Mormon Future - Cultural Assimilation or Retrenchment?

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

The author of the article is Benjamin Park, "an assistant professor of American history at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. His work focuses primarily on American religions, including Mormonism."

So far, so good.

Caring for the poor and needy is a "progressive" issue (presumably he means "progressive" in its American political sense)?  Who knew?

These are fair observations.  However, the article then strays rather heavily into speculative territory:

No citation to sources.  Use of passive voice ("It has been reported...").  Editorializing.  

"The faith’s distinctiveness within an increasingly gay-tolerant society."  That's a diplomatic and reasonable characterization.  I appreciate it.

Again, the author is importing American political terminology ("conservative") into a discussion about the inner-workings of the LDS Church.  I think it's sloppy thinking to frame the Church's actions in such overtly political terms.  It just doesn't fit.  

Again, a reasonable and fair characterization.

The Church's "trajectories" are only "competing" when they are viewed through a political lens.  The Church's actions have overlap with both "progressive" and "conservative" political ideologies, so pigeon-holing the Church into one category or the other, and then speculating about the resulting "competing trajectories," is a mistake.

I think the Church's treatment of social issues does not arise out of political ideologies, but out of the Brethren seeking to apply the Restored Gospel in accordance with the scriptures and with continuing revelatory guidance.

Personally, I would like to see the Proclamation canonized, but I am not emphatic about it.

Overall, I think the article is generally pretty good.

Thanks,

-Smac

Park is a member of the Church, a returned missionary, a BYU graduate and a gospel doctrine teacher. He tends to lean toward the "progressive" end of the spectrum in the Mormon academic divide, if there be one. He was an associate editor of the Maxwell Institute's Mormon Studies Review after the purging of Dan Peterson et al; don't know whetehr or not he still is.

While I would welcome canonization of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," I'm not certain it's necessary. It is an inspired and official proclamation reaffirming doctrinal truths that were already had among the Latter-day Saints at the time it was published. It codified those truths and brought them to the attention of government and civic leaders the mass media, but it didn't break any new ground doctrinally.

Canonizing it would not endow it with any greater verity than it already has, in my view.

 

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

When Elder Nelson characterized the controversial policy as revelation in a talk about one month after the policy was leaked, that act added more authoritative weight to the way people looked at a very controversial policy.  In the Radio West interview that Robert linked to earlier in this thread, this was referenced by Greg Prince I believe.  

Yes.  It clarified things quite a bit.

And the reaction in some quarters has been . . . to question or impugn Pres. Nelson's honesty and integrity.

Quote

What is up for debate?  I think much is up for debate within the quorum and the higher echelons of the church.  I think they are constantly debating these things. 

I agree.  

And yet . . . the 2015 policy changes were unanimously sustained by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

I am glad that the Brethren have different viewpoints and opinions.  But I am also glad when they conclude their discussions through seeking guidance from God and arriving at a unanimous decision.  This is what happened with the 2015 policy changes.

I am totally open to the policy changes being tweaked or modified, provided that such things are done through discussion in council and under inspiration.

I am also open to the theoretical rescission of the policy changes, but I don't see that happening.  I think that's just wishful thinking.

Quote

My opinions are informed by my reading of history and reading about previous debates and discussions that have been documented in times past. 

So are mine.

Quote

I also follow people that say they are aware of such debates from associates involved in the current church leadership. 

"They are aware of such debates from associates."  An awful lot of ambiguity in those eight words.

Multiple hearsay, almost always involving multiple anonymous parties, about controversial topics has a way of being unreliable.

Quote

Do I personally have any special source that works in the church, no, I have no personal special source.  I trust that the historical precedent for these kinds of debates, coupled with the controversy we see on the outside, coupled with statements and actions of inclusion, vs. statements and actions of exclusion, coupled with the people who do have family and friends that work at the church who report on things. 

If we were talking about something trivial or not particularly controversial, I wouldn't really care.  For example, last night I watched a YouTube video that included speculation and guesses about plot points for the ninth Star Wars movie now that Carrie Fisher has died.  I watched it and enjoyed it.  I even gave it some credence.  Because it doesn't matter one way or another if that speculation is true.  It's just a movie, after all.

But discussions about serious and important and influential topics deserve real and substantive discussion.  Such discussion necessarily involves responsible and reasoned parsing of evidence and reasoning, particularly the weighing of evidence as to its probative value and weight, and its competency and relevancy.  With respect, you aren't doing that here.  You are just cobbling together guesswork, anonymous and multiple hearsay, and wishful thinking.  That's all you've got.  And you are ignoring the "smoking gun"-types of evidence, such as remarks made by Pres. Nelson in January 2016 and by Elder Oaks in the last General Conference.

