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

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

And seriously, why for instance do the essays say Helen Mar Kimball was just shy of her 15th birthday. Why not just say she is 14? They can't bring themselves to admit it? 

 

 

I can think of two reasons off the top of my head...

First one is probably what most people, especially those who haven't read Helen's own writings, probably go to and that is a desire to downplay her youth.

The second is what I go to because while reading her autobiographical writings, I was impressed by her emphasis in one place on how she appeared older than her age.  It struck me when I read it long before the Essay because it reminded me of a lot of younger teensor even children I knew who wanted to be viewed as adults.  I babysat an 8 year old who wanted to discuss love lives with me as an equal.  It was hard not to laugh at how serious she took herself at times.

However, Helen was at an age and time where she was viewed as in transition and was likely given some adult responsibilities.  Perhaps this point is overly important to me because it was a few years earlier for me (age 11/12) that I had to assume some adult responsibilities because of helping to care for my younger siblings due to my parents not being available (we were with Grandma, but she was clueless so my older sister and I felt like we had to take over).  

Anyway, for me saying she was a few months shy of 15 was a way of emphasizing she was in the transitional period between child and adult with closer to adult, both based on her culture and her own personal self view.  I may be complicating it, but that was how it first struck me.  At that time of life, especially dependent on circumstances, a few months can make a big difference.  I was 11 and one month I saw myself as purely a dependent.  The next month I saw myself as primarily a caregiver.  Her dad going on missions, her mother's illnesses, her involvement in the adult social life of community theater and choir, her sealing...all these things would lead her to at times feel very grown up, I suspect...and many times being proud of it and others thinking it was the worst.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Does anyone have a link to the 1970 article?  What church magazine was it in?  I am interested in reading it.

James B. Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts of the First Vision—What Do We Learn from Them?” Improvement Era, 73 (1970): 4-13.  I can't find a URL for it.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Does anyone have a link to the 1970 article?  What church magazine was it in?  I am interested in reading it.

The article appeared in The Improvement Era, forerunner to the Ensign, and, as far as I know, the Improvement Era has not been digitized. I mean, we’re talking 1970, after all. I entered high school then. Probably most here had not been born yet. 

But you are in luck. I found a later reworking of the article. It was published by BYU Religious Studies Center. Here’s the link:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/exploring-first-vision/2-appearance-father-and-son-joseph-smith-1820

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Or when I ask my bishop some questions and he admits to not knowing the answers, but that he is sure that we will learn the answers to those questions in the next life.

And how is this problematic?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Well, top brass should know by now...it is not doubt they are dealing with, it's a little bit worse; It is called "SKEPTICISM".

There is nothing at all wrong with skepticism, and people need to stop feeling guilty about it.  When it becomes the only response to everything, then it is no longer healthy and may constitute irrational paranoia or other, more serious, obsessive-compulsive mental disease.  Healthy skepticism, on the other hand, is open to rational discussion and acceptance of factual information.  Sometimes it means that we must agree to disagree -- hopefully with thanksgiving that we have the right to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

James B. Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts of the First Vision—What Do We Learn from Them?” Improvement Era, 73 (1970): 4-13.  I can't find a URL for it.

There is no URL for it. Too early for URLs. But see the link I gave in my last post for a later reworking of the article, which does have a URL. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I can question all day long and it still doesn't provide answers, just truth. Truth doesn't always have an answer, it's anybody's guess. The only way you can make it work is have faith that the Lord will answer. But if your instinct is that it was a wrong practice than I think we need to trust our intutions and find a faith that feels correct or right. Sometimes things don't pass the smell test and we're told to just believe. I think that is super cultish. 

Most people vote with their feet and go to faiths which they find fit their needs.  So, if you really believe that it is only a guessing game about truth, then of course you might seek something that makes you happy and contented.  We don't define the definite beliefs and doctrines of Roman Catholicism or Judaism as "super cultish," and yet they maintain that their theology is normative truth -- just as much as the Mormon Church.  The only people I have heard define Mormonism as a cult are angry anti-Mormons.  You are speaking as though the Mormons are kidnapping people and forcing submission.  Do you really believe that?

