Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard "Face to Face" Event: Dealing with doubts

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

Shrugs....I can withhold something from you without hiding it.  In fact, in Court, the judge often withholds evidence from the jury, but the evidence is far from hidden.   

Just a question...kind of a legal one okay???  But do you ultimately believe that this is right and fair.  I am understanding of course, that legal reasons are why things may not be disclosed or hidden.  I just want to know how YOU feel about that.  Thank you in advance.

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

But if a motion in limine is granted, the jury or judge acts as if the evidence is hidden from view, right?  This evidence that is withheld is also hidden from view of the fact finder as it were because it cannot be used in decision making.

If a Motion in Lim ine is granted, the evidence is withheld...not hidden.  We all know where it is.  And...if the judge rules to withhold evidence during the trial (not subject to the Limine) everyone knows it exists and where it is...it is just withhold 

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just a question...kind of a legal one okay???  But do you ultimately believe that this is right and fair.  I am understanding of course, that legal reasons are why things may not be disclosed or hidden.  I just want to know how YOU feel about that.  Thank you in advance.

Do I think not is fair?  That is a vague question.  If I want the evidence to be withheld, and it is, then I think it is very fair.  Smiles.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

I don't know why the church just doesn't own up to hiding or de-emphasizing the troubling aspects of its history.  It is perfectly natural to do so and people and organizations do it all the time.  I don't agree with it and it is wrong in this case, but all too common.  And people will forgive and move on.  Another thing is that those pesky antis will have one less thing to criticize.

[Jeanne]

Just now, UtahTexan said:

Do I think not is fair?  That is a vague question.  If I want the evidence to be withheld, and it is, then I think it is very fair.  Smiles.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

If a Motion in Lim ine is granted, the evidence is withheld...not hidden.  We all know where it is.  And...if the judge rules to withhold evidence during the trial (not subject to the Limine) everyone knows it exists and where it is...it is just withhold 

Does the jury see it?

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Does the jury see it?

define see it.

They often see the documents, but not what is on them.  The docs are not hidden, just withheld

[Pete Ahlstrom]

Just now, UtahTexan said:

define see it.

They often see the documents, but not what is on them.  The docs are not hidden, just withheld

Let's jump to my point.  If a young member or new convert discovers withheld or hidden information, many times this person is shocked and dismayed, regardless if one says it was withheld or hidden.  Withholding is still objectionable in this case.

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for taking the time to reply. 

Often, in a trial, evidence is withheld.  Let me give you an example.  In Texas, in civil trials like car accidents, etc, a person's legal status is withheld.  You cannot ask a plaintiff or defendant or any witness if they are her legally or illegally.  The feeling is, a jury would be pre-disposed against an illegal.  Is the info hidden?  Nope.  Just withheld.

[UtahTexan]

Just now, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Let's jump to my point.  If a young member or new convert discovers withheld or hidden information, many times this person is shocked and dismayed, regardless if one says it was withheld or hidden.  Withholding is still objectionable in this case.

That is your opinion.  It is not a fact.  The Lord has often withheld information for whatever reason.  Just because you dislike it does not make it wrong.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

44 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

That is your opinion.  It is not a fact.  The Lord has often withheld information for whatever reason.  Just because you dislike it does not make it wrong.

Well, if someone refuses to admit the obvious facts, does that change the facts into mere opinion?

JFS had control over his great uncle's journal, the 1832 first vision account was removed and then put back only when it was clear the information would be released. It shows intent to withhold purposefully this information from the public. Plus it was "withheld" all along in the first presidency vault, again to make sure the public did not see it.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You should be working for the church.  Your spin on things is masterful.  Ripping pages out of a journal and putting in a vault means that he was keeping it safe.  And then perhaps one of the most important bits of Mormon history was just forgotten about.  Yeah.  Let's go with that.  People can't possibly distrust that answer.  And if anyone does, we will just call them anti Mormon or nitpicky.  

but again what was Pres. Smith's motivation? do we have a journal entry as to why he did what he did? I found two ideas from him from the period 1922-1946 about the First Vision (i'm sure they are others but I haven't really delved into it but he simply said that the 1838 account is the best so how can you add to it or as he calls it embellish it? for him that account was good enough, when he was writing. I would LOVE to work in the CHL in SLC but that would mean I would have to move to the States and live among you barbarians who say "frosting" and "Flog" I think you mean it's pronounced "flay-gue" because they is an "a" in there???

