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

[Exiled]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Those are all fair and interesting questions.  But the fact is that it was in his safe.  That means it was hidden.  Period.  What Ballard said was wrong.  And this is only one example of many where the church has hidden things.

You can go directly to the gospel topics essays on LDS.org and see another example of where the church has hidden things:  Polygamy.  The essays admit that Joseph Smith tried to hide the practice.  Additionally, the essays admit that the Brethren tried to hide post-manifesto polygamy.

Ballard's statement is made even more ridiculous given Ballard's "gone are the days..." comment to CES instructors last year.

I wonder why E. Ballard said what he said about not hiding history at the recent young adult event? Do you think he is in denial? Was it intentional? Maybe it was said out of frustration? In any event it sure can't be backed up

[Duncan]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Those are all fair and interesting questions.  But the fact is that it was in his safe.  That means it was hidden.  Period.  What Ballard said was wrong.  And this is only one example of many where the church has hidden things.

You can go directly to the gospel topics essays on LDS.org and see another example of where the church has hidden things:  Polygamy.  The essays admit that Joseph Smith tried to hide the practice.  Additionally, the essays admit that the Brethren tried to hide post-manifesto polygamy.

Ballard's statement is made even more ridiculous given Ballard's "gone are the days..." comment to CES instructors last year.

to be fair it was in the Smith family safe, who knows who started putting stuff in it. Maybe he and others of the Smith family shared it with others, we just don't know.

correct me if I am wrong but the only statement that I see about concealment is this phrase "The practice was introduced carefully and incrementally, and participants vowed to keep their participation confidential, anticipating a time when husbands and wives could acknowledge one another publicly"

I see what you're saying but I don't know, keeping something confidential from someone else is that evidence the Church kept it hidden from everybody? 

[Oliblish]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I don't know, do we have all the evidence? It would be nice to see some diary entries or something along those lines. if Pres. Smith was hiding it why did he show it to anyone at all? I just looked at Levi Edgar Young's papers at the CHL and they say portions are closed to access, which means if you know the date you can ask them to see if he wrote anything about this exchange of information or what all happened. In saying "hiding" that shows deliberate intent in concealment, which there is no evidence of that, unless you can get the diary entries of Pres. Smith. Sometimes people put things in a safe for safe keeping, especially something from 1832.I haven't checked but I am going to assume Pres. Smith's diaries are restricted.

There is a Dialogue article from 2014 that goes over this history in more detail.  I found a link to it here:

http://www.jamesjudithmcconkie.com/uploads/3/8/0/8/38081735/dialogue_larson_another_look_at_joseph_smith's_first_vision_(2).pdf

Here is a portion:

Quote

Some time during the 1940s or early 1950s, Joseph Fielding Smith
showed Levi Edgar Young (who was then the senior president of the
First Council of the Seventy) this 1832 account of the First Vision.
LaMar Petersen, an organist and music teacher by profession but
an amateur Mormon historian by avocation, had a meeting with
Young on February 3, 1953, and took the following notes:
A list of 5 questions was presented. Bro. Young indicated some
surprise at the nature of the questions but said he heartily approved
of them being asked. Said they were important, fundamental,
were being asked more by members of the Church, and should be
asked. Said the Church should have a committee available where
answers to such questions could be obtained. He has quit going
down with his own questions to Brother Joseph Fielding (Smith)
because he was laughed at and put off.
His curiosity was excited when reading in Roberts’ Doc. History
reference to “documents from which these writings were
compiled.” Asked to see them. TOLD TO GET HIGHER PERMISSION.
Obtained that permission. Examined documents. Written, he
thought, about 1837 or 1838. Was told NOT TO COPY OR TELL

WHAT THEY CONTAINED. Said it was a “STRANGE” account of the
First Vision. Was put back in vault. REMAINS UNUSED, UNKNOWN.

