The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I agree.  The church should blame those "ignorant and or silly" members that didn't read the footnotes that were in the teachers manuel which they didn't have a copy of.  It is all their fault.  They are just lazy members who expect to be taught everything and not have to do any individual digging.  

Here's a suggestion, and I hope it isn't too radical for you: how about we drop the fixation with "blame" outright? We won't blame the "ignorant and or silly" members, and you and others on your side of the aisle won't blame the Church. I know that's rather more of a sacrifice for you than it is for us, but it still seems like the way to go.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course the church also has to be ok with the fact that those "ignorant and or silly" members may very well leave the church because they no longer trust church leaders and "feel" like they have been deceived.  It's a wheat/tar goat/sheep thing.  They probably are leaving because they don't want to pay tithing any longer anyway.  This whole trust issue is just made up by anti Mormons who are unwilling to follow the leaders.

This is what a lot of these post sound like.  Maybe it is what those posting want it to sound like. The church never has any culaibility.  They want to make that perfectly clear at all costs.

While to us, a lot of the other posts sound like: We don't want to hear how the Church isn't to blame. The Church must bear culpability. We want to make that perfectly clear at all costs.

[kiwi57]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not really.  I’m just interested in discussing my ideas.

And not interested in knowing how the discussion might have impacted the relevance of those ideas?

I see.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't think the issue is whether the church is culpable for merely possessing multiple accounts, it's the lack of openness, in the past, regarding the multiple accounts that people find problematic.  Also, calling the questioner a mini-anti-christ doesn't seem to be helpful.

But didn't we establish that at least since the 70's the Church has been open and transparent about this? It seems like the question then became whether the Church was presenting it in a way even those doing the minimal amount of study would know about it. That seems quite different from being open. Again talk about the last 10 years and it's really hard to say the church hasn't been open and transparent on this issue.

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Didn't calm say that its a lack of study on the part of the member for why the member didn't know? And you liked her post. Why are you so obsessed with blaming the members? You have to acknowledge that a lack of understanding is an issue and some members fault the church for it and frankly the manuals haven't been as open in the past as they are today. So, the church should shoulder some of the responsibility, shouldn't it? Isn't this problem of not being as up front one of the reasons why the manuals were changed to have a section devoted to the multiple first vision accounts?

I think that was me not Calm. I'm not obsessed with blaming the members. (Recognizing you're not responding to me) But if someone asks me where the responsibility lies I'm going to give an honest answer. Members can fault the church for their ignorance but that doesn't mean they're right. Ultimately though I don't really get why critics are so focused on blaming the Church. The issue ought instead be trying to see where people have misunderstandings and fix that or find out where critics are attacking the Church successfully and try to offset them.

The question is more how much of that apologetic drive ought be in church meetings proper as opposed to outside reading. It used to be that the Ensign in the 70's and 80's up through the early 90's had a lot of what I'd call broadly apologetic writings. i.e. engaging with issues critics raised. That stopped and the Ensign became more devotional instead. I think that was a mistake although I'll admit it's becoming better again. (For years I thought the Ensign nearly pointless because it was so focused on devotion and motivation rather than doctrine and history) It seems to me that the Church has traditionally treated Church lessons primarily as about basic doctrine without going into deep stuff too much. (Of course there was the two week lesson on the King Follet Discourse back in the early 90's Priesthood manual -- which is why I'm a bit loath to say the multiple first visions weren't covered in old manuals. There were some really good lessons back then.) I understand this lower level teaching, but I'm not sure I liked it. At one time the priesthood manual was a Nibley book and if you go back later you find priesthood lessons with surprisingly sophisticated philosophy and theology lessons. I'd kind of like to see more of that return. If I understand the changes for next year, we might be moving more in that direction again which is to my eyes a good thing. 

I'll fully agree that manuals haven't always been good.  I think the complaint some of us have is seeing the manuals as the be all and end all - especially when we don't even have the manuals to look and see what they said. I've conceded the Joseph Smith manual wasn't good relative to the First Vision. However there were other manuals from the same time that did address these issues. The problem with appealing to the manuals is, of course, that it neglects the role of the teacher. And in most wards it's not like the teacher follows the manual closely. The members you are saying are ignorant aren't reading the manuals after all. 