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

If something is locked away in a vault, can it be said that it was mistakenly put there?  The page(s) was deliberately excised from the diary, no?  Then the excised page(s) was put into the vault.  This sounds like it was deliberate and with intent to me.

are familiar with homographs? words that are spelled the same but have different meanings? like the word "land" as in the ground or to land a plane. Another example is the word "book" which can refer to what you can read or it can mean to book someone, to schedule their appearance. if you were to go to England and say the word "Football" what would they think of? say that word here and do we think of the same thing? no, we don't. But just to look at the word alone we don't know what context it's in, unless we have a Pres. Smith's journal entry or a reason as to why he did what he did then we can't know his motivation. It was obviously put in a vault but why is what we are after? it's obvious "book", "football", "land" have different meanings but what are they depends on how they are being used and in some cases where

[Pete Ahlstrom]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

are familiar with homographs? words that are spelled the same but have different meanings? like the word "land" as in the ground or to land a plane. Another example is the word "book" which can refer to what you can read or it can mean to book someone, to schedule their appearance. if you were to go to England and say the word "Football" what would they think of? say that word here and do we think of the same thing? no, we don't. But just to look at the word alone we don't know what context it's in, unless we have a Pres. Smith's journal entry or a reason as to why he did what he did then we can't know his motivation. It was obviously put in a vault but why is what we are after? it's obvious "book", "football", "land" have different meanings but what are they depends on how they are being used and in some cases where

What would the church be without teams of apologists and members telling us how to disbelieve what we see and read? 

[Duncan]

39 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What would the church be without teams of apologists and members telling us how to disbelieve what we see and read? 

We could start with Pres. Heber C. Kimball

“To meet the difficulties that are coming, it will be necessary for you to have a knowledge of the truth of this work for yourselves. The difficulties will be of such a character that the man or woman who does not possess this personal knowledge or witness will fall. If you have not got the testimony, live right and call upon the Lord and cease not till you obtain it. If you do not you will not stand. …

“The time will come when no man nor woman will be able to endure on borrowed light. Each will have to be guided by the light within himself. …

“If you don’t have it you will not stand; therefore seek for the testimony of Jesus and cleave to it, that when the trying time comes you may not stumble and fall.” (Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967, p. 450.)

bolding mine

Edited November 23, 2017 by Duncan

[UtahTexan]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Well, if someone refuses to admit the obvious facts, does that change the facts into mere opinion?

JFS had control over his great uncle's journal, the 1832 first vision account was removed and then put back only when it was clear the information would be released. It shows intent to withhold purposefully this information from the public. Plus it was "withheld" all along in the first presidency vault, again to make sure the public did not see it.

It is still your opinion.  Refusing to admit a fact you think they should admit is not wrong.  It is a choice that may have reasons behind it.  You know it.  I know it.  You simply dislike it in THIS case, for whatever reason.  Or, you need to find fault.  Also, your choice.

But that does not make the withholding wrong.  

[Calm]

PA, It is better not to try and mindread even if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy and secure about your own conclusions.

People put things in vaults for multiple reasons.  Duncan is simply pointing out we don't have enough info to identify which one or both or something else was the motivation for the FV version to have been removed from the book.

Vaults protect, vaults hide, vaults restrict.

Maybe someone carelessly removed the pages out of curiosity or selfishness, later they were found by or brought to (out of remorse or perhaps a desire to share the 'wealth') someone else who was very upset at the mistreatment, who desired to protect them from further damage and therefore placed them in the vault away from greedy fingers until someone who knew how to properly repair them was found.  They may have been forgotten, someone with the right skills may not have been found, perhaps someone else not knowing the plan to do it right or not caring decided to stick them back in with what was at hand.

