New First Presidency

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

... One year, after our choir had finished its performance and we were was leaving the room singing "Silent Night," I passed Elder Nelson's table. He reached out to me and said, "That was very nice, Scott."

My last personal encounter with him was a few years ago when I covered the dedication of the Priesthood Restoration Site at Harmony, Pa. President Nelson was there to dedicate the facilities. I took a memorable photo of President and Sister Nelson with their smartphones taking a picture of the gravestone of the infant son of Joseph and Emma Smith there in the cemetery at Harmony. It was the first visit to that site for either of them.

President Packer had only recently died, and Elder Nelson had ascended by seniority to the position of President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I made a mental note that if I should happen to have a personal encounter with President Nelson, I must be careful to address him with the title "President" rather than "Elder."

As I was in a little anteroom in the visitors center composing my news story and downloading my photos, he surprised the few of us who were in there by coming in to say hello. Sure enough, I made the faux pas I was determined to avoid and addressed him as "Elder Nelson," quickly and awkwardly correcting myself. He, of course, took it very graciously. ...

I would be very surprised if any of the Brethren were to take any special note of such a slight.  I don't move in circles which put me in contact with the Brethren in anything but the most public of settings, so, necessarily, my sample of such occasions is skewed, but I don't believe I've ever even so much as heard a member of the First Presidency use the title "President" when referring to himself.  Whenever I've heard a Counselor in the First Presidency conduct a session of General Conference (which, to the best of my recollection is the only time I've ever heard a member of the First Presidency refer to himself, so, as I said, skewed sample), the reference has always been, "... President [Name], who presides at this Conference, has asked that I, Brother [Name], conduct ..."

P.S.: As for me, I've never held any sort of a title in the Church by which I could be addressed (unless one counts "Mister Secretary ..." )  In terms of brotherhood/sisterhood/fellowship, I've always felt like I've "arrived" and have successfully developed a decent rapport with someone when s/he calls me plain, old, "Brother Ken."  

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I would be very surprised if any of the Brethren were to take any special note of such a slight.  I don't move in circles which put me in contact with the Brethren in anything but the most public of settings, so, necessarily, my sample of such occasions is skewed, but I don't believe I've ever even so much as heard a member of the First Presidency use the title "President" when referring to himself.  Whenever I've heard a Counselor in the First Presidency conduct a session of General Conference (which, to the best of my recollection is the only time I've ever heard a member of the First Presidency refer to himself, so, as I said, skewed sample), the reference has always been, "... President [Name], who presides at this Conference, has asked that I, Brother [Name], conduct ..."

P.S.: As for me, I've never held any sort of a title in the Church by which I could be addressed (unless one counts "Mister Secretary ..." )  In terms of brotherhood/sisterhood/fellowship, I've always felt like I've "arrived" and have successfully developed a decent rapport with someone when s/he calls me plain, old, "Brother Ken."  

 

No, I wouldn’t have expected him or any of the other Brethren to fuss over it. My object in bringing it up is to say his kindly manner put me at ease. 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’ve answered questions about the blogger but since his post was taken down (after meeting with the SP) I obviously can’t prove anything. 

I note, however, that all your accusations of impropriety are being leveled at my friend and not at the SP.  Just further evidence to support the point I have been making.  Thank you. 

Actually, they (and they actually aren't accusations, but questions) are leveled (actually, directed) at you! LOL But only with regards to the impropriety of your conclusion and the example you used to support it.

The point you've been making? It was faulty from the get-go!

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Actually, they (and they actually aren't accusations, but questions) are leveled (actually, directed) at you! LOL But only with regards to the impropriety of your conclusion and the example you used to support it.

The point you've been making? It was faulty from the get-go!

I’m what way is my point faulty?  The more we’ve discussed it here and the more reactions I’ve seen from participants here, the more solid my point seems. 

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Actually, they (and they actually aren't accusations, but questions) are leveled (actually, directed) at you! LOL But only with regards to the impropriety of your conclusion and the example you used to support it.

The point you've been making? It was faulty from the get-go!

You can say that you don't believe in this story..but you can't call Rockpond a liar.

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m what way is my point faulty?  The more we’ve discussed it here and the more reactions I’ve seen from participants here, the more solid my point seems. 