I don't think being up front was why manuals were changed. Rather I think it was looking for problems that need addressed. Again I think we have to distinguish because causes of the problem and responsibility from whether one seeks to make things better. But I suspect all of us here agree that the changes are good independent of the odd discussion of "blame" for what I'd consider ignorance.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Anijen]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

   Just two comments on your points. 1.... examples like the Joseph Fielding Smith one hiding the 1832 account,

Exactly my point. Joseph Fielding Smith, allegedly cut out the 1832 account. Did you know that accusation comes from the anti-mormon's Gerald and Sandra Tanner from their book Mormonism, Shadow or Reality? (see here).  Another point the very fact that there was an account to have been allegedly cut out (for the purpose of hiding it from the world) would mean it was a part of its history thus has been recorded and was available for research before it was allegedly hidden. My thoughts are that there is some things that have been left out of the Tanners accusation and truth is probably closer to a different reason other than one posited by known anti-mormons.

Even if true; my response is we the human race are imperfect. I would also describe Joseph Fielding Smith as Church Historian as a zealot in his defense of the Church, even though in my opinions he (the person, not the church) was wrong on some issues. This in my opinion and is a testimony to me that the Church has imperfect people. Modern day prophets have attested over the pulpit about their weaknesses and mistakes. It is remarkable to me that Heavenly Father still has faith in us and will use us, imperfect people to run His perfect restored Church. I believe JFS was/is a Prophet of God, but even that high calling does not perfect him. We all have our own faults, we all have imperfect knowledge...

hope-for-things, if our goal is to find faults in the members, we ARE going to find them (many of them). The faults are everywhere, easily found. If our goal is to find faults in Christs' restored Church then that is a much more difficult task, and I would posit impossible. Can we find a fault in the Church without naming a person? Try to, I have, I cannot find fault in the Church without connecting that fault to a person. Now you mentioned; (I'm paraphrasing here) that a fault of the leader of the Church is the same thing as the fault of the Church. I have to respectfully disagree, although I see this connection of fault of person transferred to fault of Church so often. We should not expect perfection from our Church leaders, but we can expect that the Saviors Church has been restored perfectly.

 

Quote

or Gordon Hinckley in the 1980s buying Hoffman documents for the purposes of suppressing them

I vehemently disagree here that it was the purpose of suppressing them.  If that were true why would President Hinckley acknowledge them [Hoffman documents] to the world at General Conference (certainly that is not suppressing them).  Did you know President Hinckley absolutely loved history? He loved Church history, U.S. History, world history. President Hinckley loved History so much that he would personally buy historical artifacts and papers. When President Hinckley purchased the now infamous Salamander Letter, he did so for personal reasons (the Historian inside him) and certainly not to suppress it. In fact, President Hinckley at General Conference spoke about his personal purchase of the Salamander Letter, and even expressly admitted that it [Salamander Letter] probably was not true, but if so he only called it interesting. He did this all very publicly (thus no suppression).  He did this before Mark Hoffman was found guilty of so many forgeries. His [GBH] own children, lamented the fact that on every vacation they went on they had to stop at every historic marker in the path of their vacation travels. The subject of History was so influential in the Hinckley home that his daughter [Virginia Pearce] later wrote abundantly on her history loving father and has been the author of many papers regarding history.

 

Quote

or the many documents over time that have been in the restricted section some of which are now seeing the light of day, but many which are still restricted.

When making comments like this please give examples of the restricted section and its contents. I cannot comment on such a vague implication. I would like to know more about what has been restricted. Such a term implies hiding Church history in which I do not agree that has happened. However, I can also think that a "restricted section" may imply a section that has rare artifacts and papers and are restricted for the purpose to limit wear and tear by the constant handling. I say this because I have made requests of the Church's History department and have always found them to be very accommodating.

 

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Yes, I of course realize you quoted the words I used ["laziness, ignorance, or silliness"]. But you placed them in an entirely different context, using sarcasm (I did not use sarcasm), and not in any way close or in relation to how I had used them. Thus, a strawman argument by you. Quoting the words I used, but not in the manner I used them and then attacking that manner that you set up is a classic strawman argument.

 

See my response above. It is you using a strawman not me. Or perhaps you do not know what a strawman argument is, in that case, see also my response above.

 

 

We are in agreement here.

 

Who are "they"? The Church or people, or members? I agree arrogance of people could (and has) drive/driven people further from the church. Arrogance in general repels most people no matter where from. I think we are in agreement here (if you are speaking of the arrogance of people and not the church).

 

We are in agreement here.

 

What are the church leaders failing to grasp?

The part of the gospel I have been speaking of is the accusation that the church hides its history, which I do not believe they do, or the multiple accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision are detrimental to the Church. The Church obviously did not hide the multiple accounts of Joseph's first vision we can read about them in many histories, journal accounts, newspapers, etc.. The Church has addressed them many times (not just currently). Because it [multiple accounts of the First Vision] is a popular topic now neither means it is just coming to light, nor does it mean the Church hid it.

