Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have a penchant for not reading carefully, rockpond.  As I have stated repeatedly, the shortcuts you envision are irresponsible and impractical.  No institution follows your recommendation of precipitate and ill-considered instant publication.  LDS scholars are not alone in following the wiser route of allowing the full-scale academic process to have its day.  All historians worldwide follow a similarly careful pattern of research and then peer-reviewed publication and wide-ranging discussion, long before popular versions are published.  The caution exhibited by the Brethren has proven to be the best way to absorb the data in true context.

Non-scholars lack patience and understanding of those essential steps.  Non-scholars often sneer at accuracy, and denounce competence as a smoke-screen.  Non-scholars often revel in rumor and innuendo, preferring chaos and warfare over clarity.  As though real life is just another game or "World of Warcraft."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN_5f80cFxM .

I've not suggested anyone take shortcuts.  The scholarship had been done.  It was done long ago.  The delay on the part of the Church or Brethren in incorporating the scholarship into our church publications appears to be either a lack of desire or an intent to control the narrative (until they could no longer control it).  

You haven't established that scholarly work on our church history wasn't available to our leaders until 2012.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Right, but are the epistles not based in revelation even though they are the epistles of men? 

Would it make a difference for you if President Russell M. Nelson said in a BYU talk that the proclamation was received by revelation?  If so, I will try to find the talk.  It was broadcast a week or so ago, it really caught my ear.

"Based in revelation" and being a revelation are two different things.

I'd love to read such a talk by President Nelson.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

You had said that going by anecdotes and ignoring scholarship was a hallmark of anti-Mormons. The problem with that, of course, is that this is the basis for almost all LDS religious instruction (and indeed, religious instruction in most churches). What is the bearing of testimony, if not anecdotes? Take a look at any LDS teaching manual, it's full of anecdotes, not scholarship. In fact it's often quite at odds with scholarship. Not surprising of course, as spirituality is not an academic pursuit. Mormons and anti-Mormons are more alike than different. 

Well, of course, bearing in mind that a testimony is not supposed to be scholarship.  Being anecdotal is perfectly O.K. in the context of inspiration, and one expects church manuals to be faith-promoting (as much for the Methodists as for Mormons).  The two epistemologies are equally valid, but serve very different purposes.  Scholarship and the Holy Spirit are necessarily poles apart, and both are valid modes of knowing.  In the best of all possible worlds, they supplement and clarify each other.  Moreover, God wants it that way.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

There is of course good Mormon scholarship being produced (and if it's good scholarship, that means its critical scholarship, not apologetic or anti-apologetic - and it's being produced by both believers and unbelievers and anything in between), but this material is not driving most of the popular texts that seems to inform Mormons and anti-Mormons. 

I'm not sure I'd describe the gospel topic essays as scholarship, per se. The essays downplay certain evidences because the church, of course, has certain doctrinal commitments. It's an attempt to be more transparent, but there are limits. 

Right again, although good apologetics does not preclude good scholarship, and efforts at  digesting and interpreting the best scholarship for the masses is continuing apace, e.g., Book of Mormon Central https://bookofmormoncentral.org/ .  The Gospel Topics Essays are written by scholars, but edited by several hands -- including General Authorities. They are subject to change or correction as further scholarship becomes available (in one case, I complained of an inaccuracy, and it was immediately changed).

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"Based in revelation" and being a revelation are two different things.

I'd love to read such a talk by President Nelson.

OK I found it.  It was given at the World Wide Devotional for Young Adults on Jan 8, 2017 at the Marriott Center.  There is no PDF, you have to watch the video.  Watch from 47:30-47:50.

Here is what he said:

Quote

Get to know him [Jesus Christ] by studying what he continues to teach to his prophets and apostles. Study The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Study The Living Christ document.  These were both received by revelation.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01?lang=eng&vid=5275057722001

Note that he does not say that it was based in revelation, but that it was received by revelation (not that it really makes a difference).  That is pretty clear testimony coming from the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, who's signature is on the document.

