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

[Jeanne]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Never said it was. I'm just saying it makes a difference whom you decide to trust.

And some degree of trust (and trustworthiness) is vital. Our civilization would collapse without it.

I've seen some who are as cynical as you seem to be calling for everyone to be. We sometimes call them conspiracy theorists.

Of course they trust too much as well. They trust each other.

Some people are not really cynical...there just afraid to death to believe in anything ever again...yes, it makes a difference whom you decide to trust.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Some people are not really cynical...there just afraid to death to believe in anything ever again...yes, it makes a difference whom you decide to trust.

So Jeanne, are you baking something yummy for the holiday this week?

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My pleasure. Thought I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think that. I just believe, based upon years of observation and some degree of personal acquaintance, that the prophets and apostles eclipse their detractors in terms of character, decency and trustworthiness.

I'm probably at least as disgusted by affinity fraud as you are. But I don't see members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve engaging in it.

But since you bring it up, I've noticed that it is fairly common for apostates to emphasize their Mormon pioneer lineage and past callings in the Church. I've pondered over why they do it. It is as though they hope to establish some sort of common ground with those whom they hope to lead off into apostasy. Could this, in a sense, be regarded as affinity fraud?

 

Do they ask for money?  Do they have people pray about their fraudulent schemes?  Do they even have fraudulent schemes that could be considered affinity fraud? Or should I cfr you on your "fairly common for apostates to emphasize their Mormon pioneer lineage and past callings" claim?

In any event, if you are truly as disgusted by affinity fraud as I am, what do you think causes it?  Isn't it an overly trusting in their leaders population that allows such nonsense to happen in the first place?

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

In any event, if you are truly as disgusted by affinity fraud as I am, what do you think causes it?  Isn't it an overly trusting in their leaders population that allows such nonsense to happen in the first place?

Pete, no one here is advocating for blind trust.  Do you understand that?

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So Jeanne, are you baking something yummy for the holiday this week?

 

Why yes....I am making my favorite..humble pie.  Trust me...it is delicious!!

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I get what you are saying but just because there isn't an almost 8 doesn't mean there isn't an almost 13.  There are only a few ages in the church that really matter.  For all other ages, 'almost' can be just as valid as the actual age. 

(also, i'm not sure that we can say that any first presidency petition would be automatically be answered no because of age.  I've seen the church skirt around some requirements in the past, such as not being able to be sealed in the temple until a year after your baptism.  We have family friends who were allowed to do it a few days early after receiving permission from the temple president).

But as I've said in an earlier post, while I don't see a problem with someone claiming someone else was 'almost' a certain age if they were within weeks of their birthday, I don't think it's valid to use the 'almost' label if the person still has months to go.  I agree that it was silly for the church to label Helen as almost 15 when her birthday wasn't for months still.

 

My kids started saying "almost" or "I am more 10 than I am 11" soon as they hit the halfway mark.

They didn't use "almost" though, they said "who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday", several is usually interpreted at 3.  It was technically accurate.

To me, it therefore becomes subjective whether it is an awkward construction.  If you come from a family like mine where oneis almost as aware of the half birthday as one is the birthday, it is likely not awkward.  If you don't, it comes across as silly and overly fussy about ensuring everyone sees her as older rather than younger.

I think they should have erred on the side of caution and given the details as Amulek iirc did above, give her age, the month of the sealing and the month of her birthday...something along the lines "she was sealed at age 14 in May 1843 three months before her August birthday" if they felt those months made a difference.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do they ask for money?  Do they have people pray about their fraudulent schemes?  Do they even have fraudulent schemes that could be considered affinity fraud? Or should I cfr you on your "fairly common for apostates to emphasize their Mormon pioneer lineage and past callings" claim?

In any event, if you are truly as disgusted by affinity fraud as I am, what do you think causes it?  Isn't it an overly trusting in their leaders population that allows such nonsense to happen in the first place?

No. It's trusting in somebody unscrupulous just because he says he goes to the same church as you do, or he knows your uncle, or he went to the same high school, or he played on the same basketball team as your brother. Do I really need to explain what causes affinity fraud.

And no, I don't have an example at the ready of an apostate who emphasizes his pioneer ancestry or past Church callings. But it happens so frequently I find it hard to believe you've never seen it.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it's the proverbial much ado about nothing.

"A few months shy of her 15th birthday" isn't going to fool anybody, nor do I believe it was intended to.

Was it originally written this way and they have since altered it or did it just get said this way so much, that people accept it as accurate?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

My kids started saying "almost" or "I am more 10 than I am 11" soon as they hit the halfway mark.

