President Oaks' advice to young married couples in Chicago

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

The fact that Oaks classified the information as new is evidence that the Church has not been as forthcoming with that information as some would like to believe.

The evidence is NOT new.  It is just new for "many" who where not exposed to it before.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

The fact that Oaks classified the information as new is evidence that the Church has not been as forthcoming with that information as some would like to believe.

I don't think so.  Saying that something is new to someone doesn't mean that the information was hidden before they found out about it.   For example, it's new to some people that there are multiple versions of the First Vision even though the church has been publishing articles about the different versions of the First Vision for decades in the Ensign.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, blueglass said:

Here are a few suggestions on how deal with these issues over the last few years.  

1)  Don't study church history too little!  “I would offer you the advice of our Assistant Church Historian, Rick Turley, an intellectually gifted researcher and author, whose recent works include the definitive history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He says simply: ‘Don’t study Church history too little.’  sept 2013, Elder Christofferson  https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-gives-compelling-counsel-to-study-the-life-of-joseph-smith?lang=eng

2) Give Brother Joseph a break!  "For example, questions concerning the Prophet Joseph Smith are not new. They have been hurled by his critics since this work began. To those of faith who, looking through the colored glasses of the 21st century, honestly question events or statements of the Prophet Joseph from nearly 200 years ago, may I share some friendly advice: For now, give Brother Joseph a break!"  Oct 2015 Elder Anderson   https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/faith-is-not-by-chance-but-by-choice?lang=eng

3)  research is not the answer!   Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues.  “I suggest that research is not the answer,"  https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-gives-compelling-counsel-to-study-the-life-of-joseph-smith?lang=eng

4)  Stop playing Church history whack-a-mole!     https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-and-sister-renlund-tell-young-adults-to-let-faith-not-doubt-drive-questions?lang=eng

There is not just one way to deal with these issues so that seems like all good advice.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well, I can speak from my actual own experience.

When I first learned about some events and details from church history, it caused me to really struggle.

What did my huaband do?

He did not put me down or make me feel like I was sinning or that I was doing something wrong.  He said, “I see how upset you are so let’s study church history together.”

And so we did research TOGETHER rather than him leaving me feeling like I had to hide what I was concerned about or feeling stupid for not knowing about history.  We grew closer and helped each other through it.

So, I think giving this kind of advice like President Oaks did, can really pull spouses further apart and could cause the struggling spouse to feel even more alone and in even more pain.

Like Clark said, I don't see that the advice that Pres. Oaks gave disagrees with how your husband handled your faith crisis.  And your husband sounds like a great guy.  

[SouthernMo]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the interest of doing the necessary research to form my own understanding, I ask you for a CFR. I need to hear or see for myself exactly what he said and the context in which it was said. Please post the talk or a transcript.

I find it very disturbing that members (?) are recording General Authority talks without their knowledge or permission and then using snippets to discredit them. Who did this?

I don’t see why recording general authorities’ words is a problem?  Shouldn’t we seek for any words they have to say?  Do they not want to be accountable for their words?

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

I get what you are saying..... but in real life situations, if a spouse is to really help, they need to learn and study what is causing the faith crisis.  It does not help when they cannot intelligently speak to what is troubling their spouse and if they themselves do not know the topic.  Just telling a spouse to pray more or attend the temple more or anything along those lines can just cause more damage when one is struggling.  The struggling member is looking for answers and understanding and discussion from their spouse....not judgment and definitely to not be blamed for not knowing previously what they now have been exposed to.

It's a difficult situation for sure.  But, discouraging any member from doing their own research is not the answer from what I've experienced with couples facing this.

Sure, but research for the sake of convincing the other spouse how wrong they are is different than research so that someone can speak intelligently about the issues.  Did Pres. Oaks say that while research wasn't the answer, telling a spouse to pray more or attend the temple is?  Did he say that the believing spouse should blame the person for not previously knowing something?  I'm not sure how the bolded portion above is relevant to Pres. Oaks talk (I haven't read it but maybe you have).

I think it's fine that you disagree with Pres. Oaks, but have you considered that he may also be speaking from personal experience and that's why he suggested that research wasn't the answer?

