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

[california boy]

Kiwi/Russell McGregor, each of your posts are getting more personal and more nasty as one reads down the page.  Calling a member of the church an anti Mormon and slandering him because you don't seem to be able to present your argument against what he is saying is not winning an argument.  

Looks like the old Russell McGregor is back again, and exhibiting all the unpleasantness that have been signature of your time on this board.

If JFS wanted to keep the first vision document safe, why didn't he tape it back in the journal that it was ripped out of rather than waiting 15 years to return it to where it properly belonged.  Are you implying that the church archives is not a safe place to keep such a valuable document?  Did other historians have access to JFS personal safe so that they too could study the first vision account?  Would they have had better access where it is now, under the church's protection along with all the other important historical records?

Your argument is weak.  Calling others names does not make your argument any stronger.  It makes. you look nasty and petty.

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by california boy

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, congratulations. You finally got there.

[kiwi57]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

Kiwi/Russell McGregor, each of your posts are getting more personal and more nasty as one reads down the page.  Calling a member of the church an anti Mormon and slandering him because you don't seem to be able to present your argument against what he is saying is not winning an argument.  

Looks like the old Russell McGregor is back again, and exhibiting all the unpleasantness that have been signature of your time on this board.

And of course, there's nothing personal or nasty about that little hissy fit, is there?

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

If JFS wanted to keep the first vision document safe, why didn't he tape it back in the journal that it was ripped out of rather than waiting 15 years to return it to where it properly belonged.  Are you implying that the church archives is not a safe place to keep such a valuable document?

I'm not "implying" anything. I leave that to those who are making the accusations.

Odd that you should be so exercised about "slandering" while you are willing to argue from ignorance in order to defame the dead.

My argument - which your own nasty personal attack does nothing to address - is that if President Smith, or any other Church leader really wanted to keep anyone from seeing the account, then it's extraordinarily odd that they wouldn't choose the one method that would have been 100% reliable. It's not as if an old scrap of paper is especially hard to destroy, after all. It's keeping it in one piece that's the hard part.

I apologise if the foregoing paragraph is too "nasty" and "personal" for you.

Incidentally, have you ever taped a sheet of paper anywhere? The tape (or rather the glue on the tape) causes brown discolourations after a few years. Taping together a unique old document would be little short of criminal damage.

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

Did other historians have access to JFS personal safe so that they too could study the first vision account?  Would they have had better access where it is now, under the church's protection along with all the other important historical records?

Interesting discussion points, but they don't support the nasty accusation in view.

Sorry.

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

Your argument is weak.

Is it?

I'm afraid you haven't managed to show that.

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

 Calling others names does not make your argument any stronger.  It makes. you look nasty and petty.

Good thing you're here to provide plenty of competition in that department.

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

I honestly don't know how to respond to this blantant refusal to acknowledge reality.

"Blantant?"

I'm the one who is acknowledging reality. I'm not the one trying to generate an accusation of mendacity out of normal archival practices.

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

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.

Is that what I was doing? I had no idea.

[Exiled]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

"Blantant?"

I'm the one who is acknowledging reality. I'm not the one trying to generate an accusation of mendacity out of normal archival practices.

Is that what I was doing? I had no idea.

Maybe look up the tu quoque fallacy? Your argument that companies withhold information and documents all the time so it's no big deal about how the church withheld the 1832 account from the church population, seems to be a good fit with this fallacy. Just because companies are secretive, does that make it all right for JFS to hide the 1832 account for all those years? We are talking about a church and churches should be more open with their members.  Don't you think churches should be held to different standards than say a defense contractor or an auto manufacturer as far as disclosure of information? Or as you say, because everyone else is doing it, it is fine for the church to follow suit?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

"Blantant?"

I'm the one who is acknowledging reality. I'm not the one trying to generate an accusation of mendacity out of normal archival practices.

Is that what I was doing? I had no idea.