They didn't use "almost" though, they said "who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday", several is usually interpreted at 3.  It was technically accurate.

To me, it therefore becomes subjective whether it is an awkward construction.  If you come from a family like mine where oneis almost as aware of the half birthday as one is the birthday, it is likely not awkward.  If you don't, it comes across as silly and overly fussy about ensuring everyone sees her as older rather than younger.

I think they should have erred on the side of caution and given the details as Amulek iirc did above, give her age, the month of the sealing and the month of her birthday...something along the lines "she was sealed at age 14 in May 1843 three months before her August birthday" if they felt those months made a difference.

I agree. But I still think it's much ado about nothing.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Why yes....I am making my favorite..humble pie.  Trust me...it is delicious!!

Thank you for not saying, "You should try it sometime."

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was it originally written this way and they have since altered it or did it just get said this way so much, that people accept it as accurate?

I'm not sure I follow you.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

18 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Pete, no one here is advocating for blind trust.  Do you understand that?

It sure seems like it.  All I said was trust but verify.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It sure seems like it.  All I said was trust but verify.

No one here is advocating for blind trust.  Again, everyone here is a fan of verification, though verification methods may vary from person to person.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Pete Ahlstrom]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. It's trusting in somebody unscrupulous just because he says he goes to the same church as you do, or he knows your uncle, or he went to the same high school, or he played on the same basketball team as your brother. Do I really need to explain what causes affinity fraud.

And no, I don't have an example at the ready of an apostate who emphasizes his pioneer ancestry or past Church callings. But it happens so frequently I find it hard to believe you've never seen it.

 

I have seen it but you're taking it out of context.  They say these things as kind of a badge of honor: I was this high up and now I left, etc.

As for affinity fraud, over-trusting certainly seems to be a cause.  I deal in fraud a lot in my job as an attorney and fraudsters need to gain trust prior to perpetrating their frauds.  A little more skepticism would certainly help to stanch this problem.  Sure one needs to trust on a certain level but when someone asks for trust, I kind of recoil and want to look into what the person asking for trust wants.  What's the price-tag of the trust?  I grew up around the G.A.'s and their children and grandchildren.  I know a few today and they are for the most part good people.  However, I wouldn't trust them without question.  I frankly don't think it is good to trust anyone without some questions.  Surely you aren't advocating blind trust, are you?  Trust but verify doesn't seem to be that controversial, does it?  The gipper said it back in the day for Pete's sake.

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you for not saying, "You should try it sometime."

 

"Like"!

I thought it sweet that you asked what yummy thing Jeanne was cooking!

[Pete Ahlstrom]

10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

No one here is advocating for blind trust.  Again, everyone here is a fan of verification, though verification methods may vary from person to person.

Awesome.  Problem solved then. 

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not sure I follow you.

 

Tons of people quote it as "a few months shy", but that is not what it actually says now.  It is the several months quote I posted that is in the Church Essay.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

"The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."

I am wondering about the original source of a "few months shy".

The wayback archive has it as above for the first snapshot, so "a few months shy" is not from LDS.org.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I've already pointed out, it's at least as misleading -- and probably more so -- to say she was 14 as it is to say she was a few months shy of 15, as the former is apt to make the reader think she was closer to 14 than to 15. At least the latter imbues it with a greater degree of precision, which, in the end, is more trustworthy and credible.

I know that is your opinion.  But she was 14. The fact that you can not see how wording it the way the church did just reinforces the issue that some are having with the narrative the church has portrayed only perpetuates the problem.  If you are trying to regain credibility, you don't stretch the facts in order to make history look better.  One has to wonder why the church can not just state the unvarnished truth.  Has the church been whitewashing the narrative for so long that they can not simply state the facts without any attempt to sanitize it? She was 14.  Deal with it.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think more important than questioning every time someone asks them to trust is to determine who is and who is not trustworthy.

Some who fuss about Church members trusting Church leaders too much are gullible on their own part in trusting those who cast themselves as antagonists of the Church. As Exhibit 1, I cite adherents to "Letters to a CES Director."

And once that trust has been broken, it is virtually impossible to ever have complete trust again.  By definition, they become untrustworthy.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've noticed that it is fairly common for apostates to emphasize their Mormon pioneer lineage and past callings in the Church. I've pondered over why they do it. It is as though they hope to establish some sort of common ground with those whom they hope to lead off into apostasy. Could this, in a sense, be regarded as affinity fraud?

That's possible, I suppose.  I've never construed the apostate-boasting-of-his-church-pedigree-and-bona-fides phenomenon that way, but now that you mention it . . . 

