1st Pres. and NAACP

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

Largely, yes. For things within their knowledge (like Reeve going too far with condemnation of the ban), they intervened. But regarding details about things like polygamy, statements about the ban, the Book of Abraham controversy, etc., they are not knowledgeable and able to scrutinize, anyway. I expect a flood of CFRs, but I'm just basing that on instances when they have fielded questions about things like that. They defer completely to what the submitting scholars say. 

How is deferring to scholars about historical issues problematic?

Quote

I think there are certain areas where the keys of revelation could answer (God willing, of course), but it would put things on the line and potentially drive some people away, so the unnamed essays offer deniability and flexibility of updating or even removal, if needed.

I think the essays present the best information we have about controversial topics.  I don't think they are intended to facilitate evasion by the Brethren.

I agree that "the keys of revelation could answer" some of these controversies.  

Quote

They are primarily intended to just exist and be available to be pointed to, as needed. I don't think the Brethren want them to be widely read or used, but they exist if needed. 

What makes you say that?  Our bishop has received two letters from Church HQ that reference, and encourage use of, the essays.  Also, consider this statement by Elder Ballard (from the December 2016 Ensign) :

Quote

Church leaders today are fully conscious of the unlimited access to information, and we are making extraordinary efforts to provide accurate context and understanding of the teachings of the Restoration. A prime example of this effort is the 11 Gospel Topics essays on LDS.org⁷ that provide balanced and reliable interpretations of the facts for controversial and unfamiliar Church-related subjects.

It is important that you know the content of these essays. If you have questions about them, please ask someone who has studied them and understands them. In other words, “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118) as you master the content of these essays.

You should also become familiar with the Joseph Smith Papers website,⁸ the Church history section on LDS.org, and other resources by faithful LDS scholars.

The effort for gospel transparency and spiritual inoculation through a thoughtful study of doctrine and history, coupled with a burning testimony, is the best antidote we have to help students avoid and deal with questions, doubt, or faith crises they may face in this information age.

...

7. See lds.org/topics/essays.
8. See josephsmithpapers.org.

This article originate from Elder Ballard's "remarks to Church Educational System religious educators."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 18, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How is deferring to scholars about historical issues problematic?

It isn't, in and of itself. But time was that Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Mark E. Peterson, LeGrand Richards, B.H. Roberts, etc. would have written the responses themselves. We rely so much on the bureaucracy to write things and prepare briefings for the Brethren today. In the "good, better, best" continuum, isn't best of all for the Brethren to be experts themselves on controversial issues? Especially when they pertain to Church history?

I think the essays present the best information we have about controversial topics.  I don't think they are intended to facilitate evasion by the Brethren.

I don't think they're evasive. I do think they are intended to give the impression of a Church response, with the best scholarship available. 

I agree that "the keys of revelation could answer" some of these controversies.

Without a doubt. 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

It isn't, in and of itself. But time was that Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Mark E. Peterson, LeGrand Richards, B.H. Roberts, etc. would have written the responses themselves. We rely so much on the bureaucracy to write things and prepare briefings for the Brethren today.

I'm not sure it's "bureaucracy" principally.  I think a lot of learned scholars and historians have been involved.

As for the heyday of those fine brethren, yes they could have.  I suspect many of our current GAs could as well.  They are, by and large, quite intellectually gifted.

The difference may simply be a matter of logistics and responsibilities.  Back in the day, there were twelve apostles (more or less).  Fast-forward 50-100 years, and we still have just twelve apostles.  Meanwhile, the membership of the Church has done this:

When most of the men you mention were alive, the green line above was pretty flat and low.  These days, we have more missionaries, more missions, more temples, more wards, more stakes, more programs to administer, and so on.

Moses had to learn to delegate when the Children of Israel were wandering in the desert.  I think today's General Authorities have to do the same thing.  

Quote

In the "good, better, best" continuum, isn't best of all for the Brethren to be experts themselves on controversial issues? Especially when they pertain to Church history?

Well, perhaps, or perhaps not.  I work in a law firm where I focus on contested litigation issues.  The owners of the firm are also attorneys, and they certainly could be as "expert" as I am on the cases I am handling (or nearly so), but they have all sorts of responsibilities that I do not.  In fact, they hired me precisely so that I, rather than they, could wade into the legal and factual complexities of our case load.