I explained it here: Posted 20 hours ago . I'd be happy to field any specific questions.

30 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You can say that you don't believe in this story..but you can't call Rockpond a liar.

LOL My remarks and questions are not at all about rp's honesty, but about important details that are missing from his story that would make it support his point. I explained it here: Posted 20 hours ago .

Both of you are reading accusations into my posts -- rp about his friend, you about rp -- where there are not any. I invite you to discuss the topic.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I explained it here: Posted 20 hours ago . I'd be happy to field any specific questions.

LOL My remarks and questions are not at all about rp's honesty, but about important details that are missing from his story that would make it support his point. I explained it here: Posted 20 hours ago .

Both of you are reading accusations into my posts -- rp about his friend, you about rp -- where there are not any. I invite you to discuss the topic.

I’ll try again.  In your post linked above you asked:

“Did the fallible Stake President call in the fallible blogger for countering the fallible Elder’s evidences in a good faith (objectively, scholarly, etc.) manner?”

The answer is yes.  My friend wrote his blog post in a good faith manner. 

[smac97]

On 1/18/2018 at 10:39 PM, rockpond said:

You are speaking to my original point here.  We acknowledge fallibility of our leaders

Yes.

Quote

but not ever being able to identify something that could be an error makes our practice one of presumed infallibility. 

I disagree.  I acknowledge my wife is fallible, but I decline to publicly identify/air her flaws, or my disagreements with her (hypothetical, actually, since we get along quite well).  That does not mean she is presumptively infallible.  It just means that I won't betray her trust and confidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 21, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

I disagree.  I acknowledge my wife is fallible, but I decline to publicly identify/air them.  That does not mean she is presumptively infallible.  It just means that I won't betray her trust and confidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting approach but not an apt comparison:  the one-on-one, intimate relationship you have with your wife is not the same as being a part of a 15 million member church. 

Consider this, if your wife was doing or saying something that you felt would harm your family, would you react to try to stop her or prevent the harm?

If your wife told you that even trying to stop her from causing harm would result in an immediate divorce with her taking full custody of the children... is her fallibility still acknowledged in practice?

[smac97]

On 1/18/2018 at 10:37 PM, rockpond said:

Yes, words need to have meaning.  And when I said my definition of restoration doesn’t matter, I meant that in the context of this discussion.  Not in my interview. 

I agree that the TR questions are not a rote incantation.  Nor are they a trial of the individual.  

Technically, the handbook doesn’t actually require any specific answers.  Signing of the recommend is left to the discernment of three individuals.

Yes.

Quote

But setting that aside and assuming there are “correct” answers as I think most would assume...

One must have a testimony of the restoration.  

Yes.

Quote

What exactly does it mean to “have a testimony of the restoration”?  

I'm not sure there is an "exact" meaning for “have a testimony of the restoration."  But simply because something cannot be defined with exacting precision does not mean that it cannot be defined at all.

Words must have meaning.

Quote

I was asked this by an interviewee.  We could ask that among members and get a wide range of answers.  So, everyone who answers that question could be answering in slightly different ways.  

Yes.  Some variation.  Not unlimited variation, though.  

Kiwi's reference to "lexical duplicity" becomes decidedly relevant here.

Quote

As for Book of Mormon historicity, there is no question pertaining to that.  

I'm not sure about that.  

Quote

The restoration still exists and is still miraculous if the Book of Mormon peoples never existed in the forms described. 

Which parts of the restoration?  The parts involving the Angel Moroni are all out, right?  If "the Book of Mormon peoples never existed," then there was no Moroni, hence no Angel Moroni.

And if there were no "Book of Mormon peoples," then there were no authentically ancient plates.  So did Joseph Smith lie about them?  Or was he deceived?

I think historicity has much to do with the value of The Book of Mormon as it does with the value of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.  Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphasis added):

Quote

"There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)

See also Kent Jackson's remarks (same link) (emphasis added):

Quote

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (pp. 137-38)

I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value.  For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is, in my view, a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."  A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon.

Quote

When you interview someone for a temple recommend you are standing in for the Lord.  

