Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

stemelbow · November 27, 2017

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just for the sake of argument I am wondering why this is "wrong", conceding that it is an example of deliberate non-disclosure of information considered unfavorable.

Why should "The Church" be presumed have the responsibility to disclose such information?

I don't know that it should. But it argues against the notion that the Church has always been open and transparent.

mfbukowski · November 27, 2017

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know that it should. But it argues against the notion that the Church has always been open and transparent.

An illusion I have never even considered. And what does that even mean? Why should THAT be an expectation?

pogi · November 27, 2017

57 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yet you fail to mention that Pres. Uchtdorf, in General Conference, has said mistakes were made. Even if that is not enough for you, it isn't forthcoming to hide it.

In fact, one could say that it would be "gaslighting" to try and convince us that the church has never admitted that it is an imperfect institution with imperfect leaders.

Here are a few more quotes to support what Uchtdorf has said. He was not alone:

Quote

Nineteenth Century

Joseph Smith

“a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such.” [1]

Altho’ I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charg’d with doing—the wrong that I do is thro’ the frailty of human nature like other men. No man lives without fault. Do you think that even Jesus, if he were here would be without fault in your eyes? They said all manner of evil against him—they all watch’d for iniquity….When I do the best I can—when I am accomplishing the greatest good, then the most evils are got up against me. – 31 August 1842 [2]

I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught—must I then be thrown away as a thing of nought? – 12 May 1844 [3]
1854

…it is not the place for any person to correct any person who is superior to them, but ask the Father in the name of Jesus to bind him up from speaking false principles. I have known many times I have preached wrong. [4]

1867

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. [5] 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. … [6]

1858

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. [7]

1879

I hope what I have said may be blessed to your profit. If I have said any unwise thing, forget it. If I have said any improper thing, I hope it will pass from your minds, and that which is good, cling to you. [8] And then, we have bishops among us. We will treat them courteously. Have they weaknesses? Yes, they are men just like we are. “What,” say you, “have you weaknesses?” Yes, lots of them. I wish I had not sometimes, and then again I don’t wish so. [9]

1883

Now, was not Joseph Smith a mortal man? Yes. A fallible man? Yes. Had he not weaknesses? Yes, he acknowledged them himself, and did not fail to put the revelations on record in this book [10] wherein God reproved him. His weaknesses were not concealed from the people. He was willing that people should know that he was mortal, and had failings. And so with Brigham Young. Was not he a mortal man, a man who had weaknesses? He was not a God. He was not an immortal being. He was not infallible. No, he was fallible. And yet when he spoke by the power of God, it was the word of God to this people. [11] The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible. [12]

1891

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. [13]

1898

I saw Joseph Smith the Prophet do things which I did not approve of; and yet…I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had these imperfections the power and authority which He placed upon him…for I knew I myself had weaknesses and I thought there was a chance for me. These same weaknesses…I knew were in Heber C. Kimball, but my knowing this did not impair them in my estimation. I thanked God I saw these imperfection. [14]

Twentieth Century

1907

We can and do know the truth with reference to the matters that concern our salvation . . . But with reference to matters involving merely questions of administration and policy in the Church; matters that do not involve the great and central truths of the gospel—these afford a margin wherein all the human imperfections and limitations of man, even of prophets and apostles, may be displayed…. when you take into account human weaknesses, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking sometimes under the influence of prejudice and pre–conceived notions, and the utterances of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and having the requisite authority, and holding the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre–conception, and stand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of God’s Spirit. [15]

1941

Is anyone so simple as to believe he is serving the Lord when he opposes the President? Of course, the President is not infallible. He makes no claims to infallibility. But when in his official capacity he teaches and advises the members of the Church relative to their duties, let no man who wants to please the Lord say aught against the counsels of the President. [16]

1954

There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” You will recall the Prophet Joseph declared that a prophet is not always a prophet….This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where a subsequent President of the Church and the people themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost. How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest. [17] We are not infallible in our judgment, and we err, but our constant prayer is that the Lord will guide us in our decisions, and we are trying so to live that our minds will be open to His inspiration. [18] Hugh B. Brown: The only way I know of by which the teachings of any person or group may become binding upon the church is if the teachings have been reviewed by all the brethren, submitted ot the highest councils of the church, and then approved by the whole body of the church…I do not doubt that the brethren have often spoken under inspiration and given new emphasis—perhaps even a new explanation or interpretation—of church doctrine, but that does not become binding upon the church unless and until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the brethren and later to the vote of the people. Again, we are only bound by the four standard works and are not required to defend what any man or woman says outside of them. [19]