Furthermore, I do not believe either issue is a core part of the gospel. To me the core part of the Gospel is to bring people to the knowledge of Christ and to help convert them.

I am not going to quibble over much of what you have written here. I think you grasp the point I have made and I think you are in agreement with the important parts of what I am trying to say.  The question you ask, "What are the church leaders failing to grasp?"  While church leaders have said "we no longer teach that principle, I never hear church leaders apologize for past mistakes and harm that their decisions have caused.  All those interracial marriages that never were able to receive temple marriage.  All those gay men that were promised that if they only marry a woman, they would no longer be gay.  All those black families that were never allowed to be sealed in the temple in this life and receive the blessings of that sealing while living.  All those people who now have lost trust in church leaders because they were never aware that there were more that one version of the First Vision.  Do you see where I am going with this?  I am one of those people.  I am one of those that have completely lost trust in church leaders for the promises in the name of God that were given to me if I would but marry a woman.  While that policy was dropped, as have other policies, no one bothered to say that those who spoke for the church were wrong.  And now we that speak for the church admit to that wrong and extend a hand of apology.  

I left the church that I loved so much because I no longer could believe the claims made by church leaders.  I stay away because I believe harmful policies that replaced the old ones are still in place.  They are just different harmful policies.  I stay away because I see that it is more than the issues I have had with church leaders.  And the most common answer I get is that it is my fault. The most common answer others get is that it is there fault.  

Admitting past wrongs and apologizing for those wrongs are basic principles to what members are told to do when they commit a wrong in order to be made whole again.  Is it really too much to expect the same from Church leaders that have spoken for the church and speak for that church today?  

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not going to quibble over much of what you have written here. I think you grasp the point I have made and I think you are in agreement with the important parts of what I am trying to say.  The question you ask, "What are the church leaders failing to grasp?"  While church leaders have said "we no longer teach that principle, I never hear church leaders apologize for past mistakes and harm that their decisions have caused.  All those interracial marriages that never were able to receive temple marriage.  All those gay men that were promised that if they only marry a woman, they would no longer be gay.  All those black families that were never allowed to be sealed in the temple in this life and receive the blessings of that sealing while living.  All those people who now have lost trust in church leaders because they were never aware that there were more that one version of the First Vision.  Do you see where I am going with this?  I am one of those people.  I am one of those that have completely lost trust in church leaders for the promises in the name of God that were given to me if I would but marry a woman.  While that policy was dropped, as have other policies, no one bothered to say that those who spoke for the church were wrong.  And now we that speak for the church admit to that wrong and extend a hand of apology.  

I left the church that I loved so much because I no longer could believe the claims made by church leaders.  I stay away because I believe harmful policies that replaced the old ones are still in place.  They are just different harmful policies.  I stay away because I see that it is more than the issues I have had with church leaders.  And the most common answer I get is that it is my fault. The most common answer others get is that it is there fault.  

Admitting past wrongs and apologizing for those wrongs are basic principles to what members are told to do when they commit a wrong in order to be made whole again.  Is it really too much to expect the same from Church leaders that have spoken for the church and speak for that church today?  

This is what gets tough for me to understand in threads like this one.  If we all agree that the church is comprised of imperfect members, including imperfect leaders, why do so many seem to want to insist on a history of institutional perfection of the church?  Why does identifying apparent mistakes of leaders get one labeled as a nitpicker, a critic, an anti-Mormon?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

But didn't we establish that at least since the 70's the Church has been open and transparent about this? It seems like the question then became whether the Church was presenting it in a way even those doing the minimal amount of study would know about it. That seems quite different from being open. Again talk about the last 10 years and it's really hard to say the church hasn't been open and transparent on this issue.

I think that was me not Calm. I'm not obsessed with blaming the members. (Recognizing you're not responding to me) But if someone asks me where the responsibility lies I'm going to give an honest answer. Members can fault the church for their ignorance but that doesn't mean they're right. Ultimately though I don't really get why critics are so focused on blaming the Church. The issue ought instead be trying to see where people have misunderstandings and fix that or find out where critics are attacking the Church successfully and try to offset them.