Yep.  So I'd really have to think about blithely ignoring or glossing over the wholesale rejection of the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and what every prophet from Joseph Smith on down has proclaimed it to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 21, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

On 1/19/2018 at 2:44 PM, rockpond said:

No, he wasn't publicly promulgating false doctrine.

And is it not okay to contradict a Church officer, considering that they are fallible?  Can they not be contradicted?

I think that's a broad question, and hence calls for too broad and generalized an answer.  Consequently, a case-by-case assessment of statements "contradicting" General Authorities is probably the best way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 21, 2018 by smac97

[CMZ]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we could get a lengthy statement from our current prophet that would show what his real opinion of Elder Uchtdorf is? Fortunately we have such a statement:
 

Quote

One cannot study the life of this great man without gaining a sense of his unique and unshakable faith. He has total faith in God, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Church, and faith that heavenly help will come to him when needed.

When Elder Uchtdorf was called to the holy apostleship in October 2004, some representatives of the media hailed him as the “German Apostle.” Then he correctly taught that he was called to represent the Lord to the people, not the other way around. Indeed that is his sacred calling. He is to teach and testify of the Lord Jesus Christ to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”

One cannot study the life of this great man without also gaining a sense of his foreordination for the great responsibilities that are now his. This doctrine is taught by ancient and modern prophets. Alma taught that priesthood leaders “were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if it were possible to ask President Uchtdorf’s mother if she had any inkling that her youngest son might be called one day to serve in the First Presidency of the Church? What did she sense as she nurtured her young son, enabled his freedom, and saved his life?

The Lord has known and loved this special man from before the world was formed. Yes, he has been foreordained for his duties as a leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Now he stands beside President Thomas S. Monson in his sacred calling. President Henry B. Eyring and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf are great servants of the Lord, willing and able to provide counsel to the President of the Church. These three presiding high priests complement each other. Members of the Church will gladly and gratefully follow their inspired leadership.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/07/president-dieter-f-uchtdorf-a-family-man-a-man-of-faith-a-man-foreordained?lang=eng

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m what way is my point faulty?  The more we’ve discussed it here and the more reactions I’ve seen from participants here, the more solid my point seems. 

Sounds more like you are doubling-down into the backfire effect.  

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Yes.

I'm not sure there is an "exact" meaning “have a testimony of the restoration."  But simply because something cannot be defined with exacting precision does not mean that it cannot be defined at all.

Words must have meaning.

Yes.  Some variation.  Not unlimited variation, though.  

Kiwi's reference to "lexical duplicity" becomes decidedly relevant here.

I'm not sure about that.  

Which parts of the restoration?  The parts involving the Angel Moroni are all out, right?  If "the Book of Mormon peoples never existed," then there was no Moroni, hence no Angel Moroni.

And if there were no "Book of Mormon peoples," then there were no authentically ancient plates.  So did Joseph Smith lie about them?  Or was he deceived?

I think historicity has much to do with the value of The Book of Mormon as it does with the value of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.  Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphasis added):

See also Kent Jackson's remarks (same link) (emphasis added):

I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value.  For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is, in my view, a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."  A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon.

Yep.  So I'd really have to think about blithely ignoring or glossing over the wholesale rejection of the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and what every prophet from Joseph Smith on down has proclaimed it to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

The case in point was not a wholesale rejection of the Book of Mormon. 

While you list a number of good questions regarding Book of Mormon historicity, I’ll note that none of them are included in the Temple Recommend questions provided by the Brethren.  And there is the instruction not to add to the existing questions.  

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that's a broad question, and hence calls for too broad and generalized an answer.  Consequently, a case-by-case assessment of "contradicting" General Authorities is probably the best way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

“Can general authorities be contradicted?” That’s actually a rather simple question. 

[Bernard Gui]

Re: Elder Uchtdorf, from my son Artisticosso. 

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2013-10-1230-lift-where-you-stand?lang=eng

Quote

Some years ago in our meetinghouse in Darmstadt, Germany, a group of brethren was asked to move a grand piano from the chapel to the adjoining cultural hall, where it was needed for a musical event. None were professional movers, and the task of getting that gravity-friendly instrument through the chapel and into the cultural hall seemed nearly impossible. Everybody knew that this task required not only physical strength but also careful coordination. There were plenty of ideas, but not one could keep the piano balanced correctly. They repositioned the brethren by strength, height, and age over and over again—nothing worked.