[CV75]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m confused by this answer, you say you would apply the same counsel that always works on spiritual matters and I assume you mean praying for confirmation.  But then you say after that you don’t get into specific issues and rather exercise faith based on your overall witness of the church.  So if presented with a calling to practice polygamy would you pray about that specific issue or just trust in your overarching witness of the church?

The counsel that always works in dealing with spiritual matters is divine learning (referencing Elder Corbridge’s talk in another thread). As a disciple, I practice and do many other daily things that leverage the efficacy of this counsel and contribute to what I consider an intuition about spiritual things. Divine learning works in times of challenge as well as in times of ease.

If I were presented with a calling to practice polygamy, I think I would be likely to give it some attention, as discipleship fosters an open mind. I would assume the invitation would be in the context of plural marriage and explained to me in much the same fashion as we see in the multiple communiques we receive on changes in Church policy, practice and other roll-outs. This information would initiate my divine learning of the calling as it is set up today.

I would not be inclined to compare it with how it and other sealing practices were practiced, changed and abandoned yesteryear, or expect it to be practiced exactly the same now as then. I would be inclined to stay open to understanding what is expected of me today and prayerfully seek to understand that.

Whatever my initial response (I mentioned some “negative” possibilities: seeing it as a bad thing, or something I am uncomfortable with, or as a trial or tribulation), I don’t think it would be enough to change my witness of the many things I do know and hold to be true. Just as a positive response I might have (my response is my responsibility to manage). What I have garnered through life by divine learning would be a major factor in deciding what to do about such a calling.

I would seek confirmation on my decisions, which could be as much about whether I was right to participate, or that I should participate, as to whether the practice or the calling is inspired of God. From my experience, if the first confirmation is affirmative, the second is also (or might as well be!). I take this approach from Matthew 26: 21-23. Sometimes the unthinkable is proffered, yet we have to ask because anything is possible.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dieter-f-uchtdorf_can-you-hear-the-music/

I didn’t say they were mutually exclusive, only that I thought elements of the talk are very poor advice and missing the mark.  

Engagement with faith and intellect also don’t need to be mutually exclusive and I believe both are important.  I don’t think dropping certain points of faith is necessarily a complete departure from that category of experience.  I think that people often transform their faith into other symbols perhaps less traditionally labeled as religious.  I for example have been practicing mindfulness and good healthy eating and exercise and even exploring a sense of awe about the universe and I consider all these things to be compatible with spiritual practice.  

Considering your point of complaint, the Elder Uchtdorf’s talk, focusing on hope, desire to believe, etc. is even more like President Oak’s remarks (as reported in the article -- and it is a short article to draw from) than is President Oak’s, so how is it not also “very poor advice and missing the mark”?

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think you're just misinterpreting what he said. And it's not just his professional life, depending upon what you mean by that. I assume you mean his life as a lawyer and university president. But he's also one of the founders of Dialogue magazine. He has a long history of inquiry and investigation.

Anyway, I just don't see a history of Oaks worrying about research. Quite the contrary. I do see him strongly suggesting that research requires the spirit and that we should always pay attention to what we don't know as well as what we do. That is, I see him as advocating fairly straightforward critical methods.

This interpretation you are offering doesn't seem to fit what he said.  He said research is not the answer, not that research with the spirit will help one get an answer.  

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd agree that a major problem with the gospel essays is that none of them really help give a faithful final interpretation. That is they give summaries of research but no real help with how to interpret that research. I think the Church should do better there.

That said, I don't think the answer is "we don't know" and I don't think in the least that's what Oaks is saying. It seems clear he's saying the exact opposite. Now again, that depends upon how you see those other methods. Someone who's skeptical epistemologically of revelation and faith in general is simply going to dismiss Oaks here. But he clearly is advocating a way to get answers.

Uh...ok.  So if one has a question about the BoA, what answer do you think they acquire from the Gospel Topics essay on the topic?  Well, it's either a translation from egyptian writings that we no longer have, or the papyrus was a catalyst.  In other words, we don't really know, right?  