The question is more how much of that apologetic drive ought be in church meetings proper as opposed to outside reading. It used to be that the Ensign in the 70's and 80's up through the early 90's had a lot of what I'd call broadly apologetic writings. i.e. engaging with issues critics raised. That stopped and the Ensign became more devotional instead. I think that was a mistake although I'll admit it's becoming better again. (For years I thought the Ensign nearly pointless because it was so focused on devotion and motivation rather than doctrine and history) It seems to me that the Church has traditionally treated Church lessons primarily as about basic doctrine without going into deep stuff too much. (Of course there was the two week lesson on the King Follet Discourse back in the early 90's Priesthood manual -- which is why I'm a bit loath to say the multiple first visions weren't covered in old manuals. There were some really good lessons back then.) I understand this lower level teaching, but I'm not sure I liked it. At one time the priesthood manual was a Nibley book and if you go back later you find priesthood lessons with surprisingly sophisticated philosophy and theology lessons. I'd kind of like to see more of that return. If I understand the changes for next year, we might be moving more in that direction again which is to my eyes a good thing. 

I'll fully agree that manuals haven't always been good.  I think the complaint some of us have is seeing the manuals as the be all and end all - especially when we don't even have the manuals to look and see what they said. I've conceded the Joseph Smith manual wasn't good relative to the First Vision. However there were other manuals from the same time that did address these issues. The problem with appealing to the manuals is, of course, that it neglects the role of the teacher. And in most wards it's not like the teacher follows the manual closely. The members you are saying are ignorant aren't reading the manuals after all. 

I don't think being up front was why manuals were changed. Rather I think it was looking for problems that need addressed. Again I think we have to distinguish because causes of the problem and responsibility from whether one seeks to make things better. But I suspect all of us here agree that the changes are good independent of the odd discussion of "blame" for what I'd consider ignorance.

 

 

I taught the Teachers quorum for a number of years.  I also taught early morning Seminar for 6 years.  What I found lacking the most in the manuals that we were suppose to teach from is the constant repeating of the same stories over and over again.  Those kids had been given the same stories since primary.  And the same stories even pop up in Gospel Doctrine.  It is like every single member of the church can tell the story of Thomas Marsh and the milk incident, but few knew that there were multiple versions of the First Vision or that Joseph Smith didn't translate the BoM from the golden plates.  Personally I would be pretty pissed off if I was Mormon and find out that all the work he did to edit and produce those plates when is all the was needed is a rock.

[clarkgoble]

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is like every single member of the church can tell the story of Thomas Marsh and the milk incident, but few knew that there were multiple versions of the First Vision or that Joseph Smith didn't translate the BoM from the golden plates.  Personally I would be pretty pissed off if I was Mormon and find out that all the work he did to edit and produce those plates when is all the was needed is a rock.

I doubt many can tell about the milk incident. (Which is actually a pretty misleading story and when it's come up I usually correct it) However if someone thinks Joseph translated the Book of Mormon manually from the plates then they didn't listen very well. The Urim and Thummim (which was also the term used for the seer stones) is pretty prominent in most tellings I've heard including the version in the Pearl of Great Price "Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book." (JSH 1:37) "Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God." (Joseph Smith Manual lesson 4 quoting History of the Church, 4:537) So anyone who didn't know he was looking through a stone really was going out of their way not to pay attention and not read anything. The bit about using the hat to keep out the light so he could see the stones I'll grant you. But the stones were always pretty prominent.

Edited December 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is what gets tough for me to understand in threads like this one.  If we all agree that the church is comprised of imperfect members, including imperfect leaders, why do so many seem to want to insist on a history of institutional perfection of the church?  Why does identifying apparent mistakes of leaders get one labeled as a nitpicker, a critic, an anti-Mormon?

I think all the more apologetic types are fine with errors of leaders. It's just that many accusations seem unfair. It's not whether you say a leader made a mistake. It's whether critics are fair. 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I doubt many can tell about the milk incident. (Which is actually a pretty misleading story and when it's come up I usually correct it) However if someone thinks Joseph translated the Book of Mormon manually from the plates then they didn't listen very well. The Urim and Thummim (which was also the term used for the seer stones) is pretty prominent in most tellings I've heard including the version in the Pearl of Great Price "Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book." (JSH 1:37) "Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God." (Joseph Smith Manual lesson 4 quoting History of the Church, 4:537) So anyone who didn't know he was looking through a stone really was going out of their way not to pay attention and not read anything. The bit about using the hat to keep out the light so he could see the stones I'll grant you. But the stones were always pretty prominent.

Except Joseph often used his own seer stone (the one that he used earlier in his life for treasure digging).  And he put it in the hat rather than looking at the plates (which sometimes weren't even in his view).  I think this is what CB is referring to.  How many members know that the Book of Mormon they read was largely translated not by the prophet looking at the plates through the Urim and Thummim but by placing his head in a heat and reading words from a different seer stone?

Edited December 7, 2017 by rockpond

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

That is a claim that has yet to be proven. Repeated assertion is not proof.

Those were just a few examples, there are others as well.  I imagine your standard for proof is so high that nothing could reach it.  

