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

[kiwi57]

35 minutes ago, MumblingMormonMetaphysics said:

Except that again you are misreading just what Elder Ballard says. Look at the location of that emdash. Clearly what follows after it is a separate thought. He is not saying that "from the beginning of time there has been no attempt". He is saying that he and Elder Oaks, as two apostles, have known of the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time. He is talking in this instance specifically about the leaders that he and Elder Oaks have known since their callings as apostles. He is making it clear that current Church leaders are not trying to hide anything bad from anybody.

Nicely spotted.

[kiwi57]

On 11/30/2017 at 5:22 PM, Exiled said:

Do motives always matter? If I talk to you about gravity but am a mass murderer, does gravity become false or questionable? It seems clear that E. Ballard's statement about not hiding anything doesn't hold up regardless of who the messenger is that points that out.

Once again: the accusers aren't "messengers." They are accusers.

And Elder Ballard's statement has far more credibility than the tortured arguments of those accusers.

[kiwi57]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Just a simple observation, it is neither anti- or pro-Mormon.  Perhaps we could just stick to discussing facts without your seeming obsession with trying to declare things to be "anti-Mormon" as if that means something.

Oh, you think that your nasty and hostile little jab is sticking to the facts, do you?

Here's a fact for you: the brethren are not undermining themselves. That is being done by others; and they are working very hard at it, too.

Edited December 1, 2017 by kiwi57

[Exiled]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Once again: the accusers aren't "messengers." They are accusers.

And Elder Ballard's statement has far more credibility than the tortured arguments of those accusers.

I guess you can remain in denial. It is pretty clear E. Ballard's statement about not hiding anything cannot withstand the light of day.

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, MumblingMormonMetaphysics said:

Except that again you are misreading just what Elder Ballard says. Look at the location of that emdash. Clearly what follows after it is a separate thought. He is not saying that "from the beginning of time there has been no attempt". He is saying that he and Elder Oaks, as two apostles, have known of the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time. He is talking in this instance specifically about the leaders that he and Elder Oaks have known since their callings as apostles. He is making it clear that current Church leaders are not trying to hide anything bad from anybody.

Welcome to the forum.  I'm not sure what from the beginning of time is supposed to mean, if we take your interpretation.  Are we saying since the earth was organized?  He is referencing the history of the Church, that they know it.  And that they know the integrity of the 1st Presidency and Q12.  This to me clearly says that they don't just know the current 1st Presidency and Q12's level of integrity but knows throughout the history of the Church all of those in those positions level of integrity.  I"d say mine is taking the words he used without adding much interpretation moreso than your reading.  But I grant, as I have, that it's likely E Ballard meant something other than he said, as you propose.  

All the best.

 

[Jeanne]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Um, you know, I really don't  think I can improve upon what kiwi57 said.

 

Yeah...you promormons stick together likes birds to a feather...another non answer from Scott.  I am recognizing that yes, exmormons stick together too...but we are not all anti.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Jeanne

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

I guess you can remain in denial.

"Denial," whatever that is supposed to mean, cannot possibly be worse than unjustified accusations.

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

It is pretty clear E. Ballard's statement about not hiding anything cannot withstand the light of day.

On the contrary, it is increasingly clear that Elder Ballard's statement has to be brazenly misrepresented in order to make it susceptible to attack.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Welcome to the forum.  I'm not sure what from the beginning of time is supposed to mean, if we take your interpretation.  Are we saying since the earth was organized?  He is referencing the history of the Church, that they know it.  And that they know the integrity of the 1st Presidency and Q12.  This to me clearly says that they don't just know the current 1st Presidency and Q12's level of integrity but knows throughout the history of the Church all of those in those positions level of integrity.  I"d say mine is taking the words he used without adding much interpretation moreso than your reading.  But I grant, as I have, that it's likely E Ballard meant something other than he said, as you propose.  

All the best.

 

1. Clearly, whatever "from the beginning of time" actually means, it is non-literal hyperbole. It must be; cannot be anything else.

2. Elder Ballard's use of that phrase, as MMM has demonstrated, relates to what he and Elder Oaks have experienced with the leaders of the Church contemporary to them. It does not relate to the lack of attempts to hide anything.

3. Note that he's speaking to Young Single Adults. The hyperbolic phrase is probably a humorous reference to his own age.

4. The interpretation that is preferred by the attack pack is not only grammatically incorrect, it is the least charitable interpretation possible. It is astonishing, and not a little bit hypocritical, that they should turn around and demand that we must be charitable to them.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

1. Clearly, whatever "from the beginning of time" actually means, it is non-literal hyperbole. It must be; cannot be anything else.