Edited January 17, 2017 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've not suggested anyone take shortcuts.  The scholarship had been done.  It was done long ago.  The delay on the part of the Church or Brethren in incorporating the scholarship into our church publications appears to be either a lack of desire or an intent to control the narrative (until they could no longer control it).  

You haven't established that scholarly work on our church history wasn't available to our leaders until 2012.

I see publication on LDS history and theology from the POV of one who participated directly in it for many years, and still do, by doing research and reporting the results.  Having attended many a meeting of the various learned societies which discussed the issues, I am aware of the very slow process of coming to terms with new discoveries taking place in the 70s and 80s (both in and outside the LDS Archives).  That was barely being absorbed in the midst of the major distraction of the Hoffman murders and forgeries, which were only disclosed in the late 80s.  At that time, only a handful of people were aware of the discovery of a Town Warning Book entry forcing the Joseph Smith Sr family to leave Vermont, and of the original Bill of Costs for the 1826 Bainbridge Trial of Joseph Smith for glass-looking.  I myself made discoveries and did original research and made that info immediately available to archives and other historians.  You seem unaware that the process can be agonizingly slow., even if none of us wants that to be the case.  You claim that it was all done long ago, but it was not.  Not even close.  And 2012 is not a touchstone year by any means.  The process has a timetable of its own, and conclusions cannot responsibly be drawn until the information is available in reasonably complete form.  The Ensign, for example, was already publishing important scholarly conclusions in 1984, and many other items have come out in subsequent years -- when they were ready.  So far as I can tell, the process is not over.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see publication on LDS history and theology from the POV of one who participated directly in it for many years, and still do, by doing research and reporting the results.  Having attended many a meeting of the various learned societies which discussed the issues, I am aware of the very slow process of coming to terms with new discoveries taking place in the 70s and 80s (both in and outside the LDS Archives).  That was barely being absorbed in the midst of the major distraction of the Hoffman murders and forgeries, which were only disclosed in the late 80s.  At that time, only a handful of people were aware of the discovery of a Town Warning Book entry forcing the Joseph Smith Sr family to leave Vermont, and of the original Bill of Costs for the 1826 Bainbridge Trial of Joseph Smith for glass-looking.  I myself made discoveries and did original research and made that info immediately available to archives and other historians.  You seem unaware that the process can be agonizingly slow., even if none of us wants that to be the case.  You claim that it was all done long ago, but it was not.  Not even close.  And 2012 is not a touchstone year by any means.  The process has a timetable of its own, and conclusions cannot responsibly be drawn until the information is available in reasonably complete form.  The Ensign, for example, was already publishing important scholarly conclusions in 1984, and many other items have come out in subsequent years -- when they were ready.  So far as I can tell, the process is not over.

I agree.  The process is not over.  I didn't mean to imply that it was.

But as you have stated,  Much was known, research was done, long before 2012.  The narrative could have been updated earlier to reflect the reality of what was known, what research had been done.  But it wasn't.  And there has been a lot of suffering as a result.

Yes, research is a lifelong process.  But withholding information that was well researched and known is now causing problems as many of us heard it from outside of church sources FIRST and then had to process not only the new information but the feelings of betrayal from those in whom we had placed great trust.

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

OK I found it.  It was given at the World Wide Devotional for Young Adults on Jan 8, 2017 at the Marriott Center.  There is no PDF, you have to watch the video.  Watch from 47:30-47:50.

Here is what he said:

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01?lang=eng&vid=5275057722001

Note that he does not say that it was based in revelation, but that it was received by revelation (not that it really makes a difference).  That is pretty clear testimony coming from the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, who's signature is on the document.

Thank you for pointing that out.

I'd like to understand what he meant by "received by revelation" given the text of the document.  He stands as the lone apostle, among the 15 who authored it, to claim it was received by revelation.  Similarly, he stands as the lone apostle among the 15 to claim that the November policy was also received by revelation.  I would love to understand more about that process.

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thank you for pointing that out.

I'd like to understand what he meant by "received by revelation" given the text of the document.  He stands as the lone apostle, among the 15 who authored it, to claim it was received by revelation.  Similarly, he stands as the lone apostle among the 15 to claim that the November policy was also received by revelation.  I would love to understand more about that process.