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

Exactly my point. Joseph Fielding Smith, allegedly cut out the 1832 account. Did you know that accusation comes from the anti-mormon's Gerald and Sandra Tanner from their book Mormonism, Shadow or Reality? (see here).  Another point the very fact that there was an account to have been allegedly cut out (for the purpose of hiding it from the world) would mean it was a part of its history thus has been recorded and was available for research before it was allegedly hidden. My thoughts are that there is some things that have been left out of the Tanners accusation and truth is probably closer to a different reason other than one posited by known anti-mormons.

Yes, I’m familiar with the history.  Have you read the Stan Larson essay from Dialogue Journal a couple years back that details all the events quite well?  Also, I don’t automatically dismiss things written by the Tanners.  Rather I try to use my critical thinking tools to evaluate the evidence.  

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

hope-for-things, if our goal is to find faults in the members, we ARE going to find them (many of them). The faults are everywhere, easily found. If our goal is to find faults in Christs' restored Church then that is a much more difficult task, and I would posit impossible. Can we find a fault in the Church without naming a person? Try to, I have, I cannot find fault in the Church without connecting that fault to a person. Now you mentioned; (I'm paraphrasing here) that a fault of the leader of the Church is the same thing as the fault of the Church. I have to respectfully disagree, although I see this connection of fault of person transferred to fault of Church so often. We should not expect perfection from our Church leaders, but we can expect that the Saviors Church has been restored perfectly.

I can’t differentiate the church from the people.  To me they are linked together and indistinguishable from one another.  We are the church in my mind, so I’m not sure how you define the church as a separate entity.  I’m suspect you mean the doctrines, but to me those doctrines are tied to a place and time and context and person.  

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

I vehemently disagree here that it was the purpose of suppressing them.  If that were true why would President Hinckley acknowledge them [Hoffman documents] to the world at General Conference (certainly that is not suppressing them).

The whole personal purchase idea is a cover for the church.  I don’t want to sidetrack too much into the whole Hoffman world, I recommend reading the book Salamander for more detail if you’re interested.  

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

When making comments like this please give examples of the restricted section and its contents. I cannot comment on such a vague implication. I would like to know more about what has been restricted. Such a term implies hiding Church history in which I do not agree that has happened.

There have been a ton of restricted materials that have slowly been coming to light through the JSP project.  They just released the council of 50 records, they announced that they will be releasing the William Clayton journals, the materials that Juanita Brooks was denied access to on Mountain meadows are becoming available now.  I’m grateful for the recent trend towards greater access these days.  Unfortunately they haven’t been this open in the past.  

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I’m familiar with the history.  Have you read the Stan Larson essay from Dialogue Journal a couple years back that details all the events quite well?  Also, I don’t automatically dismiss things written by the Tanners.  Rather I try to use my critical thinking tools to evaluate the evidence.  

I can’t differentiate the church from the people.  To me they are linked together and indistinguishable from one another.  We are the church in my mind, so I’m not sure how you define the church as a separate entity.  I’m suspect you mean the doctrines, but to me those doctrines are tied to a place and time and context and person.  

The whole personal purchase idea is a cover for the church.  I don’t want to sidetrack too much into the whole Hoffman world, I recommend reading the book Salamander for more detail if you’re interested.  

There have been a ton of restricted materials that have slowly been coming to light through the JSP project.  They just released the council of 50 records, they announced that they will be releasing the William Clayton journals, the materials that Juanita Brooks was denied access to on Mountain meadows are becoming available now.  I’m grateful for the recent trend towards greater access these days.  Unfortunately they haven’t been this open in the past.  

There is a claim that the church wants to innoculate, that it wants a more nuanced faith for the youth. Let's see if the trend continues.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

There is a claim that the church wants to innoculate, that it wants a more nuanced faith for the youth. Let's see if the trend continues.

In 2016, Elder Ballard put out the call to inoculate.  But I’ve never heard anyone claim that the church wants a more nuanced faith for the youth.  Who is making that claim?

[Exiled]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In 2016, Elder Ballard put out the call to inoculate.  But I’ve never heard anyone claim that the church wants a more nuanced faith for the youth.  Who is making that claim?

No one is making the claim that I know of. It seems to follow that through innoculation, by implication the youth will have a nuanced faith in accepting the wartz yet still following.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

No one is making the claim that I know of. It seems to follow that through innoculation, by implication the youth will have a nuanced faith in accepting the wartz yet still following.