1956

If I should say something which is contrary to that which is written and approved by the Church generally, no one is under obligation to accept it. Everything that I say and everything that any other person says must square itself with that which the Lord has revealed, or it should be rejected. [20]

1959

Joseph Smith, as prophets were and as prophets are, was subject to disappointment, even to despair; to illness, to fatigue, to frustration, and even to failure. He was just a man, after all, and he had no special immunity from any of the realities of life that prevail for all the other beings who have ever been born. [21]

1964

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator––please note that one exception––you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea!” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard”––it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it. [22]

1965

There have been times when even the President of the Church has not been moved upon by the Holy Ghost. There is, I suppose you’d say, a classic story of Brigham Young in the time when Johnston’s army was on the move. The Saints were all inflamed, and President Young had his feelings whetted to fighting pitch. He stood up in the morning session of general conference and preached a sermon vibrant with defiance at the approaching army, declaring an intention to oppose them and drive them back. In the afternoon he rose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address the tempo of which was the exact opposite of the morning sermon. [23]

1966

With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he “visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet’; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” (Teachings, p. 278.) Thus the opinions and views even of prophets may contain error unless those opinions and views are inspired by the Spirit. Inspired statements are scripture and should be accepted as such. (D. & C. 68:4.) Since “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32), whatever is announced by the presiding brethren as counsel for the Church will be the voice of inspiration. But the truth or error of any uninspired utterance of an individual will have to be judged by the standard works and the spirit of discernment and inspiration that is in those who actually enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost. [24] Whether that happened or not, it illustrates a principle: that the Lord can move upon His people but they may speak on occasions their own opinions. [25]

1980

The prophets, as they walk and live among men, are common, ordinary men. Men called to apostolic positions are given a people to redeem. Theirs is the responsibility to lead those people in such a way that they win the battles of life and conquer the ordinary temptations and passions and challenges. And then, speaking figuratively, it is as though these prophets are tapped on the shoulder and reminded: “While you carry such responsibility to help others with their battles, you are not excused from your own challenges of life. You too will be subject to passions, temptations, challenges. Win those battles as best you can.” Some people are somehow dissatisfied to find in the leading servants of the Lord such ordinary mortals. They are disappointed that there is not some obvious mystery about those men; it is almost as if they are looking for the strange and the occult. To me, however, it is a great testimony that the prophets anciently and the prophets today are called out from the ranks of the ordinary men. It should not lessen our faith, for example, to learn that Elijah was discouraged at times, even despondent. (See 1Kgs.19:4.) This calling forth of ordinary men for extraordinary purposes is as evident during the Savior’s earthly mission as in former and later eras. [26]

1981

Now my divine commission and your divine commission is number one, to teach the principles of the gospel; number two, to teach them out of the standard works; number three, to teach them by the power of the Holy Ghost; number four, to apply them to the situation at hand; and number five, to bear a personal witness, a witness born of the Spirit that the doctrine that is taught is true. That is the teacher’s divine commission. I do not always measure up to that by any means. I guess the brethren of whom I am one do as much preaching and speaking in Church congregations as anyone, unless it is the seminary and institute teachers. There are times when I struggle and strive to get a message over and just do not seem to myself to be getting in tune with the Spirit. The fact is, it is a lot harder for me to choose what ought to be said, what subject ought to be considered, than it is for me to get up and preach it. I am always struggling and trying to get the inspiration to know what ought to be said at general conference, or in a stake conference, or whatever. If we labor at it and if we struggle, the Spirit will be given by the prayer of faith. If we do our part we will improve and grow in the things of the Spirit until we get to a position where we can, being in tune, say what the Lord wants said. That is what is expected of us. [27]

1987

To keep ourselves unspotted from the world….includes being aware that God’s work on earth is done by human beings, all of whom have some weaknesses. It encompasses the ability to look for the good accomplished rather than being disillusioned when human failings surface. It includes resisting the urge to proclaim such weaknesses so adamantly that the basic good is overshadowed and testimonies waver. [28]

1989

We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators. [29] We who have been called to lead the Church are ordinary men and women with ordinary capacities struggling to administer a church which grows at such a pace as to astound even those who watch it closely. Some are disposed to find fault with us; surely that is easy for them to do. But they do not examine us more searchingly than we examine ourselves. A call to lead is not an exemption from the challenges of life. We seek for inspiration in the same way that you do, and we must obey the same laws which apply to every member of the Church. We are sorry for our inadequacies, sorry we are not better than we are. We can feel, as you can see, the effect of the aging process as it imposes limitations upon His leaders before your very eyes. [30]