That's what I'm saying.

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

2. Elder Ballard's use of that phrase, as MMM has demonstrated, relates to what he and Elder Oaks have experienced with the leaders of the Church contemporary to them. It does not relate to the lack of attempts to hide anything.

I wonder if either of the two knew Joseph Fielding Smith then.  Because that is the issue as Elder Ballard raised it.  

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

3. Note that he's speaking to Young Single Adults. The hyperbolic phrase is probably a humorous reference to his own age.

Shrug...fine.  

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

4. The interpretation that is preferred by the attack pack is not only grammatically incorrect, it is the least charitable interpretation possible. It is astonishing, and not a little bit hypocritical, that they should turn around and demand that we must be charitable to them.

I suppose we can charity out the meaning of the words and pretend they all mean something other than said.  In fact I have no problem if that's what someone wants to do.  But that doesn't mean what was said was not said.  It was said.  We're left with an apostle saying something untrue (whether he realizes it or not).  

as an aside I don't see anything near an attack pack around here.  People are really quite reasonable to the faith perspective.  

 

[kiwi57]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's what I'm saying.

I wonder if either of the two knew Joseph Fielding Smith then.  Because that is the issue as Elder Ballard raised it.  

Shrug...fine.  

I suppose we can charity out the meaning of the words and pretend they all mean something other than said.

Actually I've got a better idea: how about we stop pretending that they meant something other than they said. Elder Ballard did not say that there has never been an attempt to hide anything "from the beginning of time." The false accusation relies upon that wilful misreading. He said that he's known the current FP and Q12 "from the beginning of time." His statement that there's been no attempt to hide anything is in that context - the tenure of the brethren he knows.

Claiming that Elder Ballard asserted that nobody had ever tried to hide anything at any time in the past is a deliberate and malicious distortion of his words.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  In fact I have no problem if that's what someone wants to do.  But that doesn't mean what was said was not said.  It was said.  We're left with an apostle saying something untrue (whether he realizes it or not).  

as an aside I don't see anything near an attack pack around here.  People are really quite reasonable to the faith perspective.  

I suggest you go back and read the article referenced in the OP. Then take a look at who is so enthusiastic about it.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Actually I've got a better idea: how about we stop pretending that they meant something other than they said. Elder Ballard did not say that there has never been an attempt to hide anything "from the beginning of time." The false accusation relies upon that wilful misreading. He said that he's known the current FP and Q12 "from the beginning of time." His statement that there's been no attempt to hide anything is in that context - the tenure of the brethren he knows.

Well you slipped "current" in there and left out that he referenced that he says he knows the integrity of the FP and A12 from the beginning (according to Scott's quotation in the desnews article).  Also according to Scott this came in the context of his example of the 1970 article "The facts are we don’t study; we don’t go back and search what has been said on the subject. For example, Dr. James B. Allen of BYU in 1970 produced an article in the Church magazines explaining all about the different versions of the First Vision"

I don't think trying to re-purpose this as they saying only the current Q12 and FP have integrity.  If so, then of course, he'd be accusing past leaders of not doing it the Lord's way.  

 

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Claiming that Elder Ballard asserted that nobody had ever tried to hide anything at any time in the past is a deliberate and malicious distortion of his words.

Well, he shouldn't have said what he said then.  Because in truth, that is the straight forward meaning of his words.  No Church leader had ever tried to hide anything.

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I suggest you go back and read the article referenced in the OP. Then take a look at who is so enthusiastic about it.

Look, I don't imagine you're going to bend.  I don't really see the point of quibbling like this anymore.  It think it obvious you are wrong.  You probably feel the same.  have fun.  

[rockpond]

I think it's useful to go back to the original quote from time to time in these threads.  Here it is from McKnight/Dodge:

"It’s this idea that the church is hiding something, which we would have to say as two Apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time, there has been no attempt on the part in anyway, that the church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody [sic]."

That quote above is, I believe, a direct transcription.  Scott Lloyd quoted it this way in his article:

 “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”

I assume Scott was trying to fix the rough grammar.  But I am open to correction on this.

• "from the beginning" -- I interpret this as meaning the beginning of this dispensation (i.e. Joseph Smith).  Scott left out the "of time" when he wrote the quote.  But I believe Ballard said "from the beginning of time".
• "the Church leaders" -- Since immediately before this statement, Ballard referenced his and Oaks' knowledge of the history of the church, I take his statement to include past leaders as well as current ones.  I think that conclusion is supported by the statement he follows with the being anything other than honest and transparent is not the Lord's way.