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm certainly not saying ignore data. But I think we also have to acknowledge that sometimes we don't have the data to reconcile conflicts of data. I don't mind exploring them further. However again if one does that without the spirit you're going to get wrong answers.

That's just a silly assumption, clark.  You are assuming that someone who gets a wrong answer, the answer you apparently have already assumed, didn't have the spirit.  That is exactly what Oaks is advocating, though, so I see your confusion.  Oaks is denouncing research as helpful when it comes to these issues.  He is essentially saying the same as you, but you are less explicit--assume the answer, if you don't find that answer in research, then you are void of the spirit in your research.  He takes it a step further, it seems, by saying research is without the spirit, therefore it is not helpful at all.  In other words it's clearly advocating anti-intellectualism.  It's clearly confirming what past leaders have suggested for a long time--we oppose intellectual pursuits.  

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As for my view, I think that research without the spirit will be completely counterproductive depending upon the topic in question. That's because you'll almost always just be getting a skeptical secular perspective minus those key elements that can give one the correct answer. That's been my whole point.

 

 

I got your point now.  I see what you're saying.  If someone does research and isn't getting the assumed answer the Church puts out that person will be wrong, because that person will be advocating answers that are wrong and therefore they are secular, void of spirit and the answer can't be correct.  it's a really awkward position to take, but I get now why you are defending Oaks' stated position.  

[blueglass]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is not just one way to deal with these issues so that seems like all good advice.

I think it was wise for Elder Oaks to prioritize gaining a testimony of Jesus Christ and then placing the church, joseph smith, polygamy, temples etc as secondary ("all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it").  Sister Wixom shares a story about her friend who lost her faith and then built only the essential pieces back again.  Her friend said, "My testimony had become like a pile of ashes. It had all burned down. All that remained was Jesus Christ.”

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

For example, it's new to some people that there are multiple versions of the First Vision even though the church has been publishing articles about the different versions of the First Vision for decades in the Ensign.

Have they?  Do you have references?

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Have they?  Do you have references?

I searched "First Vision" on lds.org and this article was the first article listed.  It's from 1996.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng&_r=1

This article is the second one listed.  It's from 1985.

https://lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

I haven't looked at the articles listed below those.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Sure, but research for the sake of convincing the other spouse how wrong they are is different than research so that someone can speak intelligently about the issues.  Did Pres. Oaks say that while research wasn't the answer, telling a spouse to pray more or attend the temple is?  Did he say that the believing spouse should blame the person for not previously knowing something?  I'm not sure how the bolded portion above is relevant to Pres. Oaks talk (I haven't read it but maybe you have).

I think it's fine that you disagree with Pres. Oaks, but have you considered that he may also be speaking from personal experience and that's why he suggested that research wasn't the answer?

Of course.  I'd imagine he has had some personal experiences related to this.

I just see that it's pretty obvious what he's saying here and he's referring to two different things when he uses the words "research" vs. "study and pray".  

Quote

 

Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues.

“I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said.

 

The research he's discouraging above is regarding the bolded part (matters of church history and doctrinal issues).

Quote

 

The Church does offer answers to many familiar questions through its Gospel Topics Essays found at lds.org.

“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”

 

What he's recommending doing (IMO) above is to read the scriptures more, read general conference talks, study church written materials....etc.  But avoid researching the issues that are causing your spouse to have their crisis of faith (ie. polygamy and so on....).  I see a great underlying feeling of fear in his words that the doubting spouse will infect the still believing spouse or expose them to what they are researching.  

That's how I read his words, but others obviously see that he's meaning the same when he uses the words "research" vs where he uses the words "prayer and study".  

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course.  I'd imagine he has had some personal experiences related to this.

I just see that it's pretty obvious what he's saying here and he's referring to two different things when he uses the words "research" vs. "study and pray".  

The research he's discouraging above is regarding the bolded part (matters of church history and doctrinal issues).

What he's recommending doing (IMO) above is to read the scriptures more, read general conference talks, study church written materials....etc.  But avoid researching the issues that are causing your spouse to have their crisis of faith (ie. polygamy and so on....).  There's a great underlying of fear in his words that the doubting spouse will infect the still believing spouse or expose them to what they are researching.  