1991

Every student of church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among church leaders since the Church was organized. [31] …even with the best of intentions, it [the governance of the Church by mortal priesthood holders] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but not to the permanent injury of the work. [32]

1994

The members’ faith in the Brethren as living Apostles and prophets not only provides the needed direction but also clearly sustains those leaders in their arduous chores. There is more to it than this, however. Sustaining them also means that we realize those select men are conscious of their own imperfections; each is even grateful that the other Brethren have strengths and talents he may not have. The gratitude of the Brethren for being so sustained thus includes appreciation for members’ willingness to overlook the imperfections of the overseers. The faithful realize the Apostles are working out their salvation, too, including the further development of the Christlike virtues. Serious discipleship requires us all to be “on the way to perfection” rather than thinking we are already in the arrival lounge. [33]

1995

I’ve known a few prophets. You’ll hear them criticized and attacked, and people will sometimes talk about their failures or their weaknesses, because they’re not perfect. [34] Clearly, my problem and your problem is to hear the word of God from and through imperfect teachers and leaders. [35]

Twenty-First Century

2001

Good but imperfect prophets are especially likely to be slandered. Nor are they immune from trials. In fact, of the responsibilities of priesthood leaders, the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The higher the authority, the greater the difficulty of the station.” President John Taylor further said, “God tries people according to the position they occupy.” Near the end, the Prophet noted, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” The Prophet Joseph, then and since, has been subjected to intense mortal scrutiny. Yet, as prophesied, many in the world ever continue to “inquire after [his]name” (D&C 122:1). [36]

2012

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been” (Ether 12:6). [37] 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. [38]

2013

We should be careful not to claim for Joseph Smith perfections he did not claim for himself. He need not have been superhuman to be the instrument in God’s hands that we know him to be. In May 1844 Joseph declared, “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” And he had commented earlier, “Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs I’m charged with doing. The wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature like other men. No man lives without fault. Do you think that even Jesus, if he were here, would be without fault in your eyes? His enemies said all manner of evil against him, and they all watched for iniquity in him.” Joseph was a mortal man striving to fulfill an overwhelming divinely appointed mission against all odds. The wonder is not that he ever displayed human failings, but that he succeeded in his mission. His fruits are both undeniable and incomparable. [39] And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth. It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. [40]

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible/Quotations

thesometimesaint · November 27, 2017

1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

No that is not the definition of gaslighting is when someone tries to invalidate a person's lived experience by trying to get them to doubt it ever happened. In the context of this article and mormnsim, it is commonly seen in the form of members claiming that the church has never tried to hide any aspects of its history. Or when a person says they never knew some aspect of history someone would respond and say that everyone has always known that.

I don't doubt their experience. What I do doubt is its prevalence. If poor little old me knows something about Church History there is no excuse for others not knowing it. As to differing First Vision accounts. They have been known for a long time. The only one that is our doctrine is the one we print in our Scriptures.

bluebell · November 27, 2017

57 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Yes, that's always been the definition of "gaslighting." You must have been thinking of something different, which seems to be happening a lot with you lately. Are you feeling okay?

The definition that i've read on the internet says that gaslighting is manipulating someone so that they question their own sanity (which is what the movie is about which spawned the term 'gaslighting' so it makes sense that that would be the definition). It's about making someone think they are crazy.

Is asking someone to trust a person in authority the same as manipulating a person with the goal of getting to them to think they are crazy?

bluebell · November 27, 2017

1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

No that is not the definition of gaslighting is when someone tries to invalidate a person's lived experience by trying to get them to doubt it ever happened. In the context of this article and mormnsim, it is commonly seen in the form of members claiming that the church has never tried to hide any aspects of its history. Or when a person says they never knew some aspect of history someone would respond and say that everyone has always known that.

Gaslighting is a manipulation technique, right? So in order for someone to actually gaslight another, does it have to be intentional or can someone accidentally gaslight another?

stemelbow · November 27, 2017

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

An illusion I have never even considered. And what does that even mean? Why should THAT be an expectation?

I don't think it should be. I think that's why Elder Ballard's and Oak's comments on that matter were so shocking to some of us. Nobody expects that the Church of the past somehow do away with any hiding. And many expect the Church to have plenty to keep under wraps, even today.

stemelbow · November 27, 2017

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Gaslighting is a manipulation technique, right? So in order for someone to actually gaslight another, does it have to be intentional or can someone accidentally gaslight another?