That makes sense.  I saw it a little different (though still the same general idea) because of my experience.  I was able to make sense of the difficult historical events and doctrines.  My faith crisis was primarily caused by the betrayal I felt when I realized that there were all these things that church leaders never shared with me -- even after I had dedicated so much of my life to service in the church and education through its institutions.  So I look at it as just the act of telling them early on will help... nuanced faith or not.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That makes sense.  I saw it a little different (though still the same general idea) because of my experience.  I was able to make sense of the difficult historical events and doctrines.  My faith crisis was primarily caused by the betrayal I felt when I realized that there were all these things that church leaders never shared with me -- even after I had dedicated so much of my life to service in the church and education through its institutions.  So I look at it as just the act of telling them early on will help... nuanced faith or not.

Nuanced in the sense that it is new and different, without as much shock because the issues are introduced earlier.  The goal is to be where you are for sure.

[Anijen]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I can’t differentiate the church from the people.  To me they are linked together and indistinguishable from one another.  We are the church in my mind, so I’m not sure how you define the church as a separate entity.  I’m suspect you mean the doctrines, but to me those doctrines are tied to a place and time and context and person.  

The church is not a person, there is a separation between Church and Kate (sorry pun was on purpose, but not that good). I do not mean doctrines.  Simply put Gordon B. Hinckley is not the church, I am not the church. My actions are not the actions of the church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints means it is the Lord's Church, but Jesus is not a church. Saints are members of His church, but Saints are not a church. Faults of people do not transfer to the fault of the house they live in. Faults of church leaders do not transfer to the fault of the church, although I see people do it often. If President Monson stole from the church and the police came and arrested him, he could not say arrest the church, my actions are its actions.

 

Quote

The whole personal purchase idea is a cover for the church. 

Not even close to being true. Why would GBH publicly say he purchased a potentially historic writing? Not because he is an avid history buff, but because he wants to keep it secret from the world and does so by telling the world. I don't think so!

Me a nobody, has had access to every item or copy of the item that I have requested. I have degrees in History, but I do not consider me such a shining star that I think I should have access to everything. The church denying access to certain things from certain people is not evidence that the church is hiding its history (poppycock).

I would deny my speed loving son access to my corvette for practical reason, while at the same time allow my law abiding daughter to use it, this does not prove I am hiding the corvette.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Anijen

[kiwi57]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not going to quibble over much of what you have written here. I think you grasp the point I have made and I think you are in agreement with the important parts of what I am trying to say.  The question you ask, "What are the church leaders failing to grasp?"  While church leaders have said "we no longer teach that principle, I never hear church leaders apologize for past mistakes and harm that their decisions have caused.  All those interracial marriages that never were able to receive temple marriage.

All what "interracial marriages that never were able to receive temple marriage?"

10 hours ago, california boy said:

 All those gay men that were promised that if they only marry a woman, they would no longer be gay.

Promised by whom? I keep hearing about these alleged promises, but I cannot for the life of me find a single example of such a promise in a Conference talk or an Ensign article. The closest I have ever seen to documentation of this claim is a carefully - even diligently - misinterpreted citation from a rather obscure pamphlet.

10 hours ago, california boy said:

 All those black families that were never allowed to be sealed in the temple in this life and receive the blessings of that sealing while living.  All those people who now have lost trust in church leaders because they were never aware that there were more that one version of the First Vision.

If that's all it took for them to lose trust in Church leaders, then I'm inclined to suspect that if it hadn't been that, it would have just been something else.

10 hours ago, california boy said:

 Do you see where I am going with this?  I am one of those people.  I am one of those that have completely lost trust in church leaders for the promises in the name of God that were given to me if I would but marry a woman.  While that policy was dropped, as have other policies,

What "policy" is this? This urban legend has grown into a "policy" now, has it?

BTW, I really don't want this thread to turn into yet another rehash of all the other "gay" threads, which somehow seems to happen a lot, particularly when certain posters, including yourself, become active in a thread. Not only is there a whole lot more to the Church than its policies around conjugal marriage, there are even more important things than its policies around conjugal marriage. So maybe you'd like to start another thread to address my responses here. If you do, I may well look into it. I promise that if I comment, I won't completely ignore your arguments, but will actually address them.

[Kevin Christensen]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not everyone returned from their missions to find access to stacks of old Ensigns.

I have a hard time shaming good and faithful church members for not knowing what to even look for or ask.

 

But nowadays, anyone can find most of the stuff that I had to physically search for, traveling to bookstores, libraries, bound periodicals at the University of Utah and BYU, with a few clicks of the mouse.  Growth is a processes, and has stages. that everyone has to go through.  Instant mature development is not something that can be bottled and institutionalized.  (See the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth).  When I got to the point that I started seeking and finding, I was not just seeking answers to questions, but finding more questions.  And I had to go through developmental stages along with learning processes.

