no idea why Lucy did not mention or relate a first vision account in her history of Joseph Smith. But, the fact remains that she did not.

 

In the spirit of the BKP talk, how is this fact useful?

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I grew up with our living room bookshelf containing a full set of the Journal of Discourses, a full set of History of the Church, books by/about all the early Church prophets and apostles, and more.  Most of these my parents scrimped and saved to afford and had to have shipped over from the US.

My parents didn't own the JD or HC. We did have a copy of A Marvelous Work and a Wonder.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And as my edit above describes, her account is clearly wrong, logically speaking.

No, the only thing that is clear is that Lucy gave no version of the 1st vision in her history of Joseph (1st edition) and also that there are many different versions of the first vision (related or recorded by others, Joseph included).

But that Lucy's account is "clearly wrong" is just your opinion.  Like I said, people need to research all available material on this topic and form their own opinion (just as you obviously have  )

.

Edited November 1, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Thinking said:

My parents didn't own the JD or HC. We did have a copy of A Marvelous Work and a Wonder.

As I said, my parents were passionate about gospel study, so they put forth the effort.
My Father's prize possession was "Words of Joseph Smith" by Ehat and Cook, the best forerunner to the Joseph Smith papers.
He carried it with his scriptures to Church.  (Hard to find book these days).

Bottom line I think is that most members, but not all as this board proves every day, just don't care enough to study the gospel unless it's the items from the manuals or Church magazines.  But there are still many members that do.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the spirit of the BKP talk, how is this fact useful?

To some it's very telling and to others, not so much (another thing that's obvious here).  It's just another piece to consider when looking at that topic (first vision accounts).

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

And yet, here is what Pres. Hinckley responded with when asked in an interview about our belief that God was once a man and that men can become Gods:

"I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it."

 

I suppose it all depends on how you understand "partake in the divine nature." The New English Bible says, "Through this might and splendor he has given us his promises, great beyond all price, and through them you may escape the corruption with which lust has infected the world, and come to share in the very being of God."

I would like to ask President Hinckley what he meant to say, but unfortunately he is not longer available. Some day, though. In the meantime, I'm going with the explicit statement of the 1909 First Presidency because it aligns with what the scriptures, official Church publications, and other prophets have said.

 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

To some it's very telling and to others, not so much (another thing that's obvious here).  It's just another piece to consider when looking at that topic (first vision accounts).

Telling what? So, it is a fact she said it. How is that fact useful?  Useful to debunk Joseph's testimony? Is it a fact that her statement is accurate?

Edited November 1, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

Why you want to continually blame the victims here?  You say that the victims should have studied more.  However, the church continually back then and today has created a boogey man of those lying anti-mormon sources that actually have the whole truth.  So, what are members to do when the church tells them that they should only read church approved sources when said sources don't tell the entire story?  I would think with the recent amnesty change down at BYU, there would be somewhat of a softening of the victim blaming narrative.  The fact of the matter is that the church punished those who taught or disclosed the truths that were not useful.  I saw it first hand with Palmer.  I saw it in my ward growing up where the 70's and an Apostle in the ward continually told us to only trust the church and not to listen to those antis like the Tanners, who had the whole truth, incidentally, and not the whitewashed version.  So, I think it's disingenuous to blame those today who may feel betrayed at trusting the whitewashed version.

You know its the denials of what the church did and does, and victim blaming, and the continual denials of the victim blaming that make people angry.  The entire history itself merely shows that the whitewashed heroes are mortals like the rest of us.  However, denying what happened and then blaming the victim for actually believing the PR laden fluff needs to change.

I'm pointing out that I was there in Salt Lake growing up through 1982, and came back often, and that I, and therefore everyone else had choices regarding which voices to hear and which sources to seek out as the best books, and my choices had consequences, one of which happens to be that I'm not a victim of other people's choices and ideological preferences, but a survivor.  Is it better to go through life with a Victim Mentality or a Survivor Mentality?  Do I strive find others to blame or do I decide simply to get on with life?

Since the church is an assembly of people, not just one, there is, by definition more than one voice to consider.  Since the CES is an institutional arm of the Church, not the body, head, eyes, ears, hair or toes of the church, that is, CES is something the church has but not what the church is, I found that for me, and many like me, that Packer's talk was one voice to consider among many. 