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is no URL for it. Too early for URLs. But see the link I gave in my last post for a later reworking of the article, which does have a URL. 

Yes, I have seen many of those and have an entire bibliography of studies of the First Vision.  I am still amazed that people get shocked or upset when they find that there are several versions of the First Vision, the same people who have no problem with four different versions of the life of Jesus, or several different versions of Paul's Vision.  What is it about people that they have no sense of perspective?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, I have seen many of those and have an entire bibliography of studies of the First Vision.  I am still amazed that people get shocked or upset when they find that there are several versions of the First Vision, the same people who have no problem with four different versions of the life of Jesus, or several different versions of Paul's Vision.  What is it about people that they have no sense of perspective?

Maybe it's because there is a cannonized version of the first vision that has been repeated over and over again and read over and over again until the membership mistakenly thought it was the only account? The 1838 account was the only one used in the manuals. The first vision video only covers the the 1838 account too. The other accounts were never emphasized too much if at all and that's understandable given that the 1838 version is the only one cannonized and taught. I must have taught the cannonized 1838 version over 500 times on my mission. So, I don't see it as remarkable that people did not know of the other accounts and they shouldn't be blamed for not knowing about them either.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most people vote with their feet and go to faiths which they find fit their needs.  So, if you really believe that it is only a guessing game about truth, then of course you might seek something that makes you happy and contented.  We don't define the definite beliefs and doctrines of Roman Catholicism or Judaism as "super cultish," and yet they maintain that their theology is normative truth -- just as much as the Mormon Church.  The only people I have heard define Mormonism as a cult are angry anti-Mormons.  You are speaking as though the Mormons are kidnapping people and forcing submission.  Do you really believe that?

No way did I say Mormonism is an evil cult. I said an act is cultish, not our church. I guess I've watched a little too much of Leah Remini and Scientology. And my radar is extra sensitive to trying to avoid anything cultish like them.

No, I haven't given up on our religion yet. Not that you asked.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We don't define the definite beliefs and doctrines of Roman Catholicism or Judaism as "super cultish," and yet they maintain that their theology is normative truth

Well, that's just cuz we're right  

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Well, top brass should know by now...it is not doubt they are dealing with, it's a little bit worse; It is called "SKEPTICISM".

A distinction without a difference. Both imply rejection and distrust. 

As Elder Oaks intimated in the Face-to-Face broadcast, it’s a matter of attitude, of choosing whether or not to let what you do know be at the mercy of what you don’t (my words, his concept). 

Or, as President Uchtdorf put it several general conferences ago, doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. 

Again it’s a matter of choice. 

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, that's just cuz we're right  

Now, now, MiserereNobis, let's not get ahead of ourselves.   We have much we can learn from our Catholic brothers and sisters, but in return, we also have eternal truths that and true fullness of the gospel to share.  The great thing is that if we don't get you in this life we will get you in the next.

Lovingly,

[Scott Lloyd]

To follow up on my last post, take the accounts of the First Vision. 

What do I do when I first find out that the canonized account is not the only version?

Taking Elder Oaks’s definition as a guide, if my approach is one of doubt, then I let distrust and rejection rule my attitude, and I might jump to the conclusion that I have been lied to or that Joseph Smith made it all up.

But if my approach is one of questioning I forestall jumping to conclusions until I have explored the matter further. I ask myself, What difference does it make or need it make in my acceptance of Joseph’s word?

I might ask myself whether the varying accounts actually contradict each other (they don’t, though some contain elements and emphases that aren’t in others).

I might ask myself why there are variations and then come to realize that it is a normal part of the human condition to suit one’s rendition of a significant experience to the occasion, the listener, the purpose in relating the story, one’s own focus at the time,  etc. Does that render the story false? I have to say it doesn’t necessarily. 