Thirty-four years later, Petersen wrote his memories of this
same episode:
The most noteworthy [meetings with LDS General Authorities]
were six sessions in which my wife and I spent with Levi Edgar
Young in 1952. He was forthright in discussing Mormon problems
in history and theology, but always in loyal church terms. He told
us that he had been defended before the First Presidency by his
“buffers”—Apostles [Joseph F.] Merrill, [Charles A.] Callis, and
[John A.] Widtsoe. He told us of a “strange account” (Young’s
own term) of the First Vision, which he thought was written in
Joseph’s own hand and which had been concealed for 120 years
in a locked vault. He declined to tell us details, but stated that it
did not agree entirely with the official version. Jesus was the center
of the vision, but God was not mentioned. I respected Young’s
wish that the information be withheld until after his death.
 Even though Levi Edgar Young told LaMar Petersen that he
had read the “strange account” of the First Vision, he had been
instructed “not to copy or tell what they contained,” and accordingly
did not divulge the contents to anyone. However, while not
providing any detailed information about this “strange account”
of the First Vision, Young did disclose that it described a vision
of only Jesus, without any mention of God. Petersen kept this
information confidential until Young’s death in December 1963.
In early 1964, Petersen told Jerald and Sandra Tanner about this
“strange account” of the First Vision. They wrote to Joseph Fielding
Smith, asking for an opportunity to see this early account.
Joseph Fielding Smith did not know exactly what Levi Edgar
Young had told LaMar Petersen, and he refused to let the Tanners
see the 1832 history. However, about this same time Joseph
Fielding Smith relinquished the three leaves of the excised 1832
history from his private custody within his office safe and transferred
it back to the regular Church Historian’s collection. Then
he authorized Earl E. Olson, his Assistant Church Historian, to
show the newly available leaves to Paul R. Cheesman, a BYU
graduate student working on his thesis. Cheesman explained that
Olson demonstrated how the pages “matched with [the] edge of
the journal to prove location” in the Joseph Smith letterbook.
As the result of this assistance, Cheesman prepared a typescript
in his 1965 BYU master’s thesis on Joseph Smith’s visions.
Later that same year Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner were the
first to publish the text of the 1832 account, using Cheesman’s
imperfect transcript. Four years later Dean C. Jessee published
his important article in Brigham Young University Studies, with an
accurate transcript of the text.

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Oliblish
typo

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

to be fair it was in the Smith family safe, who knows who started putting stuff in it. Maybe he and others of the Smith family shared it with others, we just don't know.

correct me if I am wrong but the only statement that I see about concealment is this phrase "The practice was introduced carefully and incrementally, and participants vowed to keep their participation confidential, anticipating a time when husbands and wives could acknowledge one another publicly"

I see what you're saying but I don't know, keeping something confidential from someone else is that evidence the Church kept it hidden from everybody? 

The gospel topic essay on polygamy acknowledges that Joseph Smith publicly denied his practice of it.  Read the essay.  If he denied his practice of it, that is hiding it.  

Post-manifesto polygamy was also hidden.  The essay explains that as well. 

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I wonder why E. Ballard said what he said about not hiding history at the recent young adult event? Do you think he is in denial? Was it intentional? Maybe it was said out of frustration? In any event it sure can't be backed up

I don’t know what was going through his mind.  What Ballard said was false.  So, it was either a lie (intentional) or he is just ignorant of the facts.  But Oaks who was seated next to him is not ignorant of the fact that the church leaders have hidden things.  Oaks could have corrected him. 

[CV75]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don’t know what was going through his mind.  What Ballard said was false.  So, it was either a lie (intentional) or he is just ignorant of the facts.  But Oaks who was seated next to him is not ignorant of the fact that the church leaders have hidden things.  Oaks could have corrected him. 

Not false at all. Elder Ballard was speaking in the present tense. Are you lying about that fact, or just ignorant of it?

Edited November 28, 2017 by CV75

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not false at all. Elder Ballard was speaking in the present tense. Are you lying about that fact, or just ignorant of it?

You are suggesting that when Ballard stated:  “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”  That he was actually saying that only the leaders right now aren’t hiding anything and that he was not speaking of any past leaders?

If that is truly what he meant, it was a very odd way to say it.  So, yes, I’ll have to claim ignorance. 

[rongo]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not false at all. Elder Ballard was speaking in the present tense. Are you lying about that fact, or just ignorant of it?

That sounds very Clintonian "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is." 

Please, no defenses claiming that Brethren speak in the present tense but specifically don't address the past --- when addressing the question of whether the Church has hidden or is still hiding things. That's cringey . . . 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

That sounds very Clintonian "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is." 

Please, no defenses claiming that Brethren speak in the present tense but specifically don't address the past --- when addressing the question of whether the Church has hidden or is still hiding things. That's cringey . . . 