I notice that the D&C does not say, "seek out of only approved books, approved thoughts."  Since the D&C does not have anything like that, I think that raises the real possibilities for members when they run across someone who claims that we should only seek out approved books and approved thoughts.

Every ward I have attended whether in Utah, England, Missouri, California, Washington, Idaho, Kansas, or Pennsylvania or elsewhere has included a range of voices.  Very conservative and narrow, as well as open and inquisitive.  I find that the Myers Briggs Type Indicator and the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth provide helpful tools for dealing with and appreciating the variety.  So when I read an ESTJ profile, I immediately saw something very relevant to help me see whether Elder Packer or Elder Benson were speaking as "The Monolithic Voice of the Church" or as representatives of a specific personality type, one of 16, all of which offer "Gifts differing" which do compare in interesting ways with the lists of spiritual gifts in the scriptures.

http://typelogic.com/estj.html

My own type is INFP, the direct opposite.

And when I later read the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth (linked on my proflle for the curious, I could also find another way to sort the different voices I will inevitably hear in the church, since these are human patterns, not Mormon peculiarities, I am less likely to confuse a manifestation of a Position of Cognitive and Ethical Growth with the Only True Thoughts from the Big Book of What to Think.

I did read The Tanners Changing World of Mormonism back in the late 80s, after I had prepared myself by reading lots of other stuff in advance, and I have to say, they did not have the whole truth, but rather, their own ideologically driven version.  They are rather famous for their creative use of ellipsis [...] for leaving out texts inconvenient for the impressions they strive to generate.  Yes they did make some material available, and generate discussions that went beyond their abilities and efforts and agendas, but they neither had, nor provided the "whole truth."  If you listen to Peter Novick's Sunstone talk from the 1980s (another voice) you should see why.

I do notice the ideological work done by you comparing what I have been saying policies with campus rape at BYU. And I quite deliberately use Othello as alternative ideological framing.  And since Othello is about faith, or the lack thereof, I think it is worth at least considering as an alternative model.  One of my friends saw this pattern: " 1. Weak Faith. 2. Manipulation and Deception. 3. The Angst of "Betrayal." 4. Sympathizing with and Validating "Pain." (Mormon Stories?) 5. Failure to trust. 6. Lack of Patience. 7. Complete Lack of Self-reflection. 8. Passing Judgement. 9. The Critical Decision. 10. Ongoing Self-justification." 

I've also been involved with addiction recovery for 13 years, and have consequently become sensitive to the importance of what 12 Step programs see as "dismantling the grievance story."   In a recent essay in Square Two, I noted that the difference between Alma and Laman and Lemuel is that Alma accepts personal responsibility for his bad choices and repents while Laman and Lemuel proclaim their victimhood and blame other people.  It's not the angel that made the difference, but the honest self-reflection.  I see the same pattern played out in the people see in recovery groups.  Those who succeed work on themselves and those who struggle or stop coming blame other people.

I also read Rene Girard's I See Satan Fall Like Lightning over 10 years ago and got a shock from which I have never recovered in passages like this: " "The most powerful anti-Christian movement is the one that takes over and radicalizes concern for the victims in order to paganize it. The powers and principalities ... reproach Christianity for not defending victims with enough ardor. In Christian history, they see nothing but persecutions, acts of oppression, inquisitions." (page 180)

If you understood any of that, you should see that I am not, nor have I ever been trying to blame victims.  I'm trying to awaken the innocent to the existence of beneficial resources, available choices, options, interpretation, insights, wisdom, hope, light expansion of the soul, enlargement of the mind, peace, understanding, grace, and enlightenment.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Thinking]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Bottom line I think is that most members, but not all as this board proves every day, just don't care enough to study the gospel unless it's the items from the manuals or Church magazines.  But there are still many members that do.

Or those members trust admonitions like this one.

Quote

It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text. Members are encouraged to turn to the scriptures that have been suggested for further study of the doctrine.

 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Telling what? Useful to debunk Joseph's testimony? So, it is a fact she said it. How is that fact useful?

I think it's "telling" in the same way that some wonder why Brigham Young never specifically spoke publicly about the first vision (that is recorded).  Iirc, he spoke in generalities about Joseph's spiritual experiences, but not the first vision.  It seems that it (first vision account) was not that familiar to church members until years later (again, I'm going from memory here) and it wasn't stressed much in the early years of the church.  What that means I guess is up for interpretation by each individual person.