Another part of my point involves the role of narrative in determining what counts as a valid question and a valid answer.  So telling my narrative that differs in essential ways from the "How come no one told me this?" narrative should raise some awareness that the narrative in which we frame our questions crucially affects how we explore and interpret the questions poised by that narrative.  The interpretation of facts depends crucially on the narrative, so people ought to consider the role that narrative inescapably plays in interpretation. And in which questions get asked, or ignored.  That is one of the underlying points of Dehlin's whole Mormon Stories experience.  It's not just "let everyone tell their own stories," but rather, a community that adopts and enforces a particular Meta-narrative framing that assigns victimhood and the associated bitterness and entitlement on one side, and perps and "apologists"  as villains to the other.  It's not just objective facing of facts, but subjective choosing of which narrative frames to adopt and which community then to align with.   Facts are subject to community meta narrative.  So it pays to have some awareness of the significance of such things, and available choices, rather than to blithely go along with the currents without awareness of their effects.

I've used the example of Othello strangling Desdemona.  Sure, Othello feels betrayed, hurt, angry, and such.  He interprets what he sees in terms of the narrative as he sees it.  But is he working withing the most enlightened of narratives in making his interpretations?  Is Othello an innocent victim, or is his own pride a crucial factor in his vulnerabilities?  Should I stand back and say, "Well, that's his truth, what is true for him.  He needs to follow his own feelings."  And what about Desdemona?  Do her feelings count or is it all about Othello?  Does it matter that Iago has been influencing the construction of a misleading narrative frame for Othello?

FWW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Anijen said:

The church is not a person, there is a separation between Church and Kate (sorry pun was on purpose, but not that good). I do not mean doctrines.  Simply put Gordon B. Hinckley is not the church, I am not the church. My actions are not the actions of the church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints means it is the Lord's Church, but Jesus is not a church. Saints are members of His church, but Saints are not a church. Faults of people do not transfer to the fault of the house they live in. Faults of church leaders do not transfer to the fault of the church, although I see people do it often. If President Monson stole from the church and the police came and arrested him, he could not say arrest the church, my actions are its actions.

When it comes to legal liability an entity like a church or a corporate can and often is held liable for the actions of its leaders in courts of law.  This is why companies have codes of conduct, employment agreements, and vigorous training to try and mitigate the actions of employees that put the company at risk, especially the leaders of that company.  But there are countless examples in courts of law where leaders of an institution create liability for the institution itself.  I guess we just disagree about what "the church" is.  

6 hours ago, Anijen said:

Not even close to being true. Why would GBH publicly say he purchased a potentially historic writing? Not because he is an avid history buff, but because he wants to keep it secret from the world and does so by telling the world. I don't think so!

Me a nobody, has had access to every item or copy of the item that I have requested. I have degrees in History, but I do not consider me such a shining star that I think I should have access to everything. The church denying access to certain things from certain people is not evidence that the church is hiding its history (poppycock).

I would deny my speed loving son access to my corvette for practical reason, while at the same time allow my law abiding daughter to use it, this does not prove I am hiding the corvette.

All the events around Hofmann are worth studying, but for the specific example I'm referencing a letter that Hofmann sold to Hinckley in January of 1983 for the price of $15,000.  Hinckley was purchasing this letter in his office at church headquarters and it wasn't for a personal collection by Hinckley.  The forged letter was purportedly written by Joseph Smith and described money digging pursuits and treasures guarded by clever spirits.  This letter was kept hidden from the public, but two years later leaks about the existence of the letter were making their way to the papers, and when confronted about these leaks by reporters, church spokes person Jerry Cahill explicitly stated that the church does not have possession of the letter.  

Photo copies of the letter were also circulating in addition to transcripts and Hofmann was involved in helping to leak this information as well.  When the LA times told the church they were going to run with a story on this issue the church finally decided to come clean.  On May 9, 1985 the church released a statement from the first presidency admitting they have possession of this letter.  It was only due to the external pressures that the church admitted they had the letter.  

Anijen, obviously, we have differences of opinion about the practices of the church around restricting access to documents as well.  I think restricting access in many cases is hiding, but you characterize the restriction of access to documents as the same thing as not letting a teenager drive an expensive automobile.  This is a poor analogy, but if you think historians and adult members of a church shouldn't see certain documents because they can't handle the truth, then I leave you to your opinion.  

 

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

Except Joseph often used his own seer stone (the one that he used earlier in his life for treasure digging).  And he put it in the hat rather than looking at the plates (which sometimes weren't even in his view).  I think this is what CB is referring to.  How many members know that the Book of Mormon they read was largely translated not by the prophet looking at the plates through the Urim and Thummim but by placing his head in a heat and reading words from a different seer stone?