The Church's position and teachings on same-sex attraction and its constellation of related issues (such as same-sex marriage, the policy changes, and the Proclamation) are being refined and clarified, and that is good.  This is particularly so when we are receiving clear and public assurances that the Brethren are seeking and receiving revelatory guidance on these issues.  You seem to be suggesting that it is some great secret that the Brethren discuss and debate these issues.  We've known that all along.  But that's the beginning of the process, not the end. 

The Church's position and teachings on these issues are not "evolving" into something substantively different.  The Law of Chastity remains unchanged, though we now teach and emphasize it with more compassion and clarity and understanding.  The Lord's definition of marriage as between a man and a woman remains unchanged.  We now have to make some very challenging and difficult decisions since society is radically re-defining marriage away from how it appears in the revelations of the Church.

Quote

All of this collectively tells me that there is great debate and conflict on this issue in the church hierarchy on this subject.  

"Great debate?"  Sure.  I'm fine with that.

"Conflict?"  Not sure what you mean here.  Again, the 2015 policy changes were unanimously sustained by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  How do you account for that?

Quote

No offense SMAC, but I think you've been a bit preachy with me of late on this topic of what you believe is appropriate criticism. 

Well, my intent is to share what I believe.  You are doing the same thing, right?

And if quoting scriptures and prophets and apostles is being "preachy," yes, I'll own that.  But my comments are borne of sincerity and concern, that's all.  I do not presume to judge you or your standing before God.  To the extent I have given such an impression, I apologize.

Quote

I disagree with you, I disagree with Oaks, let this dog lie.  

It's Elder Oaks, please.

And it's a bit strange for you to feel at liberty to share your opinions, but then suggest I should constrain myself from sharing mine. 

Quote

My suspicion is that Elder Nelson overreached on this statement and his recounting of events around it.  Sounds like we disagree on this topic, which is fine.  

"Overreached?"  What does that mean?

To be frank, I am open to this possibility.  But I don't agree that it happened.  The Church published Pres. Nelson's remarks on its website, where they remain to this day.  I think vague and wholly unsupported accusations against Pres. Nelson on this point are not a matter of evidence or reasoned analysis, but of wishful thinking and resentment.

Pres. Nelson was a percipient witness.  He is a credible witness.  His testimony is relevant.  And probative.  His public statement, subsequently formally published by the Church on its website, comports with the letter from The Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (dated June 29, 2015), and the letters from the First Presidency regarding the policy changes, and with Elder Christofferson's interview (also published by the Church to this day), and with Elder Oaks' October 2017 remarks regarding the Proclamation (also published by the Church to this day).  These are cumulatively more than sufficient to establish a "prima facie" showing that the Brethren are becoming more unified, not less, on these issues.

I invite you to objectively assess the foregoing "evidence" against the speculative stuff you appear to be relying on.  I encourage you to give more weight and credence to the former than the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a newspaper editorial, not an essay.  But if you disagree with any particular observations, please feel free to comment on what those are, I think his observations here are accurate.  

 

 

I took it to be more of an op-ed column than an editorial. But passive voice and lack of attribution aren't any more acceptable in a newspaper opinion piece than they are in an essay. And when a writer uses the words "it has been reported that" to precede an assertion of questionable provenance, I tend to suspect it is rumor-mongering.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Park is a member of the Church, a returned missionary, a BYU graduate and a gospel doctrine teacher. He tends to lean toward the "progressive" end of the spectrum in the Mormon academic divide, if there be one. He was an associate editor of the Maxwell Institute's Mormon Studies Review after the purging of Dan Peterson et al; don't know whetehr or not he still is.

While I would welcome canonization of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," I'm not certain it's necessary. It is an inspired and official proclamation reaffirming doctrinal truths that were already had among the Latter-day Saints at the time it was published. It codified those truths and brought them to the attention of government and civic leaders the mass media, but it didn't break any new ground doctrinally.

Canonizing it would not endow it with any greater verity than it already has, in my view.

 

If only that which was said once was our canon, we'd have but few pages.  Sounds kind of cool. 

I don't really care to see it canonized either but for different reasons.  I think it'll go the way of the dinosaurs like other writings that have been canonized then de canonized or never canonized but proclaimed to be revelation from God.  Someday I'm sure we'll all have to look back and think that we in the current world didn't have enough light and knowledge and thus were presuming things in the name of God--kind of like they did in the Church 20, 50, and 150 years ago.  I'm happy to look forward to a brighter day in the Church.  It'll come.  