As they stood around the piano, uncertain of what to do next, a good friend of mine, Brother Hanno Luschin, spoke up. He said, “Brethren, stand close together and lift where you stand.”

It seemed too simple. Nevertheless, each lifted where he stood, and the piano rose from the ground and moved into the cultural hall as if on its own power. That was the answer to the challenge. They merely needed to stand close together and lift where they stood....

Although it may seem simple, lifting where we stand is a principle of power. Most of the priesthood bearers I know understand and live by this principle. They are eager to roll up their sleeves and go to work, whatever that work might be. They faithfully perform their priesthood duties. They magnify their callings. They serve the Lord by serving others. They stand close together and lift where they stand.

 

Edited January 21, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Interesting approach but not an apt comparison:  the one-on-one, intimate relationship you have with your wife is not the same as being a part of a 15 million member church. 

I have a duty of fidelity and respect toward my wife. I also have a duty of fidelity and respect toward the Lord's anointed. 

These duties are not identical, but they have many similarities.

Publicly speaking against my wife would not be an appropriate thing for me to do.

Publicly speaking against General Authorities would not be an appropriate thing for me to do.

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Consider this, if your wife was doing or saying something that you felt would harm your family, would you react to try to stop her or prevent the harm?

Of course I would.  But I would confer with her.  Privately.  I certainly would not go online and publicly air my differences with her.  I would not publicly speak against her or oppose her.  I would not seek to persuade others to join me in opposing her.

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If your wife told you that even trying to stop her from causing harm would result in an immediate divorce with her taking full custody of the children... is her fallibility still acknowledged in practice?

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have a duty of fidelity and respect toward my wife. I also have a duty of fidelity and respect toward the Lord's anointed. 

These duties are not identical, but they have many similarities.

Publicly speaking against my wife would not be an appropriate thing for me to do.

Publicly speaking against General Authorities would not be an appropriate thing for me to do.

Of course I would.  But I would confer with her.  Privately.  I certainly would not go online and publicly air my differences with her.  I would not publicly speak against her or oppose her.  I would not seek to persuade others to join me in opposing her.

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

I disagree.  Having no reasonable way to disagree with someone is not a practical acknowledgement of their fallibility. 

And again, your one-on-one, intimate relationship with your wife has some distinct differences that you are failing to acknowledge.  Though you did say that publicly speaking against a general authority would not be an appropriate thing to do.  Of course, in the church, we can’t really privately speak to them either.  So, if an error is possibly made by a church leader, it cannot be publicly or privately discussed.  And... 

Thus we have an effective “infallibility” of leaders in practice. 

Thanks again.  Have a good night, I’m headed to bed. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The case in point was not a wholesale rejection of the Book of Mormon. 

Yes.  Just like Jesus-as-a-moral-teacher-but-not-divine is not a "wholesale rejection" of Him.

Except . . . it is.  The divine sonship of Jesus Christ is central to Him.  To reject that is to reject Him.  One can say "Oh, I appreciate his moral axioms, and I try to live by those," but that's just pablum.  In that context, Jesus is no more important that Anthony Robbins or Stephen Covey or Dale Carnegie.  Just another guy with a few interesting things to say, but otherwise insignificant or irrelevant to our relationship with God, our path in life, our salvation.

Similarly, the Book of Mormon, absent historicity, isn't worth much.  Actually, it's an affirmative fraud.  And so is Joseph Smith.  And the witnesses.  The Plates?  A sham.  The recitations of angelic visits from Moroni?  Lies and fabrications.  The testimonies of all the prophets and apostles from Joseph Smith on down?  Lies.  Delusions.  False doctrines.  One can say "Oh, I appreciate the moral teachings of the book, and I try to live by those," but that's just pablum, too.

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While you list a number of good questions regarding Book of Mormon historicity, I’ll note that none of them are included in the Temple Recommend questions provided by the Brethren.  

And I'll note that cocaine isn't mentioned in the Word of Wisdom.  And yet...

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And there is the instruction not to add to the existing questions.  