I know but the issue is people finding it unexpected. Yet when you take a step back it's looking through rocks. It's exactly the same thing. There's no logical problem. It's just a familiarity issue. Just like Protestants will find the angel and gold plates silly but won't think twice about the resurrection or Moses' staff.

I'd actually go one step further and think it's the looking in the hat that seems silly even though it doesn't change the content of anything. 

But people aren't typically rational and emotional responses are highly conditioned by expectations.

Edited December 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I know but the issue is people finding it unexpected. Yet when you take a step back it's looking through rocks. It's exactly the same thing. There's no logical problem. It's just a familiarity issue. Just like Protestants will find the angel and gold plates silly but won't think twice about the resurrection or Moses' staff.

I'd actually go one step further and think it's the looking in the hat that seems silly even though it doesn't change the content of anything. 

But people aren't typically rational and emotional responses are highly conditioned by expectations.

Isn't expectations why Joseph Smith stopped emphasizing the seer stone and started calling it a urim and thumin?  The Ohio converts didn't share Joseph's magic world view and so Joseph adapted.

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

But nowadays, anyone can find most of the stuff that I had to physically search for, traveling to bookstores, libraries, bound periodicals at the University of Utah and BYU, with a few clicks of the mouse.  Growth is a processes, and has stages. that everyone has to go through.  Instant mature development is not something that can be bottled and institutionalized.  (See the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth).  When I got to the point that I started seeking and finding, I was not just seeking answers to questions, but finding more questions.  And I had to go through developmental stages along with learning processes.

Another part of my point involves the role of narrative in determining what counts as a valid question and a valid answer.  So telling my narrative that differs in essential ways from the "How come no one told me this?" narrative should raise some awareness that the narrative in which we frame our questions crucially affects how we explore and interpret the questions poised by that narrative.  The interpretation of facts depends crucially on the narrative, so people ought to consider the role that narrative inescapably plays in interpretation. And in which questions get asked, or ignored.  That is one of the underlying points of Dehlin's whole Mormon Stories experience.  It's not just "let everyone tell their own stories," but rather, a community that adopts and enforces a particular Meta-narrative framing that assigns victimhood and the associated bitterness and entitlement on one side, and perps and "apologists"  as villains to the other.  It's not just objective facing of facts, but subjective choosing of which narrative frames to adopt and which community then to align with.   Facts are subject to community meta narrative.  So it pays to have some awareness of the significance of such things, and available choices, rather than to blithely go along with the currents without awareness of their effects.

I've used the example of Othello strangling Desdemona.  Sure, Othello feels betrayed, hurt, angry, and such.  He interprets what he sees in terms of the narrative as he sees it.  But is he working withing the most enlightened of narratives in making his interpretations?  Is Othello an innocent victim, or is his own pride a crucial factor in his vulnerabilities?  Should I stand back and say, "Well, that's his truth, what is true for him.  He needs to follow his own feelings."  And what about Desdemona?  Do her feelings count or is it all about Othello?  Does it matter that Iago has been influencing the construction of a misleading narrative frame for Othello?

FWW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

I agree that every individual and community frames their own story and creates their own narrative (and meta-narrative, in the case of communities).  I believe there is both truth and bias evident in all narratives.

When Elder Ballard stands in front of the church as an apostle and states that there has been no attempt to hide anything from anyone, when Elder Oaks jokes about how it was so obviously not hidden for the past 47 years, and when they claim that they can only act in an honest and transparent way -- they are building a meta-narrative.  That meta-narrative permits the shaming of those who find themselves with doubts after discovering troubling facts in the church's history and doctrine that weren't a part of their experience in many decades of church membership.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I know but the issue is people finding it unexpected. Yet when you take a step back it's looking through rocks. It's exactly the same thing. There's no logical problem. It's just a familiarity issue. Just like Protestants will find the angel and gold plates silly but won't think twice about the resurrection or Moses' staff.

I'd actually go one step further and think it's the looking in the hat that seems silly even though it doesn't change the content of anything. 

But people aren't typically rational and emotional responses are highly conditioned by expectations.

I disagree that it is the same thing, and not just having to do with the hat.  Joseph reading the plates through a urim and thummim that were buried with the plates, for that exact purpose, is quite different than Joseph looking at his treasure digging stone in the bottom of a hat while the plates sit covered across the room.

While I agree that both versions rely on divine supernatural powers, it is folly to dismiss concerns of members who see the latter as not the equivalent of the former.