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pres. Nelson was a percipient witness.  He is a credible witness.  His testimony is relevant.  And probative.  His public statement, subsequently formally published by the Church on its website, comports with the letter from The Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (dated June 29, 2015), and the letters from the First Presidency regarding the policy changes, and with Elder Christofferson's interview (also published by the Church to this day), and with Elder Oaks' October 2017 remarks regarding the Proclamation (also published by the Church to this day).  These are cumulatively more than sufficient to establish a "prima facie" showing that the Brethren are becoming more unified, not less, on these issues.

I invite you to objectively assess the foregoing "evidence" against the speculative stuff you appear to be relying on.  I encourage you to give more weight and credence to the former than the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Note that neither the November 2015 letter from the First Presidency nor Elder Christofferson's interview identified the policy additions and changes as revelation.  Only Elder Nelson made that statement.

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Note that neither the November 2015 letter from the First Presidency nor Elder Christofferson's interview identified the policy additions and changes as revelation.  Only Elder Nelson made that statement.

Pres. Nelson, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Speaking to the worldwide Church, in his official capacity and in a Church-sponsored setting and event.

His remarks were subsequently transcribed and published on the Church's website, where they remain published to this day.

All this effort at isolating Pres. Nelson, as characterizing him as "going rogue," just doesn't work.  It's wishful thinking.  Grasping at straws.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is why I think that the revelatory process described by Oaks in his Oct 2017 address is relevant.  As he described, that document was debated for nearly a year.  I'm not suggesting that it was contentious in any way but if it took a year of drafts and revisions than there had to have been some discussion about what to say and how to say it.  They obviously didn't all agree on the document the first time they wrote it.  And, after months of work, the first presidency still had changes.

It would seem you missed my post above, so I am repeating it here in response to this post:
 

Quote

 

My understanding is that revelation nearly always follows a period of sustained fact finding, analysis, thought refinement, etc., before the resulting product receives the divine imprimatur. Often, though not always, this is a group effort.

The notion of a latter-day prophet in each and every instance delivering a divine edict like Moses descending from Sinai strikes me as simplistic.

 

I would add that refining the wording over time is not necessarily an indication that they disagreed over the concept and principle. They might have just been looking for the best way to word it.

 

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Note that neither the November 2015 letter from the First Presidency nor Elder Christofferson's interview identified the policy additions and changes as revelation.  Only Elder Nelson made that statement.

 

I also seem to recall Pres Packer suggested it was revelation in a talk that was later changed.  

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’ve heard that the timing of the release of the policy caught many of the leaders off guard. ...

Attribution, please.

Or will this be an occasion when you invoke the this-is-not-an-essay excuse?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I also seem to recall Pres Packer suggested it was revelation in a talk that was later changed.  

Since then, it has more than once been identified as a "revelatory document," including by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who participated in its creation and who is a signatory to it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If only that which was said once was our canon, we'd have but few pages.  Sounds kind of cool. 

 

What are you talking about?

The law of chastity, the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the eternal nature of the traditional family unit, the role of husband and wife, father and mother, are things that have been reiterated and emphasized in the Church over and over again.

 

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since then, it has more than once been identified as a "revelatory document," including by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who participated in its creation and who is a signatory to it.

 

Do you think there is a distinction in calling something a "revelatory document" as opposed to just saying it was a "revelation?"

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"They are aware of such debates from associates."  An awful lot of ambiguity in those eight words.

Multiple hearsay, almost always involving multiple anonymous parties, about controversial topics has a way of being unreliable.

Heresy isn’t always unreliable and since we really don’t have access to open public information because so much is done behind closed doors then all we’re operating off is very scant carefully groomed public information pieced together with other details that sound plausible and align with what we know of the past.  I’m not 100% confident with this by any means but it seems the best we can do under the circumstances.  

 

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But discussions about serious and important and influential topics deserve real and substantive discussion.  Such discussion necessarily involves responsible and reasoned parsing of evidence and reasoning, particularly the weighing of evidence as to its probative value and weight, and its competency and relevancy.  With respect, you aren't doing that here.  You are just cobbling together guesswork, anonymous and multiple hearsay, and wishful thinking.  That's all you've got.  And you are ignoring the "smoking gun"-types of evidence, such as remarks made by Pres. Nelson in January 2016 and by Elder Oaks in the last General Conference.

I agree with you about the importance and the need to not be sloppy.  I just intrepid the evidence differently than you do.  

 

[Exiled]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pres. Nelson, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Speaking to the worldwide Church, in his official capacity and in a Church-sponsored setting and event.

His remarks were subsequently transcribed and published on the Church's website, where they remain published to this day.

All this effort at isolating Pres. Nelson, as characterizing him as "going rogue," just doesn't work.  It's wishful thinking.  Grasping at straws.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you think there is anything to the inclusion of the January talk by Nelson and then exclusion of it from the manuals, then having it show in the Ensign?  Some view that as behind the scenes politics.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Do you think there is a distinction in calling something a "revelatory document" as opposed to just saying it was a "revelation?"