I think most manipulation that goes on in the world is accomplished by those who don't even realize or don't think about, that they are actually manipulating. I'm not sure that intention is easily discoverable at all when it comes to manipulation in most cases.

Duncan · November 27, 2017

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know that it matters why. I was at a conference some years ago and the expert on panel on the matter, who I think was Brian Whitney(?), I'll have to find it somewhere if wrong, suggested he'd give JFS a pass because JFS was still reeling from the evils that hit his family and was likely hiding the account because he feared others would rise up and cause problems, or something. I was like "eh...we don't really know what he was doing with the account in the safe". But it was nice when pressure was put on them (likely being JFS and his office), that they tried to tape the account back in pretending nothing was hidden at all. Whatever the case< I would also like to point out that the 1970 article used to try and sell the membership on the Church being open (coming decades too late, I suppose) was not really much more then an effort to paint the 1832 account as nothing to be concerned about at all. Certainly makes people scratch their head, then, if that is the case, why it was hidden for long? I don't know that we know it was JFS who cut the account or not, but somehow it ended up in his case locked away. When Elder Young of the 70 was given access he found a "strange account" of the first vision and was told not to tell anyone about it. So it seems it was a known hide away.

It then unfolded this way, as I understand it:

Elder Young tells LaMar Peterson, who was said to be an amateur historian, who eventually tells the Tanners. The Tanners press for access but are denied. Some time later, Paul Cheesman, given access to get research for his master's thesis, found the book in question and found the pages taped back into it, which contained the 1832 account. He wrote his thesis, which was his intent from the start, and the Church put a stop to it being publish, some say, but the Tanners published it anyway.

I am going through a book now that claims that Section 84 contains elements of the 1832 account and that others like Orson Hyde knew it and didn't make mention of the date but knew the elements of it in an 1842 publication. i think we are conflating issues here, the writing of the First Vision and also the history of it since it's been written and the teaching of it and it's hard to seperate the two out. I wonder though if Pres. Smith tried to wrestle it back when the account got out or did he even care? like if it was so important to hide away was he upset that it got out and why did he give Paul Cheeseman access? if you'r so intent on hiding something you don't acknowledge it's existence, if he was sloppy with it then he couldn't have cared all that much

Just on your point about it being hidden for so long, James Allen wrote this this comes from James Allen himself and because I like you i'll type it up here,

"The 1970 Article

In 1970, at the request of the editors of the Improvement Era, I published the article titled, "Eight contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision-What do we learn from them?" By that time people had become aware of the various different accounts of the vision, and many, including Latter-day Saints as well as some people who were not friendly to the Church, began to raise questions. That 1970 Improvement Era was the first discussion of these accounts to appear in any official church publication (Some discussion had appeared earlier in BYU Studies, but this was not widely known to Church members) I was surprised and gratified when I received all kinds of compliments from people I knew as well as some that I did not know. The feedback I received from the editor of the magazine as well as other people indicated that it helped many who had heard about these various accounts but were unable to reconcile them until they saw an article that could put them together in a positive way" (James B. Allen, interview by Samuel Alonzo Dodge, July 27, 2009, Provo Ut.) printed in Exploring the First Vision by Samuel Alonzo Dodge and Steven C. Harper, p42.

I think it's interesting he said that people needed someone to reconcile it all and James Allen did and they liked him for it, but if some people had their way then somebody with no expertise on the historiography of the First Vision should be the one to decipher everything and it would be even better if they contribute $ to their podcast or whatever.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Duncan

bluebell · November 27, 2017

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think most manipulation that goes on in the world is accomplished by those who don't even realize or don't think about, that they are actually manipulating. I'm not sure that intention is easily discoverable at all when it comes to manipulation in most cases.

I agree that intention is hard to know sometimes. I'm more wondering though whether or not someone can accidentally try to make another person feel insane.

hope_for_things · November 27, 2017

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think it should be. I think that's why Elder Ballard's and Oak's comments on that matter were so shocking to some of us. Nobody expects that the Church of the past somehow do away with any hiding. And many expect the Church to have plenty to keep under wraps, even today.

Yes, the church has a poor track record for restricting access to documents in the past, and its ironic that Ballard and Oaks use the First Vision example with the history of Joseph Fielding Smith hiding the 1832 account. There are still items restricted today as well. I'm grateful that the church is improving on the transparency front, but it is not 100% transparent, and as an institution it really has no underlying interest in being 100% transparent. But it wants the perception of transparency as a PR position.