Quote

I don't think they're evasive. I do think they are intended to give the impression of a Church response, with the best scholarship available. 

I agree.  I don't think the Brethren are interested in endlessly addressing controversial issues in the Church.  To open them up would be to invite all the Jeremy Runnells of the world to do their thing.  The GAs have a lot of work to do.  Becoming expert in the nuances of, say, John Gee's length-of-scrolls calculations, or the timing of Haslam's ride during the MMM, or the validity of Bagley's interpolation of "allies" for "grain" in Dimick Huntington's journal, would be the best us of their time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 18, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure it's "bureaucracy" principally.  I think a lot of learned scholars and historians have been involved.

As for the heyday of those fine brethren, yes they could have.  I suspect many of our current GAs could as well.  They are, by and large, quite intellectually gifted.

The difference may simply be a matter of logistics and responsibilities.  Back in the day, there were twelve apostles (more or less).  Fast-forward 50-100 years, and we still have just twelve apostles.  Meanwhile, the membership of the Church has done this:

When most of the men you mention were alive, the green line above was pretty flat and low.  These days, we have more missionaries, more missions, more temples, more wards, more stakes, more programs to administer, and so on.

Moses had to learn to delegate when the Children of Israel were wandering in the desert.  I think today's General Authorities have to do the same thing.  

Well, perhaps, or perhaps not.  I work in a law firm where I focus on contested litigation issues.  The owners of the firm are also attorneys, and they certainly could be as "expert" as I am on the cases I am handling (or nearly so), but they have all sorts of responsibilities that I do not.  In fact, they hired me precisely so that I, rather than they, could wade into the legal and factual complexities of our case load.

I agree.  I don't think the Brethren are interested in endlessly addressing controversial issues in the Church.  To open them up would be to invite all the Jeremy Runnells of the world to do their thing.  The GAs have a lot of work to do.  Becoming expert in the nuances of, say, John Gee's length-of-scrolls calculations, or the timing of Haslam's ride during the MMM, or the validity of Bagley's interpolation of "allies" for "grain" in Dimick Huntington's journal, would be the best us of their time.

Thanks,

-Smac

(Bolding mine for reference)

I remember that episode. When Bagley copied out that portion of Huntington's journal, he wrote "allies" where Huntington had written "grain." So the passage read that the tribes were going to go and raise grain; Bagley had them going to raise "allies." "Grain" in the manuscript did not look a thing like "allies." It was and still is a mystery how Bagley got "allies" out of "grain."

It's like "yanni vs. laurel" writ large.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

(Bolding mine for reference)

I remember that episode. When Bagley copied out that portion of Huntington's journal, he wrote "allies" where Huntington had written "grain."

Yep.  Amazing how Bagley's book turns out to be based almost entirely on the supposedly "troubling new evidence" that, in turn, was based on this single interpolation (see here, p. 7, and also here).

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

So the passage read that the tribes were going to go and raise grain; Bagley had them going to raise "allies." "Grain" in the manuscript did not look a thing like "allies." It was and still is a mystery how Bagley got "allies out of grain."

It's like "yanni vs. laurel" writ large.

Wow.  Had to google that.  I'm "Team Laurel," it seems.

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Doesn't for me...should be signed by the First Presidency.  This is an outline of what mormons believe and why.  These are explanations that relate to gospel principles..where are the signatures?

I don't follow.  It's not like there is some question about this.  The essays are published by the Church on its website.  Bishops have received communications from the Church about them.  Elder Ballard has specifically referenced them in a 2016 Ensign article.  

Whence the need for signatures?  And why would signatures be sufficient?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  Amazing how Bagley's book turns out to be based almost entirely on the supposedly "troubling new evidence" that, in turn, was based on this single interpolation (see here, p. 7, and also here).

Wow.  Had to google that.  I'm "Team Laurel," it seems.

-Smac

Wow. I listened over and over again, and I got "yanni" each and every time.

[rongo]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, perhaps, or perhaps not.  I work in a law firm where I focus on contested litigation issues.  The owners of the firm are also attorneys, and they certainly could be as "expert" as I am on the cases I am handling (or nearly so), but they have all sorts of responsibilities that I do not.  In fact, they hired me precisely so that I, rather than they, could wade into the legal and factual complexities of our case load.