Maybe someone read them, was horrified it wasn't word for word, cut them out and intentionally hid them and later after thinking it over realized they had over reacted and returned them...poorly.

I can think of a number of other scenarios because we don't know if it was 1 or more persons involved, the precise timing nor is there any commentary at the time as far as I know.

Anything constructed outside the basic facts is speculation.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Calm

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What would the church be without teams of apologists and members telling us how to disbelieve what we see and read? 

Not sure anyone has told you what you should believe.  I believe anything anyone has done is show you the fallacy of your comments.  However, you are free to believe whatever you need to believe to support what you feel.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 11/21/2017 at 6:24 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard "Face to Face" Event: Dealing with doubts

I listened a podcast, directly contradicting what you are writing.....What i am getting at is Scott today the times are totally different than the day I was baptized (1976 in Bern, Switzerland). Then I was very happy to believe & follow the missionaries.....Good thing that you are not a pessimist person like me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I listened a podcast, directly contradicting what you are writing.....What i am getting at is Scott today the times are totally different than the day I was baptized (1976 in Bern, Switzerland). Then I was very happy to believe & follow the missionaries.....Good thing that you are not a pessimist person like me. 

Well if you heard it on a podcast it must be true.

[Atheist Mormon]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well if you heard it on a podcast it must be true.

Well.....No. FAIR and similar types of apologetics podcasts are out there. It's up to individual to decide.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Well.....No. FAIR and similar types of apologetics podcasts are out there. It's up to individual to decide.

And what I am getting at is that just because something is contradicted by a podcast, that doesn’t mean it is untrue. The restored gospel of Christ has always been opposed and I suppose will continue to be opposed. 

I returned from my mission in 1976. It is still fresh in my memory. The times today are not so different as to render untrue the message I carried to people back then. 

[Atheist Mormon]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And what I am getting at is that just because something is contradicted by a podcast, that doesn’t mean it is untrue. The restored gospel of Christ has always been opposed and I suppose will continue to be opposed. 

I returned from my mission in 1976. It is still fresh in my memory. The times today are not so different as to render untrue the message I carried to people back then. 

 

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And what I am getting at is that just because something is contradicted by a podcast, that doesn’t mean it is untrue. The restored gospel of Christ has always been opposed and I suppose will continue to be opposed. 

I returned from my mission in 1976. It is still fresh in my memory. The times today are not so different as to render untrue the message I carried to people back then. 

It wasn't my intention to be partial to any side. I don't think you are naive enough to think the times are not different. 

[rockpond]

On 11/20/2017 at 3:02 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Great "Face to Face" broadcast last night featuring Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard, two of my favorite people.

Sixteen questions, selected from some 4,000 sent in by young single adults, were answered by the two apostles. Here's a snippet from my news report about the event, specifically summarizing response to a question dealing with doubts:
 

I thought it was interesting how Elder Oaks differentiates between questions and doubts, not the first time I have seen that important distinction drawn.

Also Elder Ballard does not cop to hiding the truth.

You can see a replay of the entire event. Follow the link at lds.org.

Edited to add: Forgot to link to my story. Here it is.

I took a break from the board while spending time with extended family this week so I haven’t read all ten pages but...

I assume the question has been raised as to whether Ballard was either lying or blissfully ignorant when he made the false claim that church leaders have never made any attempt to hide anything from anyone.  There are so many examples to show this is false that it’s shocking he would say it.  Was Ballard simply speaking off the cuff and forgetting about Joseph Smith’s denials of polygamy, post-manifest cover ups, JFS’s hiding of the 1832 first vision account in a safe, and on and on?

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I took a break from the board while spending time with extended family this week so I haven’t read all ten pages but...

I assume the question has been raised as to whether Ballard was either lying or blissfully ignorant when he made the false claim that church leaders have never made any attempt to hide anything from anyone.  There are so many examples to show this is false that it’s shocking he would say it.  Was Ballard simply speaking off the cuff and forgetting about Joseph Smith’s denials of polygamy, post-manifest cover ups, JFS’s hiding of the 1832 first vision account in a safe, and on and on?

was he saying they never have or just currently don't?