This is the conundrum that all large institutions both public and private face. None will be 100% honest, they have interests in hiding the mistakes and less than favorable news and presenting a positive image to the public. This is why I am critical of Elder Ballard's plea to just trust us and equating the trust of leaders to following God. It is morally problematic, and it isn't central to the gospel message as I understand it.

Edited November 27, 2017 by hope_for_things

juliann · November 27, 2017

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that intention is hard to know sometimes. I'm more wondering though whether or not someone can accidentally try to make another person feel insane.

Gaslighting is a fun new fad word that has been divorced from its full meaning. It is fun to throw at people because it is a way of accusing them of a psychological disorder without being forthright.

3 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

No that is not the definition of gaslighting is when someone tries to invalidate a person's lived experience by trying to get them to doubt it ever happened. In the context of this article and mormnsim, it is commonly seen in the form of members claiming that the church has never tried to hide any aspects of its history. Or when a person says they never knew some aspect of history someone would respond and say that everyone has always known that.

Yes, the church hasn't handled its history well and is now paying the price. But this overwrought response is not compelling. You inexplicably quote Snow, thinking he supports you, when he said:

Quote

My view is that being open about our history solves a whole lot more problems than it creates. We might not have all the answers, but if we are open (and we now have pretty remarkable transparency), then I think in the long run that will serve us well.

Did you not see that? First, you attempt to make people think no church leaders have said the church can be wrong when they have. Then you bemoan the lack of transparency by using a quote that says there is "remarkable transparency."

When Elder Ballard says to use experts for questions and to not expect them to know everything, this article is an example of why. You can go on any public LDS forum and find experts who will tell you how to build a supportable position. This is why historians and scholars are so vital to the church.

I'm not saying you don't have a good point. You just need to make it and you don't do that by putting up quotes that erase what you are saying or hide quotes that contradict a claim. And I think that we have all had to do some soul searching over the blaming of the questioner but the pendulum always swings. At some point, you do have to acknowledge that far too many people did know about "hidden" things to call it hidden. Not highlighted or given enough coverage certainly, but not hidden....the minute it was published that became a bogus claim. FM alone has been answering stuff like this for 20 years now. You might try more accurate terms like institutional forgetfulness.

cinepro · November 27, 2017

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think I may be confused, are you saying that Joseph Fielding Smith did not hide the 1832 account until after it was heard by others (I believe the Tanners) that he did have such an account? Later it was released after it's long slumber, right? Sounds like a clear case of a Church leader hiding something, right?

If we were in the spirit world having this conversation and the spirit of Cecil T. Copperpot complained that he lived his whole life in the Church and died in 1947 and he had never heard of the different accounts of the First Vision, then I think that would be a valid complaint.

But at some point, we're complaining that the Church "hid" that info from someone else. It should also be clarified that the Church has never pretended that it wasn't "hiding" stuff; indeed Elder Packer and his ilk never seemed embarrassed by their beliefs that the Church should hide the embarrassing stuff that wasn't faith promoting. So if hiding stuff proves that the Church isn't "true", then that's something we should have known all along (or at least for the last half-century or so).

So here we are in 2017 having this conversation. The gospel topics essays were published years ago. The internet has been in full swing for about 20 years. So what would you say if, in 2040, a 20-year old LDS complains to you that they didn't know about the different versions of the First Vision because the Church was "hiding" it?

And as an additional historical tidbit, it could be argued that the Church was hiding all the versions of the First Vision until 1905!

Quote

Many factors contributed to the relative lack of interest in the First Vision by nineteenth-century believers and nonbelievers. Most have been identified by Latter-day Saint scholars in a variety of articles attempting to validate the historicity of the event or its relationship to developments in L.D.S. doctrine. Though these studies disagree on the First Vision’s theological implications, what matters for our purposes is that all agree, in the words of James B. Allen, author of the most extensive study , that “the weight of evidence would suggest that it [the First Vision] was not a matter of common knowledge, even among church members, in the earliest years of Mormon history.”

(emphasis added)

Edited November 27, 2017 by cinepro

cinepro · November 27, 2017

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Gaslighting is a manipulation technique, right? So in order for someone to actually gaslight another, does it have to be intentional or can someone accidentally gaslight another?

Yes, it has to be intentional.

