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

[Amulek]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If what Ballard said and what he meant aren't the same thing, shouldn't he issue a clarification?

How do you think that would work? Whom do you think he should address the clarification to? And in what venue? 

Maybe he'll say something at some point in the future, but I doubt it. I suspect that most people at the fireside got the gist of what he was saying. My home teaching companion and his wife watched the broadcast and both had nothing but positive things to say about it. 

 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That's fine... take 8 Sundays to do it.  No problem.  My stake currently has a 12-week self-reliance course going on.  The temple prep class takes a number of weeks.  I've attended these "series" of classes for family history and teaching as well.  As I said, there is plenty of time and opportunity to cover the first visions accounts if they wanted.

Not quite.

There is plenty of time and opportunity to cover the First Vision accounts if that was their priority.

The mission of the Church is to Proclaim the Gospel, Perfect the Saints and Redeem the Dead. Please point out where you think minutely parsing historical documents, however interesting they may be, fits in with that mission.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I wouldn't describe it as lacking in general.  It was full of great teachings.  But it didn't talk about the first vision accounts - so it lacked that.  And polygamy (like the BY manual).

There were lots of things it didn't talk about. There is an extraordinary degree of hubris in view when you suppose that your tastes and preferences are so compelling that they not only dictate what the Church should have done, but actually determines the parameters of honesty.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  Now.  I agree.  But I can't agree with Ballard

Evidently you don't know this, but Latter-day Saints routinely refer to apostles and prophets with their titles. That's Elder Ballard. Just so you know.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

that there has been no attempt to hide anything from anybody.

Why? Because it wouldn't suit your agenda?

It just so happens that there hasn't been. Deal with it.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

And we certainly haven't reached the point of being totally honest and transparent.  But I'm confident we'll get there.

Maybe "we'll get there" when "we" stop relying upon undisclosed private definitions of terms in order to lull the unsuspecting into thinking "we" mean something "we" don't; like a Dehlinite in a Temple Recommend interview.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

How do you think that would work? Whom do you think he should address the clarification to? And in what venue? 

Maybe he'll say something at some point in the future, but I doubt it. I suspect that most people at the fireside got the gist of what he was saying. My home teaching companion and his wife watched the broadcast and both had nothing but positive things to say about it. 

 

I think most members were likely happy with the fireside, but most people aren't really aware (as we've discussed) of the multiple FV accounts and other things that have been hidden throughout the history of the church.  So they likely trust Ballard and assume that he was correct in his statement.  But he wasn't really addressing "most members" when he was talking about the FV accounts, was he?  And if we are trying to go after the 1, rather than the ninety and nine, than how most members felt about the devotional isn't all that important.

As for what he could do, he could easily make a statement through Mormon Newsroom.  He could also release a video address through LDS.org.  I'm hoping that his comments have kicked off a new era of honesty and transparency as he taught that to be the Lord's way.

[kiwi57]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If what Ballard said and what he meant aren't the same thing, shouldn't he issue a clarification?

Of course he should. There could be nothing more crippling to the leaders of the Church to be kept constantly on the back foot, explaining and clarifying and apologizing to the hyper-critical nit-pickers.

Which is why that's such a dandy anti-Mormon tactic, isn't it?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

There is plenty of time and opportunity to cover the First Vision accounts if that was their priority.

So, sharing the FV accounts isn't a priority for the church leaders?  I would agree with that.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, kiwi57 said:

Of course he should. There could be nothing more crippling to the leaders of the Church to be kept constantly on the back foot, explaining and clarifying and apologizing to the hyper-critical nit-pickers.

Which is why that's such a dandy anti-Mormon tactic, isn't it?

No.  As Ballard said, being honest and transparent is the Lord's way.  It isn't an anti-Mormon tactic.  But you sure do love that label.

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No.  As Ballard said, being honest and transparent is the Lord's way.  It isn't an anti-Mormon tactic.  But you sure do love that label.

Naturally. Applying the label "Anti-Mormon" is a sure-fire way to immediately discredit the speaker/author in the eyes of any passerby who seeks only for the faith promoting part of the argument.

[kiwi57]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No.  As Ballard

That's Elder Ballard; to authentic Latter-day Saints, that is.

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

said, being honest and transparent is the Lord's way.  It isn't an anti-Mormon tactic.  But you sure do love that label.

I certainly like to know where people are really coming from, yes.

I wouldn't make such a deal about it if only people were a little more "honest and transparent," as they so love to enjoin upon others.

[ttribe]

39 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

That's Elder Ballard; to authentic Latter-day Saints, that is.

I certainly like to know where people are really coming from, yes.

I wouldn't make such a deal about it if only people were a little more "honest and transparent," as they so love to enjoin upon others.