No worries.

I personally don't know what else "received by revelation" could possibly mean.  The "context of the document" is no different from most revelatory and prophetic words.  It was "received by revelation" and proclaimed by the prophets - all of them.  I don't know how a prophetic revelation could be proclaimed in any other way but by men.  We have revelation which confirms that, "whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  This proclamation was delivered by the voice of his servants through revelation as affirmed by Nelson and other's below.

President Eyering applied this very verse to the Proclamation:

Quote

 

The title of the proclamation on the family reads: "The Family: A Proclamation to the World—The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Three things about the title are worth our careful reflection. First, the subject: the family. Second, the audience, which is the whole world. And third, those proclaiming it are those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. All this means that the family must be of tremendous importance to us, that whatever the proclamation says could help anyone in the world, and that the proclamation fits the Lord’s promise when he said, "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same"

 

President Packer is another witness that it was revelatory:

Quote

A proclamation in the Church is a significant, major announcement. Very few of them have been issued from the beginning of the Church. They are significant; they are revelatory. At that time, the Brethren issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." It is scripturelike in its power.

Elder Russesl Ballard said:

Quote

The proclamation is a prophetic document...

In the end, it wouldn't matter if every single prophet who signed the document affirmed that it was received by revelation, as they are all men.  What matters more is if you will receive it by revelation.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

No worries.

I personally don't know what else "received by revelation" could possibly mean.  The "context of the document" is no different from most revelatory and prophetic words.  It was "received by revelation" and proclaimed by the prophets - all of them.  I don't know how a prophetic revelation could be proclaimed in any other way but by men.  We have revelation which confirms that, "whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  This proclamation was delivered by the voice of his servants through revelation as affirmed by Nelson and other's below.

President Eyering applied this very verse to the Proclamation:

President Packer is another witness that it was revelatory:

Elder Russesl Ballard said:

In the end, it wouldn't matter if every single prophet who signed the document affirmed that it was received by revelation, as they are all men.  What matters more is if you will receive it by revelation.

I guess I just have this crazy expectation that if a prophet receives revelation from the Lord, he'll communicate it as such (similar to the process Joseph Smith followed).  Otherwise, I tend to take it as inspiration.

I don't know if I need to receive the Proclamation "by revelation" if I am already committed to living by its precepts.

As for D&C 1:38, I disagree with pulling it out of the context in which it was given and making the blanket statement that anything proceeding forth from the apostles is the same as the word of the Lord.  It works great when one wants to add revelatory weight to a particular statement or treatise.  But it is a dangerous proposition when applied broadly... one that I imagine you wouldn't want to hold to quite a few prophetic statements I could copy/paste here.

Edited January 17, 2017 by rockpond
spelling & grammar

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Right, but are the epistles not based in revelation even though they are the epistles of men? 

Would it make a difference for you if President Russell M. Nelson said in a BYU talk that the proclamation was received by revelation?  If so, I will try to find the talk.  It was broadcast a week or so ago, it really caught my ear.

Someone else in this thread (or another one?) already cited Elder Nelson's talk at BYU, and got a response that it was "only" Elder Nelson's opinion, because it was only him saying it and not the rest of the FP&Q12.  In other words, someone didn't think enough hoops had been jumped through yet to give the Proclamation the "imprimatur" needed to call it a revelation. 

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Someone else in this thread (or another one?) already cited Elder Nelson's talk at BYU, and got a response that it was "only" Elder Nelson's opinion, because it was only him saying it and not the rest of the FP&Q12.  In other words, someone didn't think enough hoops had been jumped through yet to give the Proclamation the "imprimatur" needed to call it a revelation. 

I believe that it is thought this way because it wasn't called a revelation to begin with.  Who puts revelations in a church handbook????

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Dude, I don't need personal attacks from you.  If you want to dialogue with me, then knock it off.  I am pretty much done with the personal attacks from some members on this board.  

If you want me to respond to your post, then edit out the personal insult.  If you just have to make those kinds of remarks, then fine.  We are through exchanging ideas.