Russell? Good to have you back, if you are the Russell. I just want to reach out and say that I respect that you are feeling that your religion is under attack. But have you ever put yourself in someone elses shoes and wondered what it would be like to lose your religion, so to speak? When it is everything to you but then you come upon something that makes it all go away. But you're fighting to make it right again? And so often more and more comes out that you stack the shelf higher? Or your religion is excluding when it should be including? Or the leaders make mistakes and how those mistakes affect - maybe generations? I think what is happening here is many on here are trying to make this go away and that the church can make a turnaround and be that gentler church of the past. It's a human built church as well. Can't it's members or fringe members have some input? If they didn't care about the church do you think they'd spend hours upon hours on it? It's a hard religion to let go, even ex LDS can't leave it alone. It's our lives, it never goes away. Our family are in it, we don't want them hurt by a faith crisis, or think of those that join without any idea about the issues. I do want to say that I think this  church can make someone very happy the way it's set up. It's just too bad that in order to be all in we have to toe the line or believe it all, but I guess that makes it unique compared to many unorthodox churches out there. I just wish the church would make room for more nuanced believers. I've asked before, maybe I might get an answer from you. Does it bother you that the leaders would hide information, or keep it in a safe, literally and non literally? Because if they truly believed the religion is what it says, why not let it all just be, warts and all. 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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

I'll admit... I'm jealous of those of you who can share your real identity here.  Perhaps I am overly protective of my identity.  My wife thinks that I am not protective enough of my identity.  And since I am responsible for her and our four children, I do what I can to protect my identity.

I'm not jealous of the fact that you have to create new identities when the old ones get suspended from the board.  I wouldn't want to lose your voice here so I hope that you'll stop with the slander and false accusations you keep hurling at me.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

"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.

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?

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?

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.

It's funny that you criticize my use of "obviously" and then, two sentences later use the word "clearly" which in this context is essentially the same meaning and connotation.

To your point #1, that is an assumption that doesn't hold water.  The entire journal is important and was being kept in church archives.  Removing the 1832 account to take is somewhere else, out of the journal in which it was written makes little sense.

To your point #2, it was taped back in again.  And, no, I don't work in the document conservation industry but I know enough to conclude that clumsily removing pages from a journal, taping the tear you made in the process, and then later taping them back into the same journal is not how one property conserves old documents.

Why do I assume the church should immediately publish an important record?  Because we draw so frequently on the doctrinal importance of that event.  It is, essentially, the beginning of our current dispensation.  If it had been published (and entered into our canon as was done with the later account) when found, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

p.s.  Tanners are not my heroes.  Why would you make a false accusation without any evidence?

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's funny that you criticize my use of "obviously" and then, two sentences later use the word "clearly" which in this context is essentially the same meaning and connotation.

To your point #1, that is an assumption that doesn't hold water.  The entire journal is important and was being kept in church archives.  Removing the 1832 account to take is somewhere else, out of the journal in which it was written makes little sense.

To your point #2, it was taped back in again.  And, no, I don't work in the document conservation industry but I know enough to conclude that clumsily removing pages from a journal, taping the tear you made in the process, and then later taping them back into the same journal is not how one property conserves old documents.

Why do I assume the church should immediately publish an important record?  Because we draw so frequently on the doctrinal importance of that event.  It is, essentially, the beginning of our current dispensation.  If it had been published (and entered into our canon as was done with the later account) when found, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

p.s.  Tanners are not my heroes.  Why would you make a false accusation without any evidence?

Save yourself a lot of headache. Report trolls, put them on ignore, and enjoy an improved forum experience.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

And of course, there's nothing personal or nasty about that little hissy fit, is there?

I'm not "implying" anything. I leave that to those who are making the accusations.

Odd that you should be so exercised about "slandering" while you are willing to argue from ignorance in order to defame the dead.

My argument - which your own nasty personal attack does nothing to address - is that if President Smith, or any other Church leader really wanted to keep anyone from seeing the account, then it's extraordinarily odd that they wouldn't choose the one method that would have been 100% reliable. It's not as if an old scrap of paper is especially hard to destroy, after all. It's keeping it in one piece that's the hard part.

I apologise if the foregoing paragraph is too "nasty" and "personal" for you.

Incidentally, have you ever taped a sheet of paper anywhere? The tape (or rather the glue on the tape) causes brown discolourations after a few years. Taping together a unique old document would be little short of criminal damage.

Interesting discussion points, but they don't support the nasty accusation in view.

Sorry.

Is it?

I'm afraid you haven't managed to show that.

Good thing you're here to provide plenty of competition in that department.

Russel is back.  Attack Attack Attack.  We have seen it all before.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Save yourself a lot of headache. Report trolls, put them on ignore, and enjoy an improved forum experience.

Oh...that's why I keep getting in trouble around here.  

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Save yourself a lot of headache. Report trolls, put them on ignore, and enjoy an improved forum experience.

I don't like using the report feature.  I feel like, as a group of LDS, we ought to be able to keep this forum positive.  But, I am curious... what happens if you put someone on ignore?  Do their posts just show up as blank?  What happens if they quote you and respond to something you've written?