We've been over this.  It is one thing to add questions and conditions not contemplated by the TR questions.  It is quite another to make further inquiries as to the authorized TR questions when appropriate.

I appreciate and respect your concern about bishops and stake presidents exceeding the scope of the TR questions.  However, the Book of Mormon is an extremely important portion of the Restored Gospel.  It is the "keystone of our religion."  Can you appreciate the possibility that a bishop could be justified in exploring a person's stated concerns/doubts about, or outright rejection of, that "keystone" as having historicity?

Imagine someone responding to the first two questions with something like "I like and respect Jesus Christ as a purely metaphorical son of God.  He was a good teacher and taught us important moral truths by which we can be saved, but He was not divine.  Nevertheless, I am comfortable with answering 'yes' to both the first and second questions {in the TR interview}."  What do you think a bishop should do in such a circumstance?

To be sure, there are times when a bishop can exceed the appropriate scope of inquiry in a TR interview.  But just as a bishop can construe that scope too broadly, I think you may be construing it too narrowly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I disagree.  

I have all sorts of "reasonable way{s} to disagree" with my wife.  What I reject is your apparent assertion that this disagreement must be played out publicly.  Can you appreciate that distinction?

I may likewise have disagreements with my employer, but I would probably not want to publicly air those grievances, or publicly tear down my employer, or attempt to persuade others to join me in disagreeing with my employer.  However, that I choose not to publicly disagree with my employer does not negate the existence of that disagreement.  And it also does not mean that I think my employer is infallible.

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Having no reasonable way to disagree with someone is not a practical acknowledgement of their fallibility. 

First, we do have reasonable ways to disagree with General Authorities.  

Second, I reject the notion that the only "reasonable way to disagree" with General Authorities is to oppose or criticize them in public.

Third, I do not understand your fixation on "acknowledgement" of fallibility.  I likewise acknowledge that circles are round and water is wet.  These are axiomatic.  So too is the fallibility of General Authorities.  We can acknowledge that without publicly criticizing or opposing them.

Fourth, your statements here appear to be a roundabout attempt to rationalize publicly opposing or criticizing the General Authorities.  Is that a fair statement?

Quote

And again, your one-on-one, intimate relationship with your wife has some distinct differences that you are failing to acknowledge.  

I acknowledge them (again).

You seem to think that members of the Church are at liberty to publicly criticize / find fault with / oppose / attempt to persuade others to oppose the General Authorities.  I think this is incompatible with fellowship in the Church.  I can cite all sorts of scriptural and prophetic quotes to back up my position.  I don't think you can say the same.

Quote

Though you did say that publicly speaking against a general authority would not be an appropriate thing to do.  

Yes.  That is an established point, but you seem to dispute it anyway.

Quote

Of course, in the church, we can’t really privately speak to them either.  

Oh, come on.  Are you seriously suggesting that our only options are A) publicly speaking against the General Authorities, or B) speaking with then directly?

I will once again provide a link to Elder Oaks' 1987 Ensign article, "Criticism," and encourage you to read it.

Quote

So, if an error is possibly made by a church leader, it cannot be publicly or privately discussed.  

This is simply false.  Again, please read Elder Oaks' article.

Quote

And... 

Thus we have an effective “infallibility” of leaders in practice. 

This is a very weird leap in logic.

I disagree with my wife, but am constrained from publicly speaking against her.  Ergo, my wife is infallible.

That is a very flawed bit of reasoning.

I disagree with a General Authority, but am constrained from publicly speaking against him.  Ergo, that General Authority is infallible.

Yep.  Still flawed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 21, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, rockpond said:

“Can general authorities be contradicted?” That’s actually a rather simple question. 

Simple, yes.  And broad.  Vague.

Can I "contradict" my wife?  Yes.  Should I do so publicly?  Should I seek to publish my disagreement with her to the world?  Should I itemize her flaws in the public sphere?  Should I publicly oppose her?  Should I seek to persuade others to join me in my opposition to her?

I keep bringing up my wife because I think you can appreciate the need for me to be loyal to her.  

You seem to resent the notion that we may likewise owe some measure of respect and loyalty to the General Authorities.  I invite you to reconsider that.

Have a good evening.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The case in point was not a wholesale rejection of the Book of Mormon. 