I might ask myself whether what I have found out falsifies other things I have previously learned and concluded through investigation, study, pondering and faith. In my case, it never has.

In this example, I have thus doubted my doubts before I doubted my faith.

So that is how I apply the distinction Elder Oaks drew between questioning and doubting 

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

Questions that don't have satisfactory answers lead to doubts.

Questions lead to answers; unsatisfactory answers lead to either more questions or conclusions based on the available information. Doubt is not a conclusion, but a feeling.

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

Or when I ask my bishop some questions and he admits to not knowing the answers, but that he is sure that we will learn the answers to those questions in the next life.

I'm not sure how this would nurture doubt any more than an unsatisfactory answer (some would find such an answer satisfactory).

[Duncan]

If you want the scanned version of the Improvement Era article, got to archive.org type in improvement era and then you can find it that way, they have them all from the 1890's to when they started the Ensign-actually I did it for you

 

https://archive.org/details/improvementera?sort=-date

[HappyJackWagon]

Blame the doubter. This is classic gaslighting.

I know many of you love that phrase, but it applies. These 2 apostles seem to be claiming that the church has never hidden anything from anyone when it can be demonstrated that they have. They say that questions are ok but doubts are not, therefore there is something wrong with the doubter who cannot reconcile inconsistent comments or claims, like that the church and it's leaders have not hidden anything when we know that Joseph Fielding Smith literally cut out the 1832 first vision account from Joseph's journal and hid it in a vault for decades.

I agree there may be an element of distrust in doubt, but that distrust is often earned. The gaslighting comes in when the leaders claim the problem is always with the doubter who distrusts the church for no good reason at all, and fails to recognize that there are ways that the church has earned the mistrust from some of its members.

Edited November 21, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Maybe it's because there is a cannonized version of the first vision that has been repeated over and over again and read over and over again until the membership mistakenly thought it was the only account? The 1838 account was the only one used in the manuals. The first vision video only covers the the 1838 account too. The other accounts were never emphasized too much if at all and that's understandable given that the 1838 version is the only one cannonized and taught. I must have taught the cannonized 1838 version over 500 times on my mission. So, I don't see it as remarkable that people did not know of the other accounts and they shouldn't be blamed for not knowing about them either.

I don't see anything at all wrong about their not knowing about other versions (canonical or not), just as hardly anyone realizes that there are directly conflicting versions of Paul's Vision, or that the Gospels do not agree on the life of Christ.  These things are not taught, except to Protestant and Catholic seminarians who are seeking professional licensure as pastors/priests, or in similar academic settings.

I recall the old tract "Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story" with warmth.  I have no trouble at all with the fact that it is at loggerheads with other versions of his life and First Vision, because I have a sense of historical perspective gained through long study.  I imagine that the same applies to Richard Bushman, James B. Allen, and many another professional historian.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most people vote with their feet and go to faiths which they find fit their needs.  So, if you really believe that it is only a guessing game about truth, then of course you might seek something that makes you happy and contented.  We don't define the definite beliefs and doctrines of Roman Catholicism or Judaism as "super cultish," and yet they maintain that their theology is normative truth -- just as much as the Mormon Church.  The only people I have heard define Mormonism as a cult are angry anti-Mormons.  You are speaking as though the Mormons are kidnapping people and forcing submission.  Do you really believe that?

When I say faith that feels right, I don't mean another religion.

 

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Blame the doubter. This is classic gaslighting.

I know many of you love that phrase, but it applies. These 2 apostles seem to be claiming that the church has never hidden anything from anyone when it can be demonstrated that they have. They say that questions are ok but doubts are not, therefore there is something wrong with the doubter who cannot reconcile inconsistent comments or claims, like that the church and it's leaders have not hidden anything when we know that Joseph Fielding Smith literally cut out the 1832 first vision account from Joseph's journal and hid it in a vault for decades.

I agree there may be an element of distrust in doubt, but that distrust is often earned. The gaslighting comes in when the leaders claim the problem is always with the doubter who distrusts the church for no good reason at all, and fails to recognize that there are ways that the church has earned the mistrust from some of its members.