[smac97]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don’t know why it wasn’t destroyed.

Shouldn't you try to address this point, rather than shrug it off?

It goes against the narrative you are pushing, I get that (destroying a controversial document would obviously be better than excising it and placing it in a secure location, and yet . . .).  But it's a point that merits some attention.

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

CFR, please, that Joseph Fielding Smith excised the leaves from the letterbook.  

11 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?

Yes.

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

Putting aside the "keep in hidden" jab, how do you respond to these questions?

Here is a summary of the differences between the 1832 version and later accounts.  What "smoking gun"-type differences to you think are there?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Shouldn't you try to address this point, rather than shrug it off?

It goes against the narrative you are pushing, I get that (destroying a controversial document would obviously be better than excising it and placing it in a secure location, and yet . . .).  But it's a point that merits some attention.

CFR, please, that Joseph Fielding Smith excised the leaves from the letterbook.  

Yes.

Putting aside the "keep in hidden" jab, how do you respond to these questions?

Here is a summary of the differences between the 1832 version and later accounts.  What "smoking gun"-type differences to you think are there?

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think that Joseph Fielding Smith wanted it destroyed.  But I think that there is sufficient evidence that he didn't want it read by general church membership.  My assumption here is that, as church historian, he recognized the historical value of the pages and wouldn't want to destroy them.  But, as an apostle, he recognized that the 1832 account differed from the dominant narrative and didn't want something out that could potentially damage faith of members.

I don't know if JFS excised the pages, I am not aware of any evidence to show who did that, only evidence suggesting when it was done.  There is, however, evidence that it was kept in the office safe of JFS -- this is what I was referring to.  I haven't said that JFS actually removed the leaves.  Just that they were kept hidden by him (which is not a "jab").

You didn't include the summary of differences that you referred to (which is fine, I'll respond anyway).  And, I have not said that there is a smoking gun.  But, the 1832 account differs in a few key ways from the JS-H version that has become our dominant narrative.  Particularly, no mention of God the Father appearing and speaking, the reasons Joseph went into the grove to pray, and what was said in the grove.

It is speculation on my part, but I think that JFS was trying to protect that narrative from being muddied.

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, ttribe said:

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

Yes, I figured that out awhile ago (or at least highly suspected it).  Too bad if it's true because he apparently hasn't changed his caustic style of attacking and posting.  Nearly every topic kiwi has entered has spiraled downward and become personal from what I've seen.  I've stopped responding to any of his posts.

Edited December 1, 2017 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I figured that out awhile ago (or at least highly suspected it).  Too bad if it's true because he apparently hasn't changed his caustic style of attacking and posting.  Nearly every topic kiwi has entered has spiraled downward and become personal from what I've seen.  I've stopped responding to any of his posts.

As much as I dislike some of the attacks, I understand how/why he is defending so vehemently. This is what goes on in families as we speak, when their loved ones, or even their friend, neighbor, or co-worker don't believe fully in the church. They may feel threatened or disillusioned, or deep down concerned about if it really is true.

We who have gone through this understand the pain, the head game, the feeling that we lived our whole lives in the church, gave our time, money, and even made choices we wouldn't have had we not been a member. We've even maybe judged someone or didn't associate with non members/inactives like we maybe would the TBM's out there and didn't have a relationship that could have enhanced our lives.

I understand Russell feeling like he can't have someone attacking or even not believing in the church. It may cause a crack. I see how that crack may make them believe the proverbial house of cards might fall down. Now I'm just doing something here that may be totally wrong by my making these assumptions, but trying to put myself in his shoes a bit. 

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't like using the report feature.  I feel like, as a group of LDS, we ought to be able to keep this forum positive.  But, I am curious... what happens if you put someone on ignore?  Do their posts just show up as blank?  What happens if they quote you and respond to something you've written?

There's just an indication that they posted, but you don't see text. Sadly you do see text if someone quotes them.

Some people are just incapable of having a discussion without being nasty. Fortunately that doesn't describe the vast majority of posters here.

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oh...that's why I keep getting in trouble around here.  

Wasn't me!

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

There's just an indication that they posted, but you don't see text. Sadly you do see text if someone quotes them.

Some people are just incapable of having a discussion without being nasty. Fortunately that doesn't describe the vast majority of posters here.

I have only put one person on ignore ever in my lifetime.  When I saw what happens...I would not do it again.  It is quite painful...