Perhaps it is a distinction without a difference.

I can only give you my personal idea, but if I had to draw a distinction, I would say it is a revelation if it breaks new doctrinal ground (such as the 1978 revelation on the priesthood). I would call it a revelatory document if it was divine revelation that brought it into being, whether or not it declares new doctrine. That is to say, I believe God instructed His servants to prepare and publish the proclamation on the family, though its content is a reaffirmation of doctrinal truths that were already had among the Latter-day Saints.

 

[smac97]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Heresy isn’t always unreliable

Hearsay is presumptively unreliable at law.  See U.S. v. Conrad, 507 F.3d 424, 429 (6th Cir. 2007).

That presumption can be overcome, but it's hard to do.  And what you've offered here . . . doesn't do it.  

You are relying not only on hearsay, but on multiple hearsay.  And not only multiple, hearsay, but multiple anonymous hearsay.  And it appears uncorroborated as well.

This is wishful thinking.  On steroids.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

and since we really don’t have access to open public information because so much is done behind closed doors

Ah.  The good ol' "I wouldn't put it past 'em" line of speculation.

Again, you are just cobbling together guesswork, anonymous and multiple (and now, admittedly uncorroborated) hearsay, and wishful thinking. 

I invite you to step back and reconsider your line of reasoning here.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

then all we’re operating off is very scant carefully groomed public information pieced together with other details that sound plausible and align with what we know of the past.  

Translation: You are questioning the integrity and honesty of Pres. Nelson.

Again, I invite you to re-consider what you are doing here.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I’m not 100% confident with this by any means but it seems the best we can do under the circumstances.  

With respect, you aren't anywhere near the best we can do.

You are ignoring relevant, probative, competent evidence in favor of multiple, anonymous, uncorroborated hearsay statements, hostile speculation, and wishful thinking.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I agree with you about the importance and the need to not be sloppy.  I just intrepid the evidence differently than you do.  

With respect, you aren't doing that at all. 

I've said my peace, so I'll leave you with the last word.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Do you think there is anything to the inclusion of the January talk by Nelson and then exclusion of it from the manuals, then having it show in the Ensign?  Some view that as behind the scenes politics.

CFR, please.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps it is a distinction without a difference.

I can only give you my personal idea, but if I had to draw a distinction, I would say it is a revelation if it breaks new doctrinal ground (such as the 1978 revelation on the priesthood). I would call it a revelatory document if it was divine revelation that brought it into being, whether or not it declares new doctrine. That is to say, I believe God instructed His servants to prepare and publish the proclamation on the family, though its content is a reaffirmation of doctrinal truths that were already had among the Latter-day Saints.

 

Could it be the process type revelation that characterized the family proclamation as opposed how the d&c came about? 

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Heresy isn’t always unreliable and since we really don’t have access to open public information because so much is done behind closed doors then all we’re operating off is very scant carefully groomed public information pieced together with other details that sound plausible and align with what we know of the past.  I’m not 100% confident with this by any means but it seems the best we can do under the circumstances.  

 

I agree with you about the importance and the need to not be sloppy.  I just intrepid the evidence differently than you do.  

 

On a credibility scale, "carefully groomed public information" far exceeds unattributed rumor and gossip.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I think this was discussed on this board at length but I will search for it if you cannot remember.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What are you talking about?

The law of chastity, the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the eternal nature of the traditional family unit, the role of husband and wife, father and mother, are things that have been reiterated and emphasized in the Church over and over again.

 

I don't know I guess I got a bit of a kick out of the notion that it need not be canonized because it's a repeat of that which was already believed.  

I'd be curious of your thoughts on this RFM podcast:

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/11/radio-free-mormon-020-making-doctrine-out-of-nothing-at-all/

He argues that there is one line, one piece of the doctrine, spelled out in the Proclamation that was not previously said to be doctrine confirmed of revelation.  

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know I guess I got a bit of a kick out of the notion that it need not be canonized because it's a repeat of that which was already believed.  

I'd be curious of your thoughts on this RFM podcast:

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/11/radio-free-mormon-020-making-doctrine-out-of-nothing-at-all/

He argues that there is one line, one piece of the doctrine, spelled out in the Proclamation that was not previously said to be doctrine confirmed of revelation.  

 

 

I don't normally spend time with podcasts. Especially that one.

 

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 Especially that one.

 

Figures.  

I mean seriously I didn't think you'd give it serious consideration, seriously.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I think this was discussed on this board at length but I will search for it if you cannot remember.

Yes, CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Figures.  

I mean seriously I didn't think you'd give it serious consideration, seriously.  

What "line" in the Proclamation is he referencing?

Thanks,

-Smac