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

[rongo]

Just now, bluebell said:

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.  

In the case of Helen Mar, I think it's more like how gas stations list gas prices as "$2.35" with the .9 after. This looks psychologically "lower" than the real price (for all intents and purposes) of $2.36.

There is really no difference between 14 and 15 in this case, and to try to mitigate it a little by making it seem 14 seems kind of silly to me. 

[stemelbow]

8 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 history. I find that baffling and frustrating to say the least.

I'm with you, brother.  It is baffling and frustrating.  

[bluebell]

Just now, rongo said:

In the case of Helen Mar, I think it's more like how gas stations list gas prices as "$2.35" with the .9 after. This looks psychologically "lower" than the real price (for all intents and purposes) of $2.36.

There is really no difference between 14 and 15 in this case, and to try to mitigate it a little by making it seem 14 seems kind of silly to me. 

I agree that the motivation for listing the age as it is listed makes a difference.  Do we know what their motivation was?  How close was she really to 15?

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

  There's a song about this.  Cinepro notified me of it.  http://www.weirdalma.com/

It's not so much, it seems to me, that they said she was almost 15, or anything like that.  But said she was several months shy of 15.  It's a laughable way to put it, of course.  No one does that.  

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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."

Indeed.  Pete said it well--baffling and frustrating.  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

6 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

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.

So, what to you make of the plea by E. Ballard to have everyone everywhere just trust them?  Isn't that a plea to hold them infallible?

[Amulek]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How close was she really to 15?

Right around three months. She was married in May and her birthday was in August. 

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So, what to you make of the plea by E. Ballard to have everyone everywhere just trust them?  Isn't that a plea to hold them infallible?

You can trust someone without believing they are infallible.  I've always trusted my parents to have my best interests in mind when they've given me advice, but I recognize that they don't know everything.

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You can trust someone without believing they are infallible.  I've always trusted my parents to have my best interests in mind when they've given me advice, but I recognize that they don't know everything.

Furthermore, our ultimate trust/faith is in Christ, who is infallible.  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You can trust someone without believing they are infallible.  I've always trusted my parents to have my best interests in mind when they've given me advice, but I recognize that they don't know everything.

Well trust but verify, right?  Trust in the sense of giving someone a chance and not to immediately discount what they say, maybe?  However, I get the sense that they just want us to stop at the trust and not go through the verification process.  Otherwise, trust would be eroded because clearly trusting them that history was not whitewashed or hidden in some cases (JFS and the 1832 first vision account) is not what happened.  History was whitewashed, hidden in some cases and de-emphasized in others.  E. Packer likened it to a lawsuit or a war where only one faithful side needed to be taught and the other more troubling historical facts should be left out.  I don't think that squares with what E. Ballard just told the youth.

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Well trust but verify, right?  Trust in the sense of giving someone a chance and not to immediately discount what they say, maybe?  However, I get the sense that they just want us to stop at the trust and not go through the verification process.  

The verification process = praying and asking God "are these your servants", "is this your Church", "is this X True", etc.

Christ and the Churches urges you and everyone to verify frequently and always keep that channel open.  

Edited November 21, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The verification process = praying and asking God "are these your servants", "is this your Church", "is this X True", etc.

Christ and the Churches urges you and everyone to verify frequently and always keep that channel open.  

How does verification work if we are told anything that God tells us through his Spirit that is in contradiction to what the leaders say should be not considered to be from God through His Spirit?  It seems he is saying, then, that if we do pray to find out what they say is good, and we get an answer it is not, then we simply should reject the answer...perhaps try again, until we can get God through His Spirit to confirm what they are saying.  Seems like an odd way to go about it.  Why not just reject the prayer part, which feels like really what he's saying, and accept whatever they say?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The verification process = praying and asking God "are these your servants", "is this your Church", "is this X True", etc.

Christ and the Churches urges you and everyone to verify frequently and always keep that channel open.  

I don't remember E. Ballard saying to ask God if he and his leadership colleagues should be trusted.  I think he merely asked for the youth to "trust us" and left it at that.  Do you think it is always implied that one should ask God?  Do you think that should be spelled out to the youth more plainly?  Obviously they haven't been around as long and may not know the nuances of mormonism like adults do.  They might think "trust us" is the only thing they should do regarding historical issues.

[Jane_Doe]

14 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't remember E. Ballard saying to ask God if he and his leadership colleagues should be trusted.  I think he merely asked for the youth to "trust us" and left it at that.  Do you think it is always implied that one should ask God?  Do you think that should be spelled out to the youth more plainly?  Obviously they haven't been around as long and may not know the nuances of mormonism like adults do.  They might think "trust us" is the only thing they should do regarding historical issues.

Ask God to confirm Truth is literally Mormon epistemology 101, taught from a person's very first lesson and repeated over and over again.  It is extremely plain.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It's not so much, it seems to me, that they said she was almost 15, or anything like that.  But said she was several months shy of 15.  It's a laughable way to put it, of course.  No one does that.  

If she was several months away from turning 15 then I agree, that's dumb.

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How does verification work if we are told anything that God tells us through his Spirit that is in contradiction to what the leaders say should be not considered to be from God through His Spirit?  It seems he is saying, then, that if we do pray to find out what they say is good, and we get an answer it is not, then we simply should reject the answer...perhaps try again, until we can get God through His Spirit to confirm what they are saying.  Seems like an odd way to go about it.  Why not just reject the prayer part, which feels like really what he's saying, and accept whatever they say?

Sounds like praying until you get a predetermined answer.