Perhaps they are being "honest and transparent," but your attribution of nefarious intent doesn't allow you to consider that possibility.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Perhaps they are being "honest and transparent," but your attribution of nefarious intent doesn't allow you to consider that possibility.

Or maybe there is some "cognitive dissonance" when we see the actual positions people hold, and contrast these to the claims that they make about themselves.

It's nice to be able to resolve "cognitive dissonance," you see.

 

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So, sharing the FV accounts isn't a priority for the church leaders?  I would agree with that.

He said, as he slipped the knife in.

But you're right. Disseminating all the little details of all the thousands of historical documents the Church holds is not a priority, never has been a priority, and no reasonable person anywhere expects it to be a priority.

[kiwi57]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think most members were likely happy with the fireside, but most people aren't really aware (as we've discussed) of the multiple FV accounts and other things that have been hidden throughout the history of the church.

Smuggling disputed claims into the discussion as though they had been settled in favour of your argument is not very "honest and transparent," to coin a phrase.

They haven't been "hidden." They simply haven't been aggressively published.

Quote

  So they likely trust Ballard

You evidently don't know this, but we, the Latter-day Saints, routinely use ecclesiastical titles when referring to apostles and prophets. That's Elder Ballard, just so you know.

And yes, of course we trust Elder Ballard. For one thing, we know who he is. For another, we sustain him to his position. For yet another, he doesn't make claims about himself that glaringly contradict what he actually does.

Quote

and assume that he was correct in his statement.  But he wasn't really addressing "most members" when he was talking about the FV accounts, was he?  And if we are trying to go after the 1, rather than the ninety and nine, than how most members felt about the devotional isn't all that important.

OTOH, how those who are utterly determined to find fault with the Lord's anointed servants, make them offenders for a word, and sow discord among brethren feel about the devotional doesn't matter a whole lot, either.

Quote

As for what he could do, he could easily make a statement through Mormon Newsroom.  He could also release a video address through LDS.org.  I'm hoping that his comments have kicked off a new era of honesty and transparency as he taught that to be the Lord's way.

Are you really?

Edited December 1, 2017 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

Wait... really?  It wasn’t cut out of Joseph’s journal and hid in a safe?

Hid?

I love the consummate skill, evidence of long practice, with which you introduce loaded terminology like that.

The purpose of putting something in a "safe" (actually the vault in question was just a room with one door) is to keep it, well, safe. I notice, in your eagerness to make this nasty accusation stick, that you have carefully avoided the obvious question: if the brethren were really trying to "hide" this account, why didn't they destroy it outright?

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

 When did the church first publish the prophet’s very first account of the vision to members?

I don't know that the Church as such ever has. It's not the role of a church to publish rare historical documents. (Not that I expect you to care, of course.)

[kiwi57]

I posted the following, a couple of days ago, and the silence in response to it has been deafening. Perhaps those promulgating the conspiracy theory somehow missed it.

Yeah, that must be it.

Anyway, here it is again, just for fun:

Keeping records closed, or not giving access to information, is actually the default behaviour of most organisations, most of the time. Records are valuable, it takes time and resources to maintain them and look after them, and giving access to them involves risks and costs, which mere idle curiosity does not justify. (And which malicious fishing expeditions justify even less.)

Electronic record-keeping makes such access easier and cheaper.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

I posted the following, a couple of days ago, and the silence in response to it has been deafening. Perhaps those promulgating the conspiracy theory somehow missed it.

Yeah, that must be it.

Anyway, here it is again, just for fun:

Keeping records closed, or not giving access to information, is actually the default behaviour of most organisations, most of the time. Records are valuable, it takes time and resources to maintain them and look after them, and giving access to them involves risks and costs, which mere idle curiosity does not justify. (And which malicious fishing expeditions justify even less.)

Electronic record-keeping makes such access easier and cheaper.

I honestly don't know how to respond to this blantant refusal to acknowledge reality. I'm sure others feel the same way. Even so, I guess you may bask in your self-proclaimed victory with the everyone is doing it too fallacy.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

That's Elder Ballard; to authentic Latter-day Saints, that is.

I certainly like to know where people are really coming from, yes.

I wouldn't make such a deal about it if only people were a little more "honest and transparent," as they so love to enjoin upon others.

If you think I am anti-Mormon than you obviously don’t know and have completely misjudged.  But I don’t expect you to believe me. 

Also, the moderators have recently advised participants here not to label others as anti-Mormon.  But, for the record, I have not and will not report you for it.  I just find it immature and degrading to the board. 

Edited December 1, 2017 by rockpond

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

I posted the following, a couple of days ago, and the silence in response to it has been deafening. Perhaps those promulgating the conspiracy theory somehow missed it.

Yeah, that must be it.