While you list a number of good questions regarding Book of Mormon historicity, I’ll note that none of them are included in the Temple Recommend questions provided by the Brethren.  And there is the instruction not to add to the existing questions.  

Just out of curiosity, did you see the blog in question or just the report of your friend?

I am not suggesting your friend has lied, but he may not have realized how his blog could be interpreted since he himself knew what he really meant.

[Kenngo1969]

Not to derail the thread or anything , but I'm still intrigued by President Nelson's assertion that the Brethren who have received new assignments (or, in the case of Elder Uchtdorf, a new "old" assignment) have, along with those assignments, been given responsibilities for which they are "uniquely qualified," I think was the phrase he used. 

Given the administrative workload of the First Presidency, is it possible for someone to receive such an assignment as an Apostle but not as a member of the First Presidency?  I believe it is. 

Have those who are disheartened by Elder Uchtdorf's change in assignment forgotten that he was a relatively junior (indeed, a very junior) member of the Quorum of the Twelve when he was called as a Counselor in the First Presidency?

Are many of those who are concerned about the lack of racial diversity in the upper echelons of the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ the same ones who are upset about Elder Uchtdorf's change in assignment?   ("Hey, Ken, we're just trying to show that we're 'Equal Opportunity'!  We're upset when white guys aren't treated the way we think they should be, too!")

"To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven."  See Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.  In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this includes a time to be called and a time to be released.  And if it's possible, however unlikely, for someone other than the senior Apostle to be called as President of the Church, then why are those who are upset about Elder Uchtdorf's change in assignment applying a different standard to him?

I recently reread this address, and I think, perhaps, that it is apropos of this discussion.  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/god-is-at-the-helm?lang=eng.  Apologies for derailing the thread.  

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Yes.

I'm not sure there is an "exact" meaning for “have a testimony of the restoration."  But simply because something cannot be defined with exacting precision does not mean that it cannot be defined at all.

Words must have meaning.

Yes.  Some variation.  Not unlimited variation, though.  

Kiwi's reference to "lexical duplicity" becomes decidedly relevant here.

I'm not sure about that.  

Which parts of the restoration?  The parts involving the Angel Moroni are all out, right?  If "the Book of Mormon peoples never existed," then there was no Moroni, hence no Angel Moroni.

And if there were no "Book of Mormon peoples," then there were no authentically ancient plates.  So did Joseph Smith lie about them?  Or was he deceived?

I think historicity has much to do with the value of The Book of Mormon as it does with the value of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.  Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphasis added):

See also Kent Jackson's remarks (same link) (emphasis added):

I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value.  For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is, in my view, a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."  A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon.

Yep.  So I'd really have to think about blithely ignoring or glossing over the wholesale rejection of the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, and what every prophet from Joseph Smith on down has proclaimed it to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would go so far as to say that the notion of the Book of Mormon not being a genuine record of a people who actually existed renders the entire account of the Restoration untenable and strips it of its logical coherence. 

People are free, I suppose, to harbor such a notion privately if they can make it work for themselves (though I think they are up against a difficulty in doing so). But to publicly promulgate or advocate it, as, for example, on an Internet blog or in a Church meeting or class, does nearly as much violence to the message of the restored gospel as it would to deny the divinity of it outright. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Simple, yes.  And broad.  Vague.

Can I "contradict" my wife?  Yes.  Should I do so publicly?  Should I seek to publish my disagreement with her to the world?  Should I itemize her flaws in the public sphere?  Should I publicly oppose her?  Should I seek to persuade others to join me in my opposition to her?

I keep bringing up my wife because I think you can appreciate the need for me to be loyal to her.  

You seem to resent the notion that we may likewise owe some measure of respect and loyalty to the General Authorities.  I invite you to reconsider that.

Have a good evening.

Thanks,

-Smac

The loyalty owed to your wife and the loyalty owed to a church leader are not the same.  And neither should require one’s silence.

But, assuming you and Scott are correct that church members should never speak out in contradiction to something a general authority has said than we are in our practice treating them as infallible. 

Consider this analogy:  if no US citizen was permitted to ever speak or write about a possible error made by the President of the United States even though we claim he is an imperfect man, how is he effectually being treated?