 

No personal attacks in that post, and this is just another dodge because you cannot answer your own questions. You still haven't done so. Saying you need a class is a personal attack only in your mind.  It is merely a suggestion to improve your arguments, and you are the one  brought up the same old tired argument you had just admitted you could not justify.

Bringing up the same argument after you have admitted that you could not justify it earlier damages credibility. Calling that a personal attack feels to me like you are just playing the victim to get out of arguing the point.

This is not personal.  If someone told me my argument was weak I would try to strengthen it, not play the victim.

 These dialogue boards are not the place for thin skin,  and we are all defending points which are very close to our hearts.

 If I knew what offended you I would edit it out but I don't even know what offended you.

Edited January 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess I just have this crazy expectation that if a prophet receives revelation from the Lord, he'll communicate it as such (similar to the process Joseph Smith followed).  Otherwise, I tend to take it as inspiration.

So revelation is not inspiration 

Interesting. 

If this does not prove that Wittgenstein was  right that all philosophical problems are semantic problems, I don't know what does.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So revelation is not inspiration 

Interesting. 

If this does not prove that Wittgenstein was  right that all philosophical problems are semantic problems, I don't know what does.

Let's jump back to 1995 when President Hinckley introduced the Proclamation.  Emphasis added:

With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation:

THEY felt to warn and forewarn.  THEY issue a proclamation.  No comment of the Lord instructing them or the Lord warning/forewarning.  President Hinckley did not attempt to credit the Lord with what he was about to read.

If there was inspiration it seems that it was to prompt them to warn, forewarn, and proclaim.  But they are clearly claiming the words for themselves.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

As for D&C 1:38, I disagree with pulling it out of the context in which it was given and making the blanket statement that anything proceeding forth from the apostles is the same as the word of the Lord.  It works great when one wants to add revelatory weight to a particular statement or treatise.  But it is a dangerous proposition when applied broadly... one that I imagine you wouldn't want to hold to quite a few prophetic statements I could copy/paste here.

I agree that it should not be applied broadly.  I was simply pointing out that President Eyering applied that scripture specifically to this proclamation.  That is a very specific application endorsed by a member of the 1st presidency.  Again from Eyering:

Quote

...the proclamation fits the Lord’s promise when he said, "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same"

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I guess I just have this crazy expectation that if a prophet receives revelation from the Lord, he'll communicate it as such (similar to the process Joseph Smith followed).  Otherwise, I tend to take it as inspiration.

Again, it doesn't really matter what any man says about revelation, what matters is if you receive it by revelation or not.  Why take their word for it?  My only point is that several authors of the document do indeed call it revelation, prophetic, and equal to the voice of the Lord. You can doubt them, blindly trust them, or find out for yourself. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Someone else in this thread (or another one?) already cited Elder Nelson's talk at BYU, and got a response that it was "only" Elder Nelson's opinion, because it was only him saying it and not the rest of the FP&Q12.  In other words, someone didn't think enough hoops had been jumped through yet to give the Proclamation the "imprimatur" needed to call it a revelation. 

I would respond to that person, "If I had to decide who to trust without the option of personal revelation, I would trust Pres. Nelson's opinion over your opinion any day of the week!"  "Pres Nelson's signature is on the document, where is your's?"  

[Gray]

I suppose the distinction to me is no longer meaningful (I get why it's important to others). Call it revelation, call it inspiration, or something else. The teachings stand or fall on their own merits. But if you place a lot of value on the way that the church is "supposed" to operate according to the rules laid out in the D&C, then the rules have not been followed here. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Gray

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that it should not be applied broadly.  I was simply pointing out that President Eyering applied that scripture specifically to this proclamation.  That is a very specific application endorsed by a member of the 1st presidency.  Again from Eyering:

 

Again, it doesn't really matter what any man says about revelation, what matters is if you receive it by revelation or not.  Why take their word for it?  My only point is that several authors of the document do indeed call it revelation, prophetic, and equal to the voice of the Lord. You can doubt them, blindly trust them, or find out for yourself. 