All true, but you're making a direct comparison between a corporate law firm and general authority duties and responsibilities. With respect to the ability to be able to discuss issues related to doctrine and Church history, I don't think the comparison is apt. With the myriad duties of administering a large global church, yes --- I have no problem with a bureaucracy for that. But I don't think a model of bureaucratic compartmentalization and specialization when it comes to knowledge of Church history and doctrinal concerns is ideal. I also don't think it's zero sum --- that it's either/or. Many very busy general authorities in the past were also able to be aware of and conversant on the burning issues of their time.

The GAs have a lot of work to do.  Becoming expert in the nuances of, say, John Gee's length-of-scrolls calculations, or the timing of Haslam's ride during the MMM, or the validity of Bagley's interpolation of "allies" for "grain" in Dimick Huntington's journal, would be the best us of their time.

What about simply being aware of the scroll length discussion (or common BoA criticisms)? Or being aware of the MMM at a CHC level? No PhD level expertise required. 

We're all very busy with what's on our plate, too, and yet many of us find time to be reasonably read on such things --- and able to discuss them. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation for general authorities. They're full-time general authorities of the Church. They have committee meetings during the week, and travel to stakes and missions on the weekends (for the most part). So did the GAs of old. 

[smac97]

Just now, rongo said:

All true, but you're making a direct comparison between a corporate law firm and general authority duties and responsibilities.

Not a direct comparison, more of a generalized one.

Just now, rongo said:

With respect to the ability to be able to discuss issues related to doctrine and Church history, I don't think the comparison is apt. With the myriad duties of administering a large global church, yes --- I have no problem with a bureaucracy for that.

Again, I don't think the essays are the work product of functionaries in the COB, but of scholars, historians, etc. who are learned and trained in the relevant fields.

Just now, rongo said:

But I don't think a model of bureaucratic compartmentalization and specialization when it comes to knowledge of Church history and doctrinal concerns is ideal.

I can understand that.  

Just now, rongo said:

I also don't think it's zero sum --- that it's either/or. Many very busy general authorities in the past were also able to be aware of and conversant on the burning issues of their time.What about simply being aware of the scroll length discussion (or common BoA criticisms)? Or being aware of the MMM at a CHC level? No PhD level expertise required. 

I think our current crop of GAs (or some/many of them) are "aware of and conversant on" these issues.

Just now, rongo said:

We're all very busy with what's on our plate, too, and yet many of us find time to be reasonably read on such things --- and able to discuss them.

I suspect many of them are.  

Just now, rongo said:

I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation for general authorities. They're full-time general authorities of the Church. They have committee meetings during the week, and travel to stakes and missions on the weekends (for the most part). So did the GAs of old. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

 

[Jeanne]

Wow...his reasoning I can understand and appreciate.  Had his document been written and spoken by Pres. Nelson..the Savior would have approved.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

... It's like "yanni vs. laurel" writ large.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

... Wow.  Had to google that.  I'm "Team Laurel," it seems.

-Smac

I don't feel too bad about not being able to hear the high-frequency "Yanni," since "Laurel" is my mom's name!   Love ya, Mom!

Edited May 18, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't altogether agree with rongo's analysis. I think the essays are about as authoritative as they can or ought to be under the circumstances. Furthermore, they are presumably subject to update or alteration as as new information or research becomes available, so I think it would be unwise to give them the imprimatur that would be implied if they were attributed to the Brethren.

I agree with you (since Elder Snow iirc in one of the intro version said they were overseen by apostles and then formally approved), but I have seen many members and nonmembers dismiss them as purely PR because they do not have the First Presidency's names on them.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

How is deferring to scholars about historical issues problematic?

I think the essays present the best information we have about controversial topics.  I don't think they are intended to facilitate evasion by the Brethren.

I agree that "the keys of revelation could answer" some of these controversies.  

What makes you say that?  Our bishop has received two letters from Church HQ that reference, and encourage use of, the essays.  Also, consider this statement by Elder Ballard (from the December 2016 Ensign) :

This article originate from Elder Ballard's "remarks to Church Educational System religious educators."

