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

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

Will you slow down, even momentarily, from the slander and false accusations you keep hurling at the Lord's anointed servants?

What's good for the goose...

Edited December 1, 2017 by kiwi57

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Will you slow down, even momentarily, from the slander and false accusations you keep hurling at the Lord's anointed servants?

What's good for the goose...

Saying that he made a false statement, providing evidence to back up such a conclusion, and asking for a correction or clarification is not slander.

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

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?

Exiled,

I'm not arguing that everyone's crooked so it's okay for the Church to be crooked. I'm arguing the following:

1. It is normal practice, and always has been, to treat the records of an institution as the confidential intellectual property of that institution.
2. It is normal practice, and always has been, to consult the needs and priorities of the institution first and foremost when determining who gets what access to that institution's own records.

This is not a "tu quoque" argument. It is a "standard practice" argument.

The attack pack seem to assume that anything the Church doesn't affirmatively publish, it must ipso facto be "hiding." This is an utterly ridiculous accusation. You post under a pseudonym, and you don't publish your pay slips and bank statements. Does that mean you are "hiding" something?

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Saying that he made a false statement, providing evidence to back up such a conclusion, and asking for a correction or clarification is not slander.

1. He didn't make a false statement.
2. Your "evidence" doesn't pass muster.
3. See the other thread. Your accusation (because that's what it is) relies upon the least charitable interpretation possible.
4. Elder Ballard is a known person. You are an anonymous posting handle. It isn't possible for anyone to slander "Rockpond" because "Rockpond" is not a person. Nothing I, or anyone else, says about "Rockpond" can possibly impact the good name and reputation of the IRL person who posts under that handle. Elder M. Russell Ballard, by contrast, is a real person, and you and your clique are defaming him.

This might be a good time to stop.

[kiwi57]

4 hours 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. 

I'm told that I have many faults. That's probably true, but thankfully, amateur mind-reading is not among them.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

This might be a good time to stop.

I think you should have concluded that many years ago.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Oh, is there a troll posting here somewhere?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

1.  
2. See the other thread. Your accusation (because that's what it is) relies upon the least charitable interpretation possible.

I am taking his words at face value... not using either a charitable or non-charitable interpretation.  If Ballard wishes to clarify what he meant, he certainly has the means to do so.  

[kiwi57]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I am taking his words at face value...

No, you are not. You are using a forced interpretation designed and intended to support your accusation.

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

not using either a charitable or non-charitable interpretation.  If Ballard

Elder Ballard.

Quote

wishes to clarify what he meant, he certainly has the means to do so.  

I don't see that he needs to.

Tell me honestly, Rockpond: would you, or any of the others on your side of this issue (and not just this one) be satisfied by a clarification from him? Or would you simply use it as an opportunity to attack a little more?

Edited December 1, 2017 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

26 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I think you should have concluded that many years ago.

Let's see.

Who is making this thread "personal" again?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

No, you are not. You are using a forced interpretation designed and intended to support your accusation.

Elder Ballard.

I don't see that he needs to.

Tell me honestly, Rockpond: would you, or any of the others on your side of this issue (and not just this one) be satisfied by a clarification from him? Or would you simply use it as an opportunity to attack a little more?

Yes, I would be satisfied with a clarification from him.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Let's see.

Who is making this thread "personal" again?

Oh, I totally am.  Don't care.  Your brand of defense is far more destructive than helpful, IMO.  I don't mind pointing that out at any opportunity.

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Exiled,

I'm not arguing that everyone's crooked so it's okay for the Church to be crooked. I'm arguing the following:

1. It is normal practice, and always has been, to treat the records of an institution as the confidential intellectual property of that institution.
2. It is normal practice, and always has been, to consult the needs and priorities of the institution first and foremost when determining who gets what access to that institution's own records.

This is not a "tu quoque" argument. It is a "standard practice" argument.

The attack pack seem to assume that anything the Church doesn't affirmatively publish, it must ipso facto be "hiding." This is an utterly ridiculous accusation. You post under a pseudonym, and you don't publish your pay slips and bank statements. Does that mean you are "hiding" something?

I have read what your so-called "attack pack" has argued and they aren't arguing what you say they are.  They aren't saying "anything," however insignificant, not published is ipso facto hiding.  They are arguing that the church has hidden important, material information about its history over the years and that E. Ballard's denial of this cannot be sustained, period.  But of course you know this already.  You just seem to have a hard time admitting that your leader misspoke.  People make mistakes.  E. Ballard misspoke.  Why don't you just deal with it and move on?