If the April 1970 "Improvement Era" didn't have any articles about the First Vision, and then in 2017 Elder Oaks instructed the historical dept. to create a fake article and insert it into the archive to appear as if it had existed back then, and then they put it online and Elder Oaks said to the critics "What are you talking about, we published that article back in 1970" and the critics went online and found the fake article and were like..."what? I swear I read that issue in my research and it wasn't mentioned. I must be going crazy..."

That would be "gaslighting."

But having the critics say "You never told us" and Elder Oaks saying "Well, we published it to the world in 1970" and the critics saying "But I didn't read that article!" isn't "gaslighting" by any definition of the word I've ever heard. If anything, it's the critics and articles in the the SLT tribune that are trying to "gaslight" by convincing people that the Church wasn't publishing articles about the different versions of the First Vision for decades.

Again, there are legitimate areas of troublesome Church history that were "hidden" from the members (and probably still are today). But the different accounts of the First Vision is a terrible example, and not the hill I would chose to die on as a critic trying to prove the Church "hid" stuff from the members.

The real story about the different accounts of the First Vision is that the Church sincerely thought (and continues to think) that they aren't a problem, and for many people they are a problem.

Edited November 27, 2017 by cinepro

Duncan · November 28, 2017

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, the church has a poor track record for restricting access to documents in the past, and its ironic that Ballard and Oaks use the First Vision example with the history of Joseph Fielding Smith hiding the 1832 account. There are still items restricted today as well. I'm grateful that the church is improving on the transparency front, but it is not 100% transparent, and as an institution it really has no underlying interest in being 100% transparent. But it wants the perception of transparency as a PR position.

This is the conundrum that all large institutions both public and private face. None will be 100% honest, they have interests in hiding the mistakes and less than favorable news and presenting a positive image to the public. This is why I am critical of Elder Ballard's plea to just trust us and equating the trust of leaders to following God. It is morally problematic, and it isn't central to the gospel message as I understand it.

TBH though, sometimes, alot? it's not the Church Archives that puts restrictions on items, it's the family or donater. I used to work at a Museum years ago that had an archives and the families had to sign this agreement and if we broke it we could be sued. Plus too, the Church doesn't own the copyright to a lot of donated materials. The WORST archives i've ever dealt with was the City one where I live. I was doing this project and needed just basic information that I coudn't find. Well, my goodness, you think I was cleaning the Crown Jewels or something. Someone was with me the whole time, they found everything, checked my notes, backpack, basically everything but my IQ. All for this piece of information.

hope_for_things · November 28, 2017

55 minutes ago, Duncan said:

TBH though, sometimes, alot? it's not the Church Archives that puts restrictions on items, it's the family or donater. I used to work at a Museum years ago that had an archives and the families had to sign this agreement and if we broke it we could be sued. Plus too, the Church doesn't own the copyright to a lot of donated materials. The WORST archives i've ever dealt with was the City one where I live. I was doing this project and needed just basic information that I coudn't find. Well, my goodness, you think I was cleaning the Crown Jewels or something. Someone was with me the whole time, they found everything, checked my notes, backpack, basically everything but my IQ. All for this piece of information.

Families and donors can put restrictions on items, but the church can as as well. How do you explain the example of the 1832 account. Or perhaps some of the Hoffman forgeries? There have been many examples of the Church restricting items for a perceived benefit. That’s why I don’t trust that they aren’t doing the same with some materials today, and because of those examples that are clearly for reasons to try and support a particular narrative and to avoid criticism I think its just much more honest to say as was quoted in that Trib article by Elder Snow, that at times in the past they haven’t been as transparent as they should have been. Do you think Elder Snow was correct with his admission of a lack of transparency in the past?

I agree with you that this is not unique to the church, and I made the statement that all large institutions do this to some extent. Let’s just acknowledge that up front, that large institutions including the LDS church have interests that aren’t always compatible with 100% transparency.

Duncan · November 28, 2017

Sign In

Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Recommended Posts

stemelbow

mfbukowski

pogi

thesometimesaint

bluebell

bluebell

stemelbow

stemelbow

Duncan

bluebell

hope_for_things

juliann

cinepro

cinepro

Duncan

hope_for_things

Duncan

Robert F. Smith

smac97

smac97

Calm

Darren10

Duncan

Darren10

Calm

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content

Church History Reading List

church history The 1922 B.H. Robert's Meeting With General Authoriteis Re: Book of Mormon Problems and the Secret Meetings That Followed it 1 2 3 4 7

seminary assessment 2019 1 2

the women's quorum - can you find a way? 1 2

I am Ryan McKnight, Founder of MormonLeaks...AMA

Activity

Browse