I've generally thought that this phenomenon has been about the burnishing/bolstering of credentials.  "You can trust me and my decision to forsake the Restored Gospel because notwithstanding my service in the Church and my long line of ancestors in the Church, I have come to know the truth about the Church, and I am sharing it with you now..."  That sort of thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My kids started saying "almost" or "I am more 10 than I am 11" soon as they hit the halfway mark.

They didn't use "almost" though, they said "who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday", several is usually interpreted at 3.  It was technically accurate.

To me, it therefore becomes subjective whether it is an awkward construction.  If you come from a family like mine where oneis almost as aware of the half birthday as one is the birthday, it is likely not awkward.  If you don't, it comes across as silly and overly fussy about ensuring everyone sees her as older rather than younger.

I think they should have erred on the side of caution and given the details as Amulek iirc did above, give her age, the month of the sealing and the month of her birthday...something along the lines "she was sealed at age 14 in May 1843 three months before her August birthday" if they felt those months made a difference.

Calm, I agree with you.  There is a difference between how a kid reports their age and how a church trying to be frank about it's history reports her age.  She was 14, just three months from her August birthday is so much better and eliminates the feeling that the church is once again shading the truth.

Edited November 22, 2017 by california boy

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

And once that trust has been broken, it is virtually impossible to ever have complete trust again.  By definition, they become untrustworthy.

I am not sure if "complete trust" is the way to go.  Complete trust in God, yes.  Complete trust that the Church will, as an institution, never be led astray, yes.  But complete trust in a specific person who is a prophet, seer and revelator?  Complete?  I'm not sure about that.  Consider these 2012 remarks by Elder Christofferson:

Quote

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet {is} a prophet only when he {is} acting as such.”

And this by Brigham Young:

Quote

We must all learn to depend upon God and upon Him alone. Why, the very man upon whom we think we can rely with unbounded confidence, and trust with all we possess, may disappoint us sometimes, but trust in God and He never fails.  The men who hold the Priesthood are but mortal men; they are fallible men. … No human being that ever trod this earth was free from sin, excepting the Son of God. … 

 And this (also Brigham Young) (same link):

Quote

Why do you not open the windows of heaven and get revelation for yourself? and not go whining around and saying, “do you not think that you may be mistaken? Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken?” Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right. If I am thus borne off by your prayers and faith, with my own, and suffered to lead you wrong, it proves that your faith is vain. Do not worry. 

And this (George Q. Cannon) (same link):

Quote

Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Spirit and His unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His hand to redeem Israel, and prepare a people for His coming.

So I give the Brethren a rebuttable presumption of good faith.  It is a strong presumption, such that rebutting it is a tall order.  But it can be done.  

Meanwhile, I reserve "complete" trust for God and God alone.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tons of people quote it as "a few months shy", but that is not what it actually says now.  It is the several months quote I posted that is in the Church Essay.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

"The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."

I am wondering about the original source of a "few months shy".

The wayback archive has it as above for the first snapshot, so "a few months shy" is not from LDS.org.

My bad. 

But I think of the word “several” as being more than three and “a few” as being more than two but not many. So, if anything, the Church essay understates, not overstates, her proximity to her 15th birthday. 

I still say, though, that the whole thing is much ado about nothing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's possible, I suppose.  I've never construed the apostate-boasting-of-his-church-pedigree-and-bona-fides phenomenon that way, but now that you mention it . . . 

I've generally thought that this phenomenon has been about the burnishing/bolstering of credentials.  "You can trust me and my decision to forsake the Restored Gospel because notwithstanding my service in the Church and my long line of ancestors in the Church, I have come to know the truth about the Church, and I am sharing it with you now..."  That sort of thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah. I was mainly just thinking out loud, prompted by Pete Ahlstrom’s having brought up affinity fraud out of the blue. 

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

I know that is your opinion.  But she was 14. The fact that you can not see how wording it the way the church did just reinforces the issue that some are having with the narrative the church has portrayed only perpetuates the problem.  If you are trying to regain credibility, you don't stretch the facts in order to make history look better.  One has to wonder why the church can not just state the unvarnished truth.  Has the church been whitewashing the narrative for so long that they can not simply state the facts without any attempt to sanitize it? She was 14.  Deal with it.

She was closer to 15 than 14. The way the Church essay states it has greater precision than just giving her age as 14. 

And that is the unvarnished truth. Deal with it. 

If she had been two weeks away from her 15th birthday, I dare say you would still be complaining about the essay noting that fact instead of just giving her age as 14.