Anyway, here it is again, just for fun:

Keeping records closed, or not giving access to information, is actually the default behaviour of most organisations, most of the time. Records are valuable, it takes time and resources to maintain them and look after them, and giving access to them involves risks and costs, which mere idle curiosity does not justify. (And which malicious fishing expeditions justify even less.)

Electronic record-keeping makes such access easier and cheaper.

That’s fine - if that is the value or policy of the organization.  Ballard, on the other hand, claimed that there has not been attempts to hide anything from anybody which is a different claim than what you are talking about.  That could explain the silence to your post — it doesn’t apply to what Ballard said. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Hid?

I love the consummate skill, evidence of long practice, with which you introduce loaded terminology like that.

The purpose of putting something in a "safe" (actually the vault in question was just a room with one door) is to keep it, well, safe. I notice, in your eagerness to make this nasty accusation stick, that you have carefully avoided the obvious question: if the brethren were really trying to "hide" this account, why didn't they destroy it outright?

I don't know that the Church as such ever has. It's not the role of a church to publish rare historical documents. (Not that I expect you to care, of course.)

I don’t know why it wasn’t destroyed. But Joseph Fielding Smith was obviously trying to keep it from being read. 

If safety and preservation were the concerns, wouldn’t the best course have been to restore it to the archived journal that it came from?

This is not simply a “historical document”. It is the first known written account of a visit of the Lord to the first prophet of this dispensation. Why would the church NOT immediately publish such an important record?  Why keep it hidden and let the Tanners be the first to publish it?

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Or maybe there is some "cognitive dissonance" when we see the actual positions people hold, and contrast these to the claims that they make about themselves.

It's nice to be able to resolve "cognitive dissonance," you see.

 

Well, hello there, Russell.  I wondered if that was you.

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, hello there, Russell.  I wondered if that was you.

I was wondering if this was another reincarnation of Russell McGregor.  But why do you think it is?

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I was wondering if this was another reincarnation of Russell McGregor.  But why do you think it is?

"kiwi" and familiar tone.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

That’s fine - if that is the value or policy of the organization.  Ballard, on the other hand, claimed that there has not been attempts to hide anything from anybody which is a different claim than what you are talking about.  That could explain the silence to your post — it doesn’t apply to what Ballard said. 

No, it applies to what you and your fellow accusers are trying to say. Elder Ballard (that's what actual Mormons call him, you see) said that the Church doesn't hide stuff. He didn't say that we've had a sustained, affirmative publicity campaign regarding every detail your clique obsess about. But it's only by loosely equating the lack of such a campaign with "hiding" things that your accusation can even begin to hold water.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I was wondering if this was another reincarnation of Russell McGregor.  But why do you think it is?

Yes, it's me. Unlike some here, I'm not "hiding" anything.

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

No, it applies to what you and your fellow accusers are trying to say. Elder Ballard (that's what actual Mormons call him, you see) said that the Church doesn't hide stuff. He didn't say that we've had a sustained, affirmative publicity campaign regarding every detail your clique obsess about. But it's only by loosely equating the lack of such a campaign with "hiding" things that your accusation can even begin to hold water.

Yes, it's me. Unlike some here, I'm not "hiding" anything.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don’t know why it wasn’t destroyed.

I do! I do! Pick me, pick me!

It wasn't destroyed because (are you getting this?) nobody wanted to hide it.

Destroying it would be the logical (and most efficient way) of ensuring that nobody ever saw it, if that's what anyone really wanted to do.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

But Joseph Fielding Smith was obviously trying to keep it from being read.

"Obviously?"

Dan Peterson recently remarked on the tendency of certain people to claim that something is "obvious" in order to circumvent discussion of it. "Obviously" you are using that technique.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

If safety and preservation were the concerns, wouldn’t the best course have been to restore it to the archived journal that it came from?

1. It was clearly taken out in the first place because of its uniquely important content.
2. Having been taken out, trying to glue it back in again would risk further damage. You don't work in the document conservation industry, do you?

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

This is not simply a “historical document”. It is the first known written account of a visit of the Lord to the first prophet of this dispensation. Why would the church NOT immediately publish such an important record?

Why do you assume that the Church MUST immediately publish such an important record? It wouldn't stop the terminally malicious from coming up with bogus accusations, would it?

Do YOU immediately blurt out everything you know about?

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Why keep it hidden and let the Tanners be the first to publish it?

See, if you didn't do all your thinking in clichés, you'd realise that if the Church was really trying to "keep" the document "hidden," your heroes the Tanners (who of course weren't the least bit anti-Mormon) wouldn't have got their grubby fingers on it in the first place.

This is "well, duh!" observation, Rockpond.

[kiwi57]

29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yes, congratulations. You finally got there.