If one wants to conclude that by "the Church leaders" Ballard meant only those who are currently alive, than why the reference to a 1970 Improvement Era article in the lead up to his statement?  Or, why not clarify, as Snow did in his statement that while the church wasn't totally open in the past, it is being more open now?

[kiwi57]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well you slipped "current" in there and left out that he referenced that he says he knows the integrity of the FP and A12 from the beginning (according to Scott's quotation in the desnews article).

He says he knows them. That means personally. Did he know Joseph Smith? Brigham Young? John Taylor?

"Current" is a reasonable (and not attack-focused) interpolation of his words.

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  Also according to Scott this came in the context of his example of the 1970 article "The facts are we don’t study; we don’t go back and search what has been said on the subject. For example, Dr. James B. Allen of BYU in 1970 produced an article in the Church magazines explaining all about the different versions of the First Vision"

I don't think trying to re-purpose this as they saying only the current Q12 and FP have integrity.  If so, then of course, he'd be accusing past leaders of not doing it the Lord's way.I

I'm not the one "trying to re-purpose" anything. I see you slipped the word "only" in there. That doesn't follow from anything I wrote.

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well, he shouldn't have said what he said then.  Because in truth, that is the straight forward meaning of his words.  No Church leader had ever tried to hide anything.

No. it's not.

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Look, I don't imagine you're going to bend.  I don't really see the point of quibbling like this anymore.  It think it obvious you are wrong.  You probably feel the same.  have fun.  

You too.

[kiwi57]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think it's useful to go back to the original quote from time to time in these threads.  Here it is from McKnight/Dodge:

"It’s this idea that the church is hiding something, which we would have to say as two Apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time, there has been no attempt on the part in anyway, that the church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody [sic]."

That quote above is, I believe, a direct transcription.  Scott Lloyd quoted it this way in his article:

 “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”

I assume Scott was trying to fix the rough grammar.  But I am open to correction on this.

• "from the beginning" -- I interpret this as meaning the beginning of this dispensation (i.e. Joseph Smith).  Scott left out the "of time" when he wrote the quote.  But I believe Ballard said "from the beginning of time".

(Emphasis added by me.) No doubt it's just a coincidence, but it just so happens that that interpretation is necessary to support your accusation. But as I pointed out above, "from the beginning of time" cannot possibly be literal. It can only be hyperbole. Why, out of all the other possibilities, do you arbitrarily choose "the beginning of this dispensation?" Isn't it because your attack needs that? Nothing else will work if you are to make your accusation stick?

When you stop trying to defame the Lord's anointed servants, then I will listen to your complaints about what I say about you.

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

• "the Church leaders" -- Since immediately before this statement, Ballard referenced his and Oaks' knowledge of the history of the church, I take his statement to include past leaders as well as current ones.

(Emphasis added by me.) Yet again, and purely by coincidence, the way you choose to take his statement is absolutely essential to your accusation. (Funny, that.) But that's not what he says. He says he knows two things: (1) the history of the Church, and (2) the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. These are two distinct (although not entirely unrelated) things.

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

•   I think that conclusion is supported by the statement he follows with the being anything other than honest and transparent is not the Lord's way.

If one wants to conclude that by "the Church leaders" Ballard meant only those who are currently alive, than why the reference to a 1970 Improvement Era article in the lead up to his statement?  Or, why not clarify, as Snow did in his statement that while the church wasn't totally open in the past, it is being more open now?

Yes, why not keep the brethren constantly on the defensive?

The material point is that the Church is devoting considerable and sustained effort to make more and more of its confidential intellectual property more readily available than it ever was (or ever could have been) in the past. One would expect those concerned about "openness" and suchlike to be celebrating that fact.

But what do we see instead?

Minute parsing (nit-picking) and forced interpretations of off-the-cuff remarks in order to make an apostle an "offender for a word."

Don't you feel even a little bit ashamed?

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

(Emphasis added by me.) No doubt it's just a coincidence, but it just so happens that that interpretation is necessary to support your accusation. But as I pointed out above, "from the beginning of time" cannot possibly be literal. It can only be hyperbole. Why, out of all the other possibilities, do you arbitrarily choose "the beginning of this dispensation?" Isn't it because your attack needs that? Nothing else will work if you are to make your accusation stick?

When you stop trying to defame the Lord's anointed servants, then I will listen to your complaints about what I say about you.