Thanks,

-Smac

They are also referenced in Seminary lessons, iirc, assigned reading.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

I don’t have 18 minutes to watch. Can you summarize?  Does he say anything other than the typical “I’m just trying to have the hard discussions. I just want to help the Mormon church/members see the truth” stuff that they all say?

[JAHS]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t have 18 minutes to watch. Can you summarize?  Does he say anything other than the typical “I’m just trying to have the hard discussions. I just want to help the Mormon church/members see the truth” stuff that they all say?

His main point is based on the hope that the church will someday actually make such an apology as the one he wrote. The only problem is that will probably never happen and that is going to make his hoax even more painful to those who thought it was true or who hope it will happen someday because of what he did. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

I don't feel too bad about not being able to hear the high-frequency "Yanni," since "Laurel" is my mom's name!   Love ya, Mom!

If hearing yanni means I’m picking up the high end, I feel pretty good, as I’m getting older, and typically, older people lose their ability to hear high frequencies. 

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

His main point is based on the hope that the church will someday actually make such an apology as the one he wrote. The only problem is that will probably never happen and that is going to make his hoax even more painful to those who thought it was true or who hope it will happen someday because of what he did. 

It's sad to think an apology won't ever happen, though. Pres. Eyring came pretty close over mountain meadows and maybe something similar could happen regarding this issue. At least it ought to be viewed churchwide as mistakes of men if an apology can't happen.

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It's sad to think an apology won't ever happen, though. Pres. Eyring came pretty close over mountain meadows and maybe something similar could happen regarding this issue. At least it ought to be viewed churchwide as mistakes of men if an apology can't happen.

You are assuming it was a mistake. We can't judge what people did 150 years ago based on our 21st century thinking and culture. You had to be there. I can see how it would be considered a mistake if they did something like that today.  I am sure they did it with the intention of doing what God wanted them to do and what was best for the church at that time. 

[Exiled]

Just now, JAHS said:

You are assuming it was a mistake. We can't judge what people did 150 years ago based on our 21st century thinking and culture. You had to be there. I can see how it would be considered a mistake if they did something like that today.  I am sure they did it with the intention of doing what God wanted them to do and what was best for the church at that time. 

It seems we can never judge the mormon past. 150 years ago wasn't that long ago. There were abolitionists back then and supposedly mormons were too, except where it counted. Also god, who is supposedly eternal, could have and should have stepped in to correct the nonsense if his prophets were too tied up in cultural mores to do the right thing.

[JAHS]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It seems we can never judge the mormon past. 150 years ago wasn't that long ago. There were abolitionists back then and supposedly mormons were too, except where it counted. Also god, who is supposedly eternal, could have and should have stepped in to correct the nonsense if his prophets were too tied up in cultural mores to do the right thing.

So why didn't God also step in to stop the millions of people who died in all the wars and famines and diseases?
Why doesn't God take over the prophet's brain and make him do and say everything perfectly 24/7/365?
They had to live by faith back then the same as we do now. That's what religion is all about. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

Since your black friend isn't here to speak for himself, maybe it's best just to speak for yourself?

I'm in his room. We've reviewed the fraudulent apology. I asked him his opinion. His exact words, shared with his express permission:

'The Church didn't do anything wrong with the previous policy, so they don't have anything to apologise for'.

He both rolled his eyes and shook his head as he said this. This is not the first time I've showed him where others are presuming to speak on his behalf. He finds it distasteful.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Marginal Gains]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

So why didn't God also step in to stop the millions of people who died in all the wars and famines and diseases?
Why doesn't God take over the prophet's brain and make him do and say everything perfectly 24/7/365?
They had to live by faith back then the same as we do now. That's what religion is all about. 

So, what would you expect God to do with His Prophet above and beyond what He does with you?

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

So, what would you expect God to do with His Prophet above and beyond what He does with you?

The prophet is further along the road to perfection than I am and therefore has a better understanding of what God would want him to do.
Unlike me, he has also been set apart as a prophet, seer, and revelator and as such has the right and responsibility to receive revelation for me and all church members.
He still has his own agency to do what he wants and therefore is not completely perfect yet, but certainly closer to it than I am and that is why I am willing trust him to speak for God more than any other member of the church. 

[Stargazer]

My Caucasian self (I'm 87.5% white) just apologized to my American Indian self (12.5%) for all the bad things done to my American Indian ancestors 150 years ago.