[snowflake]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Great "Face to Face" broadcast last night featuring Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard, two of my favorite people.

Sixteen questions, selected from some 4,000 sent in by young single adults, were answered by the two apostles. Here's a snippet from my news report about the event, specifically summarizing response to a question dealing with doubts:
 

I thought it was interesting how Elder Oaks differentiates between questions and doubts, not the first time I have seen that important distinction drawn.

Also Elder Ballard does not cop to hiding the truth.

You can see a replay of the entire event. Follow the link at lds.org.

Edited to add: Forgot to link to my story. Here it is.

Seems like a lot of rehearsed questions, followed up by very shallow responses IMHO.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Ask God to confirm Truth is literally Mormon epistemology 101, taught from a person's very first lesson and repeated over and over again.  It is extremely plain.  

Except not here.

[Jane_Doe]

26 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Except not here.

*Rolls eyes*

Do really think it necessary to repeat super basic 101 statements at EVERY meeting, as if the people in the audience have never ever step foot in an LDS lesson?   I'm sorry, but I give the average LDS person more credit for their intelligence and ability to pay attention than that. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[stemelbow]

Quote

Thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers project, “we’re learning more about the Prophet Joseph; it’s wonderful we are,” Elder Ballard 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.”

So was the Church not following the Lord's way before?

Quote

Church Historian Elder Snow November 8, 2013:

I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information. But the world has changed in the last generation--with the access to information on the Internet, we can't continue that pattern; I think we need to continue to be more open.

Obviously, I doubt anyone can argue otherwise, the Church was in the business of stopping record access, stifle information flow.  I think everyone also agrees, the Church is trying to do much better.  of course, we'll always have, it seems, many things the Church does not in any way intend to be open about--like finances.  Of course Elder Ballard knows they can be more transparent when it comes to Church finances.  

Some of these answers are really problematic.  

 

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

That works in the real world, but in Mormonism, there is no "almost 13."

If you were having a huge family reunion with 150 aunts, uncles, cousins and brothers and sisters, and the reunion was ending on Sunday but one of the kids was turning 8 on Monday and they wanted to get baptized on Sunday so all of their family could see it, you could petition the 1st Presidency and the answer would be "no."  They have to wait until Monday when they turn 8.

If you had a son who was turning 12 on Friday, but his grandfather was on life support and most certainly was going to pass away by Wednesday, and his dying wish was to lay his hands on his grandson's head and ordain him to the Preisthood, you could petition the 1st Presidency and the answer would be "no, he has to be 12."

Every year in SoCal, they have a huge multi-stake "Mormon Prom" where youth from all over go to a fancy and memorable evening at a notable location.  If a girl or boy is turning 16 on Sunday and the dance is the night before, and they really want to go to the dance with all their friends from their stake, the answer is still "no", because they aren't 16 yet at the time of the dance.

So to have the Church pretend that there is such a thing as being "almost 15", especially in the context of a plural marriage, is a little absurd.

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, Oliblish said:

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

There are also these other articles from the 1980s and 90s:

1985:

Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision

1986:

Confirming Witnesses of the First Vision

1996:

Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

*Rolls eyes*

Do really think it necessary to repeat super basic 101 statements at EVERY meeting, as if the people in the audience have never ever step foot in an LDS lesson?   I'm sorry, but I give the average LDS person more credit for their intelligence and ability to pay attention than that. 

These are youth and one would think that if an apostle says "trust us" the youth could reasonably take him at his word and not go before God to ask if the "trust" statement was one that should be followed, without question, as the apostle intended.

Anyway, this is a dead end discussion at this point.

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That works in the real world, but in Mormonism, there is no "almost 13."

If you were having a huge family reunion with 150 aunts, uncles, cousins and brothers and sisters, and the reunion was ending on Sunday but one of the kids was turning 8 on Monday and they wanted to get baptized on Sunday so all of their family could see it, you could petition the 1st Presidency and the answer would be "no."  They have to wait until Monday when they turn 8.

If you had a son who was turning 12 on Friday, but his grandfather was on life support and most certainly was going to pass away by Wednesday, and his dying wish was to lay his hands on his grandson's head and ordain him to the Preisthood, you could petition the 1st Presidency and the answer would be "no, he has to be 12."

Every year in SoCal, they have a huge multi-stake "Mormon Prom" where youth from all over go to a fancy and memorable evening at a notable location.  If a girl or boy is turning 16 on Sunday and the dance is the night before, and they really want to go to the dance with all their friends from their stake, the answer is still "no", because they aren't 16 yet at the time of the dance.

So to have the Church pretend that there is such a thing as being "almost 15", especially in the context of a plural marriage, is a little absurd.

This seems like an apples to oranges comparison.  Especially since you're comparing current LDS policies with 19th century American culture.  

I have a grandfather who was baptized in 1908 a few days before his 8th birthday. 

I have a great-grandmother who was married in Indiana around the same time at the age of 15.  There were no Mormons or shotguns at the wedding. 

Times change.  You cannot compare current church policies with 19th century culture.

[cinepro]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This seems like an apples to oranges comparison.  Especially since you're comparing current LDS policies with 19th century American culture.  

I have a grandfather who was baptized in 1908 a few days before his 8th birthday. 

I have a great-grandmother who was married in Indiana around the same time at the age of 15.  There were no Mormons or shotguns at the wedding. 

Times change.  You cannot compare current church policies with 19th century culture.

I'm comparing an LDS article written in the past few years with LDS policy and culture of the past few years.