Further, Ballard notes the history of the church and leaders “from the beginning” in the same sentence in which he made the claim.

[ttribe]

I find the hairsplitting between the concepts of "hiding" information and "withholding" information to be, at best, misguided.  While this is not a legal issue, I think we can look there for some guidance on why people who later discover these issues would feel betrayed.  The fact is, under most fraud statutes, the notion of withholding material information (or making a material omission of fact) can be the basis for a fraud case.  In layman's terms, materiality is generally considered any information which would cause a reasonable person to make a decision other than the one they made, had they known said information.  Once again, the notion of intent would come into play, as well. 

All this hand waving of saying Church leadership has no duty to teach the history, only the doctrine, ignores the fact that there are very significant truth claims made by the Church based on historical events (e.g. the First Vision).  The foundational matters must be resolved if someone is to be able to accept the doctrine.  In other words, if you can't establish credibility for the First Vision, for example, why should I believe God actually chose Joseph Smith to be a Prophet and, by extension, that our current leaders are called and duly ordained of God under a chain of unbroken succession?

A defense on these issues needs to get past trying to explain why no one (allegedly) did anything wrong in "withholding" information from the general membership of the Church, and focus back on establishing what the true narrative actually is.  If this really is God's Church, established directly by Him in the Latter-days, then the truth should be able to stand on its own and any efforts to withhold all the facts only serve to damage that truth.

Edited November 28, 2017 by ttribe

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You are suggesting that when Ballard stated:  “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”  That he was actually saying that only the leaders right now aren’t hiding anything and that he was not speaking of any past leaders?

If that is truly what he meant, it was a very odd way to say it.  So, yes, I’ll have to claim ignorance. 

I see. He was speaking in the present tense when he said, “Just trust us, wherever you are in the world, and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the Church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that; that’s the Lord’s way.”

As far as the line you quoted, I think the same sentiment applies to the First Vision accounts he was referring to, that there was no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide the truth from, or to not tell the truth to, anybody. For example, the canonized First Vision account is true and if that has been (and still is) the primary reference point for the truth of what happened and the message it represents, no harm / no foul.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

That sounds very Clintonian "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is." 

Please, no defenses claiming that Brethren speak in the present tense but specifically don't address the past --- when addressing the question of whether the Church has hidden or is still hiding things. That's cringey . . . 

I don't think you are following the text of the article. As I noted above, he spoke in the present tense on the point of transparency, and with regards to the past, on the truthfulness of the leaders in focusing on and putting forth the canonized First Vision account as the key reference for what is taught.

[CA Steve]

I remember when my mom found a few magazines under my brother's mattress and how angry she was until he explained he wasn't hiding them so much as withholding them. 

[clarkgoble]

I think people are conflating several issues.

1. Were all documents made available? Of course not and despite making many more documents available many are still not available. I don't think that's what they're addressing.

2. Basic historical events. This seems to be what he's talking about. Nothing was hidden about the first vision and while one account was in a safe for a few decades others were not. Further despite claims of some this document doesn't change the basic history. Is Rough Stone Rolling's account of the First Vision substantially different? Not at all.

3. Doctrinal issues. This is the idea that the Church ought teach correct doctrine. There's an inherent tension between history (where individuals often don't understand doctrine) and more systematic theology or understanding. Further one has to acknowledge that people themselves can be honest yet disagree on doctrine. (Don't we do that here?)

While I think a case could be made for McConkie and Adam/God overall I think the Church has been pretty good trying to balance things. Do I prefer the openness of today to the insecurity of say the 1960's through early 1980's? Sure. But I don't think that means they're really hiding things. Even during the height of McConkie's complaints on evolution, Adam/God and so forth it was pretty easy to walk into a Deseret Books and find stuff on all this.

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think people are conflating several issues.

1. Were all documents made available? Of course not and despite making many more documents available many are still not available. I don't think that's what they're addressing.

2. Basic historical events. This seems to be what he's talking about. Nothing was hidden about the first vision and while one account was in a safe for a few decades others were not. Further despite claims of some this document doesn't change the basic history. Is Rough Stone Rolling's account of the First Vision substantially different? Not at all.