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

As much as I dislike some of the attacks, I understand how/why he is defending so vehemently. This is what goes on in families as we speak, when their loved ones, or even their friend, neighbor, or co-worker don't believe fully in the church. They may feel threatened or disillusioned, or deep down concerned about if it really is true.

We who have gone through this understand the pain, the head game, the feeling that we lived our whole lives in the church, gave our time, money, and even made choices we wouldn't have had we not been a member. We've even maybe judged someone or didn't associate with non members/inactives like we maybe would the TBM's out there and didn't have a relationship that could have enhanced our lives.

I understand Russell feeling like he can't have someone attacking or even not believing in the church. It may cause a crack. I see how that crack may make them believe the proverbial house of cards might fall down. Now I'm just doing something here that may be totally wrong by my making these assumptions, but trying to put myself in his shoes a bit. 

Another manual rep point here.  Fear is real.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I have only put one person on ignore ever in my lifetime.  When I saw what happens...I would not do it again.  It is quite painful...

What happened?

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

What happened?

I would post...and yet it was fruitless to me...I needed a response.some communication...and when it was reposted as a quote...I just could not stand it.  It makes both of us irrelivant in what we were trying to say...albeit without dealing directly.  I felt bad for him..and for me, both.  I am hoping that there will always be a way to communicate disagreements without telling eachother how we should feel.   We have made amends since then..On the whole...it gives new meaning to frustration.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Jeanne

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Wasn't me!

Well good.  I do think though, when one gets in trouble with the sovereign leader of this place, this reporting feature makes it all difficult.  Someone goes around reporting my posts, sometimes for things like saying "I agree".  Doing so makes it so I can't respond until, it seems, the moderator makes a judgment determining whether what I post is worth disciplining me for or not.  Sometimes I just get booted from the thread, and scolded in some sense.  Other times I just go for days without being able to respond, or sometimes I can post fairly quickly again, like a day or two later.  It's kind of a pain, but it seems a few people are playing games with me.  I got reported today again.  I thought I was out for the weekend.  But I happened to get back for a few and saw that I was given a pass for my indiscretions and can post.  It's ok.  Just pointing out what happens for us losers who get in trouble with the great leader.    

Take note if you respond with questions and I don't come back, it's likely because someone reported me on this post.  With that likely possibility in place, have a great weekend to and to all others who might come along and read this (even he or she who keeps reporting my posts).

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by stemelbow

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't think that Joseph Fielding Smith wanted it destroyed.  But I think that there is sufficient evidence that he didn't want it read by general church membership.  My assumption here is that, as church historian, he recognized the historical value of the pages and wouldn't want to destroy them.  But, as an apostle, he recognized that the 1832 account differed from the dominant narrative and didn't want something out that could potentially damage faith of members.

I don't know if JFS excised the pages, I am not aware of any evidence to show who did that, only evidence suggesting when it was done.  There is, however, evidence that it was kept in the office safe of JFS -- this is what I was referring to.  I haven't said that JFS actually removed the leaves.  Just that they were kept hidden by him (which is not a "jab").

You didn't include the summary of differences that you referred to (which is fine, I'll respond anyway).  And, I have not said that there is a smoking gun.  But, the 1832 account differs in a few key ways from the JS-H version that has become our dominant narrative.  Particularly, no mention of God the Father appearing and speaking, the reasons Joseph went into the grove to pray, and what was said in the grove.

It is speculation on my part, but I think that JFS was trying to protect that narrative from being muddied.

There's lots of speculation. It explains the evidence equally well to say they didn't know what they were and wanted to analyze them. Paul Cheesman was given access and quoted it in his 1965 thesis. So at best it was 11 years without access. Forbidding copying documents was fairly common in the era partially due to considering many things sacred. (Many documents are still like that) The main "conspiracy" is that Letterbox 1 was put in the archives except for this account. But JFS does show people - we know of Levi Edgar Young but there may well have been others. The Tanners wanted to see it, but given who the Tanners were it's hardly surprising that wasn't granted. 

But I agree with others that the differences between the 1832 and 1838 accounts are pretty minor. If JFS was hiding it I can't imagine for the life of me why he would beyond just a basic tendency to not share documents. But he wasn't a real historian and didn't do the sorts of things real historians tended to do.

Edited December 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Russel is back.  Attack Attack Attack.

Yes, that is the response I expect from you and your clique.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

 We have seen it all before.

And we will no doubt see it again.