Several authors of the Proclamation call it revelation?  Pres Packer did but then retracted it.  Now Pres. Eyring has.  That's one.  Anyone else?

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Several authors of the Proclamation call it revelation?  Pres Packer did but then retracted it.  Now Pres. Eyring has.  That's one.  Anyone else?

I haven't been following the thread closely, so I was not aware that Packer retracted that statement. Is there a source for that?  Ballard called it "prophetic", and Eyring called it equal to the voice of the Lord, and Pres. Nelson said it was "received by revelation" just a few days ago. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Anyone else?

Did you miss the most recent quote, from Pres Nelson just 10 days ago?

Quote

Get to know him [Jesus Christ] by studying what he continues to teach to his prophets and apostles. Study The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Study The Living Christ document.  These were both received by revelation.

But why not be honest here? It doesn't really matter how many apostles state that the family proclamation was received by revelation, does it? All 15 of them could say it, and you would still point out to us that its clear endorsement of marriage between a man and woman doesn't necessarily preclude other kinds of relationships. And then we could direct you to recent prophetic statements on that point, and you might eventually concede but then remind us that (in your view!) prophets have been wrong previously before finally pointing out that, even if they're right right now, this is, after all, a church of continuing revelation, and therefore no one, not even the prophets of God, can know what He will do in future.

So, seriously, why quibble over numbers?

Edited January 17, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I haven't been following the thread closely, so I was not aware that Packer retracted that statement. Is there a source for that?  Ballard called it "prophetic", and Eyring called it equal to the voice of the Lord, and Pres. Nelson said it was "received by revelation" just a few days ago. 

 

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Did you miss the most recent quote, from Pres Nelson just 10 days ago?

I get what Pogi was saying now that s/he clarified it.  I wasn't trying to disagree that each of those men made each of those statements.  In the original sentence there were all combined and it wasn't clear.  Thanks.

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

I suppose the distinction to me is no longer meaningful (I get why it's important to others). Call it revelation, call it inspiration, or something else. The teachings stand or fall on their own merits. But if you place a lot of value on the way that the church is "supposed" to operate according to the rules laid out in the D&C, then the rules have not been followed here. 

Sorry if I missed this, has this already been brought up?  What rules are you talking about?  

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But why not be honest here? It doesn't really matter how many apostles state that the family proclamation was received by revelation, does it? All 15 of them could say it, and you would still point out to us that its clear endorsement of marriage between a man and woman doesn't necessarily preclude other kinds of relationships. And then we could direct you to recent prophetic statements on that point, and you might eventually concede but then point out that this is, after all, a church of continuing revelation, and therefore no one, not even the prophets of God, can know what He will do in future.

So, seriously, why quibble over numbers?

This thread isn't about "other kinds of relationships".  I was just discussing the point that was made about revelation.  I'd rather not derail the thread with another discussion of gay marriage.  And besides, you just gave a great "cliff's notes" version anyway.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'd rather not derail the thread with another discussion of gay marriage.

I'd rather not either, but as far as I can tell, the only people who quibble over the 'revelatory' bona fides of the family proclamation are those who strongly do not wish the document to be an accurate expression of the mind and will of the Lord on this specific matter.

Quote

And besides, you just gave a great "cliff's notes" version anyway.

Thanks! Now improved...  

Edited January 17, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Sorry if I missed this, has this already been brought up?  What rules are you talking about?  

 

The old rules where new revelation has to be presented to the body of the church for a sustaining vote. Or even the more recent rules where doctrine is not capital D doctrine unless it is taught frequently and by many.

I guess we're just flying by the seat of our pants now!

But perhaps the definition for revelation is changing as well. In the days of Joseph Smith it was a dramatic, audible and visible. God told you in precise language what He was thinking. In the absence of that sort of revelation, I think there has been some evolving on the issue of what revelation is. Now I think that whatever they decide is right is assumed to be revelation. That seems to be how Elder Bednar thinks of it. Possibly this is a somewhat recent shift, not present in the days when the Proclamation was being drafted, and now retroactively applied by President Nelson. That's one hypothesis, anyway. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Gray