3. Doctrinal issues. This is the idea that the Church ought teach correct doctrine. There's an inherent tension between history (where individuals often don't understand doctrine) and more systematic theology or understanding. Further one has to acknowledge that people themselves can be honest yet disagree on doctrine. (Don't we do that here?)

While I think a case could be made for McConkie and Adam/God overall I think the Church has been pretty good trying to balance things. Do I prefer the openness of today to the insecurity of say the 1960's through early 1980's? Sure. But I don't think that means they're really hiding things. Even during the height of McConkie's complaints on evolution, Adam/God and so forth it was pretty easy to walk into a Deseret Books and find stuff on all this.

On #2... How can you say "nothing was hidden about the first vision"?  Joseph's first written account was hidden until the 1960's and it differs from later accounts.

#3... The hidden first vision account speaks directly to our doctrine.  Regardless, Ballard didn't say "doctrine" he said "anything".

[ttribe]

43 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

2. Basic historical events. This seems to be what he's talking about. Nothing was hidden about the first vision and while one account was in a safe for a few decades others were not. Further despite claims of some this document doesn't change the basic history. Is Rough Stone Rolling's account of the First Vision substantially different? Not at all.

Isn't that in the eye of the beholder?  What you don't consider "substantially different," others may consider a deal-breaker.

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

On #2... How can you say "nothing was hidden about the first vision"?  Joseph's first written account was hidden until the 1960's and it differs from later accounts.

#3... The hidden first vision account speaks directly to our doctrine.  Regardless, Ballard didn't say "doctrine" he said "anything".

Again you're conflating the event with the texts. My point is we have to keep them separate. With regards to our beliefs about the First Vision what has changed? This is really just how we respond to critics trying to undermine the truth we've been teaching since Joseph. That's why I made a point of saying we have to keep the issues clear and separated. Some people, perhaps for completely understandable reasons since they think we're wrong, want to muddle them all.

To Ballard, he said "truth." Clearly he's talking about the basic truths of the gospel - events and doctrine. The "anything" clearly is talking about those truths. At worse you can say he ought to have been clearer.

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Isn't that in the eye of the beholder?  What you don't consider "substantially different," others may consider a deal-breaker.

Yes. So?

 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes. So?

 

Uhhh, well, just thought we'd clarify that your statement made as if it was a fact, should actually be read as an opinion.  

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again you're conflating the event with the texts. My point is we have to keep them separate. With regards to our beliefs about the First Vision what has changed? This is really just how we respond to critics trying to undermine the truth we've been teaching since Joseph. That's why I made a point of saying we have to keep the issues clear and separated. Some people, perhaps for completely understandable reasons since they think we're wrong, want to muddle them all.

To Ballard, he said "truth." Clearly he's talking about the basic truths of the gospel - events and doctrine. The "anything" clearly is talking about those truths. At worse you can say he ought to have been clearer.

Yes. So?

 

Okay... let's say that what he meant was that no "truths" have ever been hidden.  The 1832 FV account was a truth and it was hidden.  Polygamy was a truth and it was hidden.  Post-manifesto polygamy was a truth and it was hidden.  Packer and Oaks have both taught that not all truths need to be communicated and that it isn't the church's job to share everything.

You can say that Ballard should have been clearer but I am not seeing how any clarity make his statement less false.

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay... let's say that what he meant was that no "truths" have ever been hidden.  The 1832 FV account was a truth and it was hidden.  Polygamy was a truth and it was hidden.  Post-manifesto polygamy was a truth and it was hidden.  Packer and Oaks have both taught that not all truths need to be communicated and that it isn't the church's job to share everything.

You can say that Ballard should have been clearer but I am not seeing how any clarity make his statement less false.

Come on. It's very clear from context what he means. You're now talking about truth as entailing everything. What he's talking about is being honest. This is explicit in the opening statement.

Again I get why critics want to make this move so they can portray them as dishonest which lets them criticize more. But let's have at least a little charity of interpretation. Do I think they answered the question well? No. I think it was clumsy. Hopefully as they do more of these things they'll get better at it. But I think all this nitpicking is kind of silly.

27 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Uhhh, well, just thought we'd clarify that your statement made as if it was a fact, should actually be read as an opinion.  

Well since we're talking about honesty from the church, isn't it their interpretation and opinion that matters?

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well since we're talking about honesty from the church, isn't it their interpretation and opinion that matters?