That's how I read his words, but others obviously see that he's meaning the same when he uses the words "research" vs where he uses the words "prayer and study".  

I guess when you look at it that way, he's probably right then. Because I see it happening all the time, especially with the CES letter being shared. It doesn't look too good. I think the church needs to go with the fact that the church is so young and had to evolve to what it is and that men or leaders are fallible and he should admit that they don't always get revelation from God, they just think they did and got mixed signals. And that is the problem, he can't really say that or the cards fall down. The church is between a rock and a hard place, it's plain to see. Unless the internet shuts down, and the grid stops existing. 

[Okrahomer]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I searched "First Vision" on lds.org and this article was the first article listed.  It's from 1996.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng&_r=1

This article is the second one listed.  It's from 1985.

https://lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

I haven't looked at the articles listed below those.

Dean C. Jessee had been writing about the First Vision accounts at BYU much earlier.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Dean C. Jessee had been writing about the First Vision accounts at BYU much earlier.

But it most definitely was not taught or spoken about (by church leaders) to the members.  That change is very recent and that's why many members are still not even aware of the different versions.  Up until quite recent, I'd say that most members didn't know about they existed.  That's why learning about them is causing some members to doubt.  

I love this quote that Nevo posted regarding this (that all these difficult topics have been written about for church members to read for years....he uses the translation illustrations as an example, but we could substitute the different versions of the first vision, Joseph's polygamy, etc. and it also applies):

Quote

This is a terrible apologetic argument and I wish people would stop using it. Paul Malan got it right:

Needle: 150 words from a 38-year-old article in an official Church magazine.

Haystack: 150 years of sermons, art, film production, and culture that celebrate a striking, blue-eyed demigod reading from gold plates the way a third-grader reads Harry Potter. (Which is to say, not with a rock in a hat.)

Plot twist: You don’t even know there is a needle to look for until someone blames you for not finding it.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t see why recording general authorities’ words is a problem?  Shouldn’t we seek for any words they have to say?  Do they not want to be accountable for their words?

That has already been discussed. Do you want everything you say recorded and scoured for something just to make you look bad? 

Church meetings are not political or criminal activities. There are private and sacred things that are shared in a Church setting that no one would want to be blared out over the internet by people intent on ridicule. Recording someone secretly with the purpose of capturing something to embarrass them is reprehensible. If asked not to record something, anyone with just an ounce of common decency would comply. 

Moreover, that’s the argument that we shouldn’t worry about government surveillance of our phones, computers, financial records, private conversations, etc. If we are not doing anything wrong, why should we care? It smacks of the absurd 1984 scenario where everything we do is observed and recorded. It’s the most powerful form of censorship. We would all have to wear body cams day and night just to protect ourselves against libel, false accusations, and innocent comments taken out-of-context.

Unless one is an LDS General Authority. Then none of the above applies.

 

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I searched "First Vision" on lds.org and this article was the first article listed.  It's from 1996.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng&_r=1

This article is the second one listed.  It's from 1985.

https://lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

I haven't looked at the articles listed below those.

Thank you.  I typed "First Vision" into the LDS.org search bar and got different results.  I see a number of different articles about multiple first vision accounts but none that provide the full text of those accounts.

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That has already been discussed. Do you want everything you say recorded and scoured for something just to make you look bad? 

Church meetings are not political or criminal activities. There are private and sacred things that are shared in a Church setting that no one would want to be blared out over the internet by people intent on ridicule. Recording someone secretly with the purpose of capturing something to embarrass them is reprehensible. If asked not to record something, anyone with just an ounce of common decency would comply. 

Moreover, that’s the argument that we shouldn’t worry about government surveillance of our phones, computers, financial records, private conversations, etc. If we are not doing anything wrong, why should we care? It smacks of the absurd 1984 scenario where everything we do is observed and recorded. It’s the most powerful form of censorship. We would all have to wear body cams day and night just to protect ourselves against libel, false accusations, and innocent comments taken out-of-context.