(Emphasis added by me.) Yet again, and purely by coincidence, the way you choose to take his statement is absolutely essential to your accusation. (Funny, that.) But that's not what he says. He says he knows two things: (1) the history of the Church, and (2) the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. These are two distinct (although not entirely unrelated) things.

Yes, why not keep the brethren constantly on the defensive?

The material point is that the Church is devoting considerable and sustained effort to make more and more of its confidential intellectual property more readily available than it ever was (or ever could have been) in the past. One would expect those concerned about "openness" and suchlike to be celebrating that fact.

But what do we see instead?

Minute parsing (nit-picking) and forced interpretations of off-the-cuff remarks in order to make an apostle an "offender for a word."

Don't you feel even a little bit ashamed?

Ashamed of seeking to correct an error... an error that continues to hurt members and familial relationships within the church?  No, not ashamed.  If we don't believe in prophetic infallibility, than the corollary of that means that ought not keep silent when mistakes are made.

'I do and have celebrated the increased openness we're seeing in the church.  As I've said on this thread, I look forward to its continuance.  I think it will be great for the church.

Regarding the "from the beginning of time" statement... if you consider that to be hyperbole than what time period or group of leaders do you believe Ballard was speaking of when he stated that there has been no attempt to hide anything?

[Jeanne]

I am not understanding why it is so difficult for leaders of the LDS church to admit, apologize...or clarify their mistakes..it would be so easy and set a great example to church members on how to correct their own mistakes ..it would be huge to see an apostle represent a humanity that makes errors in life.  Clarification on any point would leave no one to blame.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Jeanne

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I am not understanding why it is so difficult for leaders of the LDS church to admit, apologize...or clarify their mistakes..it would be so easy and set a great example to church members on how to correct their own mistakes ..it would be huge to see an apostle represent a humanity that makes errors in life.  Clarification on any point would leave no one to blame.

I can't speak for them but historically critics take everything out of context and then treat it hyperbolically. While I don't think Ballard did anything nearly as bad as some are claiming I think clarifying this point would be both wise and helpful.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I can't speak for them but historically critics take everything out of context and then treat it hyperbolically. While I don't think Ballard did anything nearly as bad as some are claiming I think clarifying this point would be both wise and helpful.

You accuse critics of taking everything out of context and it’s them who treat things hyperbolically?

But I’m glad we agree that a clarification of his point would be wise and helpful (assuming I understood you correctly).

I see a lot of pain and damage to relationships among church members in part because the church has taught a narrative that isn’t entirely accurate and true.  While the church has made some progress in correcting those errors, statements like Ballard’s, that could otherwise be overlooked, become problematic because they tend to push (or give others the rational to push) all blame back on the struggling or doubting member.  This is why his statement was so upsetting to me. 

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

You accuse critics of taking everything out of context and it’s them who treat things hyperbolically?

Quaere: why should you feel defensive when someone says something critical of the critics? Surely that can't include you, right?

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

But I’m glad we agree that a clarification of his point would be wise and helpful (assuming I understood you correctly).

I see a lot of pain and damage to relationships among church members in part because the church has taught a narrative that isn’t entirely accurate and true.  While the church has made some progress in correcting those errors, statements like Ballard’s, that could otherwise be overlooked, become problematic because they tend to push (or give others the rational to push) all blame back on the struggling or doubting member.  This is why his statement was so upsetting to me. 

Ah, so you're weaponising your feelings. Got it.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Quaere: why should you feel defensive when someone says something critical of the critics? Surely that can't include you, right?

Ah, so you're weaponising your feelings. Got it.

Correct, I’m not a critic.  But I did want to point out the irony in the statement. 

Please re-read my comments... they weren’t even about my feelings.  

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I can't speak for them but historically critics take everything out of context and then treat it hyperbolically. While I don't think Ballard did anything nearly as bad as some are claiming I think clarifying this point would be both wise and helpful.

I am glad that we agree that clarification would really help.  It is and should be a part of their service and obligation to church members...and all of us horrible critics..

[Exiled]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I can't speak for them but historically critics take everything out of context and then treat it hyperbolically. While I don't think Ballard did anything nearly as bad as some are claiming I think clarifying this point would be both wise and helpful.

They take everything out of context?  How do you define "context"?  If one disagrees with what the church narrative currently is, or if one points out an obvious mistake by some church leader, then is that person automatically taking it out of context?  Why do you think the church did the essays?  Do you think that is was because the critics were always taking things out of "context"?