[stemelbow]

Quote

If we get an impression contrary to the scriptures, to the commandments of God, to the teachings of His leaders, then we know that it can’t be coming from the Holy Ghost. The gospel is consistent throughout.

I think there are many problems with this statement from Elder Oaks.  If say, the scriptures teach us that God did order the massacre of men, women and children in the past and our impression is that can't possibly be from God but is likely people of the past attributing such atrocities to God to justify their own actions, or whatever.  I don't think it's wise for Elder Oaks to command on this.  it should be an individual evaluation, it seems to me.  But this also goes beyond that problem.  It seems to teach against fallibility of our leaders.  That is if a leader says something rogue or problematic or clearly wrong (like there are no homosexual members of the church) he is saying we have to accept it.  Our impression of the wrongness or problematic part of it should be suppressed.  In essence we should not do as commanded in the past of taking time to evaluate what is being told us on a principle by principle basis.  

This type of thing is clearly what is wrong with the approach Elder Oaks and Ballard has taken here.  They weren't able to touch the tough questions and the ones they did come off as answers that are off the cuff--not well thought out and causing more problems than they solve.  

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This type of thing is clearly what is wrong with the approach Elder Oaks and Ballard has taken here.  They weren't able to touch the tough questions and the ones they did come off as answers that are off the cuff--not well thought out and causing more problems than they solve.  

Ask us questions but be sure not signal any doubt. That seems to be quite a disingenuous request. Translated loosely it means "Softballs only, please. If you throw anything harder, you're the problem."

[Pete Ahlstrom]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think there are many problems with this statement from Elder Oaks.  If say, the scriptures teach us that God did order the massacre of men, women and children in the past and our impression is that can't possibly be from God but is likely people of the past attributing such atrocities to God to justify their own actions, or whatever.  I don't think it's wise for Elder Oaks to command on this.  it should be an individual evaluation, it seems to me.  But this also goes beyond that problem.  It seems to teach against fallibility of our leaders.  That is if a leader says something rogue or problematic or clearly wrong (like there are no homosexual members of the church) he is saying we have to accept it.  Our impression of the wrongness or problematic part of it should be suppressed.  In essence we should not do as commanded in the past of taking time to evaluate what is being told us on a principle by principle basis.  

This type of thing is clearly what is wrong with the approach Elder Oaks and Ballard has taken here.  They weren't able to touch the tough questions and the ones they did come off as answers that are off the cuff--not well thought out and causing more problems than they solve.  

 

 

I think they obviously want it both ways on the fallibility/infallibility issue. They want us to unquestioningly trust them and hold them as being infallible, but don't want to be held accountable for the wrong, fallible decisions they make. Then they deny that wrong decisions were ever made regarding hiding history or deemphasizing the bad history. I find that baffling and frustrating to say the least.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think they obviously want it both ways on the fallibility/infallibility issue. They want us to unquestioningly trust them and hold them as being infallible, but don't want to be held accountable for the wrong, fallible decisions they make. Then they deny that wrong decisions were ever made regarding hiding history or deemphasizing the bad histroy. I find that baffling and frustrating to say the least.

Christ is infallible and it is in Him faith is founded.  Christ and His apostles of Christ want you to have faith in Him, and do not doubt Him.  That's different than holding to the idea that Christ's human servants are infalliable-- that fact that they are human and do make mistakes is readily acknowledged/apparent.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And seriously, why for instance do the essays say Helen Mar Kimball was just shy of her 15th birthday. Why not just say she is 14? They can't bring themselves to admit it? And the essays are just shy of saying the PH ban was fully racist.

I do that all the time with my own kids so it doesn't seem that weird to me.  One of my sons was born in December, for example, and if it's the end of November and someone asks me how old my kids are, always give his age as "almost 13" because it seems more accurate than saying he's 12.  He is 12, but only for a couple more weeks and if feels like saying 12 doesn't give them the right information.