Unless one is an LDS General Authority. Then none of the above applies.

 

Well, in the ex Mormon reddit crowd, they think they are in the 1984 scenario and the church is the one that is controlling them, so it's turning it back onto the leaders to record anything they think is damaging to members. I read that all the time, disaffected LDS that put themselves in the 1984 book.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But it most definitely was not taught or spoken about (by church leaders) to the members.  That change is very recent and that's why many members are still not even aware of the different versions.  Up until quite recent, I'd say that most members didn't know about they existed.  That's why learning about them is causing some members to doubt.  

 

The church has been publishing articles in the Ensign for decades talking about the existence of the different versions though.  

[HappyJackWagon]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do I dare? It was recorded last Fast Sunday, by one of the young men in attendance. I guess the recording has been pulled because the YM was caught. I heard it in full, and the transcript below is accurate from my memory.

Transcription for the Left Hand Rant:

"I come to see what happens when I'm not here. But I had an impression from the Spirit of the Lord, to teach something to each of you and particularly the young men of the Aaronic priesthood. Because I saw something, in Sacrament meeting today, that told me that some of you don't understand something. The Sacrament is an ordinance of the Gospel. And because it's an ordinance, it needs to be done exactly right. Just like the prayers that the priests offer, they have to say the exact language in the prayers. Because it's a priesthood ordinance. Just like baptism. The Lord taught us, when we are baptized, the priest who officiates raises his right hand, and says, 'having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost.' and then he immerses the person in the water. And if that's not done exactly that way, it has to be done again.

Now. When we partake of the sacrament, young men and young women, we are renewing the act of baptism. We're promising the Lord again, what we promised in baptism, that we'd keep his commandments. And also, he promises to renew the effect of our baptism, so that we're cleansed, from our sins, when we partake of the sacrament, if we've repented of them. But now there's something about the right hand. When we're baptized the priest raises his right hand, not his left hand, but his right hand. And when we partake of the sacrament, we partake with our right hand, not our left hand. And today, I saw quite a few of the deacons take the sacrament with their left hands. Don't do that. Because you set the wrong example for the congregation if you do that.

I know why you did that, because the sacrament tray was coming up on this side, and it was easiest to do that way. But a mother who's holding a baby, probably changes the baby, so she can use her right hand. And all of us should partake of the right hand, when we participate in that great ordinance of the gospel. That's what I felt impressed to share with you, and I've often mentioned that in other meetings, but I've never seen so many deacons take the sacrament with their left hand, so I thought I'd better perform my responsibility to share that with you. God bless you in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."  

ETA: Just noticed that the youtube is posted now on the thread. I don't have a problem per se with him reiterating a way of taking the Sacrament, but why does it feel so legalistic? And why can the temple wording and covenants change? He should have came with a more postive comment to the YM, IMO. Life is hard for youth they need more than what they got from him in person. Sorry to hope_for_things, if I've made this thread go off track to the desires you had for posting it.

Thanks for sharing that, Tacenda!

I've been taught the "right hand" rule many times throughout my life. While I understand the logic behind it, I feel that this kind of "teaching" from Pres. Oaks is more reflective of his time and culture, than it is of any actual expectation that God wants us to use our right hand to partake of the sacrament. This kind of thing is phariseeism. It's extrapolating one's understanding in one situation, like the requirement that a priest raise his right hand while baptizing, to mean that every person should partake of the sacrament with the right hand. If God feels strongly about this kind of thing, I would suspect it would appear in scripture and we would have record of revelation stating as much. If such scripture or revelation exists, I'd love to see it.

Issues like this remind me of the "broken windows" philosophy of policing; essentially focus  on small issues like graffiti, loitering, litter, broken windows in residences and businesses, so that people won't engage in more serious, violent crimes. For policing, this may have some merit, but I think a member of the first presidency focusing on the non-doctrinal "right hand" issue is an attempt to get YM/YW to be compliant with small things so they won't go down the road to bigger problems. The issue is, that the "right hand" issue is totally made up. It's not really a problem at all, though I have little doubt that Pres. Oaks had probably been taught that since he was a young child and maybe even heard other GA's speak about it with POWER and AUTHORITY. Still, there's no doctrinal reason to require a person to partake of the sacrament with the right hand. It's focusing on something so miniscule and inconsequential that it doesn't even rise to the level of a "broken window". The fact that valuable face time with youth was spent on this kind of issue is ludicrous. It's a huge missed opportunity to teach about something important, like building testimonies of Jesus.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for sharing that, Tacenda!