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I have read what your so-called "attack pack" has argued and they aren't arguing what you say they are.  They aren't saying "anything," however insignificant, not published is ipso facto hiding.  They are arguing that the church has hidden important, material information about its history over the years and that E. Ballard's denial of this cannot be sustained, period.  But of course you know this already.  You just seem to have a hard time admitting that your leader misspoke.  People make mistakes.  E. Ballard misspoke.  Why don't you just deal with it and move on?

Thank you.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm told that I have many faults. That's probably true, but thankfully, amateur mind-reading is not among them.

Ha, ha, I deserve that.

[kiwi57]

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

I have read what your so-called "attack pack" has argued and they aren't arguing what you say they are.  They aren't saying "anything," however insignificant, not published is ipso facto hiding.

Aren't they?

Then it's just as well that I didn't say that they are saying that, isn't it?

What I said was:

"The attack pack seem to assume that anything the Church doesn't affirmatively publish, it must ipso facto be 'hiding.'"

Of course they're not explicitly arguing that, because it would just be too silly for words. But it's apparent that that is the assumption that underlies their tissue of accusations.

What is the evidence that, for example, they were "hiding" the 1832 First Vision account? Nothing more or less than the fact that it wasn't published. That, and some garbled hearsay about something Joseph Fielding Smith was alleged to have done when he was Church Historian. But note that said bit of hearsay - heavily larded with speculation - gets all its support from what? The fact that the account wasn't published!

And thus they prove their case.

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

  They are arguing that the church has hidden important, material information about its history over the years and that E. Ballard's denial of this cannot be sustained, period.

Yes. It can.

Elder Ballard didn't speak to the whole history of the Church, BTW. The attackers try to force his words into that so that they have a better target; but it won't work.

Quote

  But of course you know this already.  You just seem to have a hard time admitting that your leader misspoke.  People make mistakes.  E. Ballard misspoke.  Why don't you just deal with it and move on?

Good people don't nit-pick in order to make someone an offender for a word. Why don't you just deal with that and move on?

Shall I tell you what I think?

I think what really frosts the haters' cookies is that they can no longer pretend that the Church is trying to "hide" the 1832 First Vision account. You and yours can no longer pretend that the Church has only mentioned it in a few obscure magazine articles, because an apostle mentioned it in a widely-published event in November, 2017. That's what I think they are really trying to punish him for.

Edited December 2, 2017 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I would be satisfied with a clarification from him.

And so, would you then go away and leave him alone?

Or would you, the very next time some apostle says something that is amenable to hostile manipulation, demand yet another clarification, pointing to this one as a precendent? And if that clarification wasn't forthcoming, would you then triumphantly conclude that the accusations must be true, because hey - if they weren't true, surely that apostle would do just what Elder Ballard had done?

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

And so, would you then go away and leave him alone?

Or would you, the very next time some apostle says something that is amenable to hostile manipulation, demand yet another clarification, pointing to this one as a precendent? And if that clarification wasn't forthcoming, would you then triumphantly conclude that the accusations must be true, because hey - if they weren't true, surely that apostle would do just what Elder Ballard had done?

I’ve explained (in the other thread) while i feel this particular issue and clarification is important.  

Regarding what the Brethren do in the future, as Ballard taught:  The Lord’s way is to be honest and transparent.  

[Exiled]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I think what really frosts the haters' cookies is that they can no longer pretend that the Church is trying to "hide" the 1832 First Vision account. You and yours can no longer pretend that the Church has only mentioned it in a few obscure magazine articles, because an apostle mentioned it in a widely-published event in November, 2017. That's what I think they are really trying to punish him for.

I think all they want is the truth and for the leaders to not misrepresent the past as it seems Ballard was doing.  We all know what your position is on that, however unsustainable it is.  You are certainly entitled to have an unsupported opinion.  Incidentally, for me the issue is what does the 1832 account do to the overall narrative?  It is problematic to me that Joseph Smith only describes one being in 1832 and two in 1838.  His purpose of finding which church to join in 1838 was not there in 1832 as he had already decided in 1832 that all the churches were wrong.  One needs to really stretch and contort the historical record to place the religious revival in 1820 and not in 1824.  Also, how does one deal with the fact that Lucy Smith joined the Presbyterians in 1824, after Alvin died in 1823 and not in 1820 as the 1838 account states?

These issues clearly show a motive for keeping the 1832 account locked away from the public view.  I don't know what JFS was thinking as his journals are not public, as some have stated, but the above problems might have been his motivation for keeping the account away from the general membership.  In any event, the 1832 account was out of the public view for a long time.  You may not think there are problems between the two accounts.  However, I think if you went outside of yourself for a minute and tried to see how others would view the differences in the two accounts, you would have to agree that it poses problems, maybe only for those who aren't as sophisticated, but problems nonetheless.  This seems to be the motive for __________ (insert whatever word you want here as you obviously don't like "hiding") the 1832 account?