Whose interpretation? The Church's?  I'm not sure anyone's interpretation doesn't matter at all, so I'm confused as to your question.

Edited November 28, 2017 by ttribe

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Whose interpretation? The Church's?  I'm not sure anyone's interpretation doesn't matter at all, so I'm confused as to your question.

You raised as a problem that interpretations of history are opinion in reference to whether what the Church taught about the First Vision in the 60's was different from Rough Stone Rolling. I took you to be making an objection. I agreed that it was an opinion but that noted we were talking about what the Church teaches as honest. In other words if these texts don't change the mainstream view of the event by believers, why does it matter? It now sounds like you're agreeing with me that it doesn't matter.

I certainly don't dispute critics disagree. But that was true way back with No Man Knows My History and so-called "exposes" from the 19th century. I assume you'd agree I can have a differing opinion yet be honest in my opinion. Maybe not. It's not clear what your objection is.

Edited November 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Come on. It's very clear from context what he means. You're now talking about truth as entailing everything. What he's talking about is being honest. This is explicit in the opening statement.

Again I get why critics want to make this move so they can portray them as dishonest which lets them criticize more. But let's have at least a little charity of interpretation. Do I think they answered the question well? No. I think it was clumsy. Hopefully as they do more of these things they'll get better at it. But I think all this nitpicking is kind of silly.

Which opening statement makes it clear that he is talking about being honest?  Can you quote that?

I am not trying to come at this as a critic.  I am coming at this as a member who cannot comprehend how he made that statement.  In the statement, which was not specifically an answer to a question (as I understand it - I don't have the full transcript yet), Ballard first claims knowledge of the history of the church and the leaders and then he claims that there has been no attempt to hide anything from anybody.  You are attempt to severely limit what he said.  Why?

[ttribe]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You raised as a problem that interpretations of history are opinion in reference to whether what the Church taught about the First Vision in the 60's was different from Rough Stone Rolling. I took you to be making an objection. I agreed that it was an opinion but that noted we were talking about what the Church teaches as honest. In other words if these texts don't change the mainstream view of the event by believers, why does it matter? It now sounds like you're agreeing with me that it doesn't matter.

I certainly don't dispute critics disagree. But that was true way back with No Man Knows My History and so-called "exposes" from the 19th century. I assume you'd agree I can have a differing opinion yet be honest in my opinion. Maybe not. It's not clear what your objection is.

I believe it DOES matter and I believe we are seeing that these differences are perceived by many as deal-breakers.  Whose souls are not worth saving in this situation? 

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Which opening statement makes it clear that he is talking about being honest?  Can you quote that?

I am not trying to come at this as a critic.  I am coming at this as a member who cannot comprehend how he made that statement.  In the statement, which was not specifically an answer to a question (as I understand it - I don't have the full transcript yet), Ballard first claims knowledge of the history of the church and the leaders and then he claims that there has been no attempt to hide anything from anybody.  You are attempt to severely limit what he said.  Why?

I'm not seeing where Clark is coming from at all.  To me he's being unreasonable which is odd for him.  This was not some off the cuff clumsy statement.  It was prepared, and when this was made Ballard reached for his notes to read from them.  From them is where he claimed that the leaders from the beginning of time have been transparent.  It's an astounding claim.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I believe it DOES matter and I believe we are seeing that these differences are perceived by many as deal-breakers.  Whose souls are not worth saving in this situation? 

That's fine of course but seems a different issue. 

50 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not seeing where Clark is coming from at all.  To me he's being unreasonable which is odd for him.  This was not some off the cuff clumsy statement.  It was prepared, and when this was made Ballard reached for his notes to read from them.  From them is where he claimed that the leaders from the beginning of time have been transparent.  It's an astounding claim.  

This was not a prepared statement. You can tell by how it's formulated. They may well have prepped for it and known the questions but this was not memorized in the least. 

Again, to be clear, the issue at hand is what Ballard meant by being open and transparent. I'm completely open to being wrong here, but given Ballard's clear statement about being honest, I am just at a loss to understand how this relates to documents being immediately released when first discovered. Put clearly, why did the delay in releasing the 1832 first vision account entail they weren't open and transparent regarding their truth claims? I recognize that people like ttribe read the documents differently. But this is like me given a testimony before a judge trying to be honest and then someone saying I'm not because I didn't address some point they thought I should have.