I've been taught the "right hand" rule many times throughout my life. While I understand the logic behind it, I feel that this kind of "teaching" from Pres. Oaks is more reflective of his time and culture, than it is of any actual expectation that God wants us to use our right hand to partake of the sacrament. This kind of thing is phariseeism. It's extrapolating one's understanding in one situation, like the requirement that a priest raise his right hand while baptizing, to mean that every person should partake of the sacrament with the right hand. If God feels strongly about this kind of thing, I would suspect it would appear in scripture and we would have record of revelation stating as much. If such scripture or revelation exists, I'd love to see it.

Issues like this remind me of the "broken windows" philosophy of policing; essentially focus  on small issues like graffiti, loitering, litter, broken windows in residences and businesses, so that people won't engage in more serious, violent crimes. For policing, this may have some merit, but I think a member of the first presidency focusing on the non-doctrinal "right hand" issue is an attempt to get YM/YW to be compliant with small things so they won't go down the road to bigger problems. The issue is, that the "right hand" issue is totally made up. It's not really a problem at all, though I have little doubt that Pres. Oaks had probably been taught that since he was a young child and maybe even heard other GA's speak about it with POWER and AUTHORITY. Still, there's no doctrinal reason to require a person to partake of the sacrament with the right hand. It's focusing on something so miniscule and inconsequential that it doesn't even rise to the level of a "broken window". The fact that valuable face time with youth was spent on this kind of issue is ludicrous. It's a huge missed opportunity to teach about something important, like building testimonies of Jesus.

Bold mine.

I thought that as well at first, and then I realized in his mind he is teaching or helping build testimonies as to how important it is to teach the proper way of taking the Sacrament. 

[blueglass]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I searched "First Vision" on lds.org and this article was the first article listed.  It's from 1996.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng&_r=1

This article is the second one listed.  It's from 1985.

https://lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

I haven't looked at the articles listed below those.

These articles are good overviews, but they don't actually include the text of the 1832 version.  Dean Jessee's 1969 byu studies article is the first I believe to actually publish the 1832 version, but what if as a member of the church you were not subscribed to byu studies at the time (print availability only)?  When was the full text of the 1832 account actually made available for the first time to the general church through the ensign, lds.org, gospel library or the jsp site? 

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by blueglass

[CA Steve]

Regarding the side issue of recording GA talks.

With or without permission they are all being recorded. All of them. In any given audience nearly every adult, teen and even younger sub teenagers are carrying a smart phone which can record video and or audio.

I think that leadership should take a lesson from law enforcement and realize that every public appearance has a high likelihood of being recorded by someone and that their best defense is to have their own recording so that should any questions arise they can produce it.

 

Asking people not to record simply is not going to happen.

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by CA Steve

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church has been publishing articles in the Ensign for decades talking about the existence of the different versions though.  

Do you have any that published the actual text from the different accounts?  

And, do you have any references to where the different versions were actual taught by our church leaders?

And, I go back to what Nevo stated:

Quote

 

This is a terrible apologetic argument and I wish people would stop using it. Paul Malan got it right:

Needle: 150 words from a 38-year-old article in an official Church magazine.

Haystack: 150 years of sermons, art, film production, and culture that celebrate a striking, blue-eyed demigod reading from gold plates the way a third-grader reads Harry Potter. (Which is to say, not with a rock in a hat.)

Plot twist: You don’t even know there is a needle to look for until someone blames you for not finding it.

 

A few random mentions that Joseph Smith wrote something when he was younger, but that the main version is the one we have today (or something similar is what I've seen in the articles you've posted), is not the same as what members are discovering today (reading the actual text of the different versions).

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson