President Oaks' advice to young married couples in Chicago

[CV75]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not much of that is very helpful when actually dealing with a member who is experiencing a real faith crisis.  Telling them their issues are only "secondary issues" isn't going to help much and will probably just cause more harm and pain.  Your nice sounding words are pretty empty to someone who is really struggling with very real issues. 

You asked someone who isn’t in a faith crisis and that is what I would do. But incidentally it is what I have done when in a faith crisis, and what i have walked others through in a faith crisis, and it worked!

If I were to counsel someone individually through their crisis, I would explain things according to their need and ability to receive. The purpose of the general authorities’ talks it to lay out general principles for the collective membership. The purpose of news articles is to summarize those for whatever public good that might accomplish. If I had a faith crisis and someone reached out to help me, they hopefully would not just read the talks and articles to me. They would minister to my needs instead, which i am confident would eventually entail these very principles and help them, for I and others have seen it work.

Now I am contributing to a discussion on the meaning and intent of the speakers, not counseling individuals in faith crisis on a message board. To do so is an empty exercise and would probably just cause more harm and pain. To generalize the needs of people in faith crisis with vague hypothetical and expect to help them by critiquing talks and articles about the principles of preventing and addressing faith crises is worse!

[CV75]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I think I understand better for sure.  It’s somewhat foreign to me though, as I approached things differently as an orthodox member, and very different that how I approach things today.  

You approached things differently than I described?

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

They're the same thing. You can claim of course that Oaks is attempting to limit research but there's nothing in this talk to suggest that. I'm completely open to appeals to other texts demonstrating that Oaks believes that. I'm skeptical you'll find them.

Look it feels to me like we're quibbling about the non essential.  All I see reported is Oaks suggested to young marrieds that if a spouse is questioning the other spouse should not see research as a helpful approach to deal with their spouses questions and concerns.  I really don't imagine how that would look in real life.  It sounds like it'd be advocating shutting out the questioning spouse, ignoring and all of that.  It happens.  Spouses often get treated like that, even in today's world.  I don't understand why Oaks would give that advice at all.  it makes little sense.  

But since you seem intent on looking at Oaks' history and saying he must have meant that research with the spirit is a good thing, I'm going to leave that bit of quibbling aside.  i don't care, honestly, what he said.  I'm losing interest in your argument, because its coming from left fied and feels like you are trying to explain away the reported comments from Oaks.  I say, have fun with that.  

 

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

From all I can see Oaks was the key figure pushing the Church away from the tendency to disparage inquiry and only study approved materials. Indeed it appears that he and Hinkley were key in getting a much more open history.

Except you're doing exactly the same thing with me, and I actually am extremely confident in what I actually believe on the subject. If you misread me so egregiously, why should I think you read Oaks any better especially when it seems clear he doesn't mean what you attribute to him.

If you were merely saying that Oaks thought studying with the spirit along with charity/service and prayer would lead people to truth then I'd have not trouble. Even if you think him wrong in that. But that's not what you're claiming. I recognize you disagree with Oaks. But you're also misreading his central claim.

I recognize you believe that. You believe that the spirit is a completely unreliable guide for truth. Can you at minimum accept that Oaks and I don't agree with you? Shouldn't that shape how you read Oaks?

No.  I truly beleive that that which burns inside each of us is our guide.  And it'll lead us each down our own paths.  But judging by our varied paths, alone, I'd say that surely suggests the burning presence inside us is not some definitive purveyor of truth in each detail.  That is one person is lead to see things one way while another is lead to see things the opposite.  Neither is bad, each can do well in their own spheres.  But taht also means that spirit in each is not defining which one has truth, which one is right, or which one is evil and wrong.  For instance, one could very well be lead to think the BoM is scripture.  And in that leading finds many benefits in believing the Church, accepting it and moving through life faithful to it's direction.  Another, though, may be lead to see the BoM as not scripture, perhaps has read it and studied it, but has also found much more inspiration through other means--perhaps even many other books or works.  

It seems to me that Oaks, and perhaps you, would think that ultimately the spirit working in us would only lead someone to think the Church is true, and the BoM scripture.  But I can't limit God like he does, or you might be doing.  I'm guessing that's why you've brought up and are pushing this notion that research requires the spirit stuff.  It's as if you are saying if one researches and comes to a different conclusion than the Church is true, that means the researching with void of the spirit.  That's just nonsense to me.  You are, it seems to me, assuming the answer before ever really knowing.  Or rather, your logic, then becomes a big old circle.  

Research requires the spirit

People in the church have the spirit  

If the research leads someone away from the Church that means that research was void of teh spirit

therefore the spirit will lead people to stay in the Church.  

That means research requires the spirit.  

It turns into assumption built on assumption.  

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

He didn't say that at all. He said, according to the OP,  regarding spouses of people in a faith crisis that "research is not the answer." He then said, giving the answer, that "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."

So his solution is spiritual conversion. Conversion comes through (1) prayer (2) study/research and (3) service. 

The implication is that it's the spirit that converts. He's clearly alluding to D&C 9:8 "...you must study it out in your mind..." He's quite familiar with what that meant for Joseph Smith that included learning languages including Hebrew, reading commentaries (particularly Clarke's Bible Commentary which was a catalyst for many JST changes) and more. 

Again I get that Oaks' critics want to say that research is reading history while study is just reading and praying about scriptures. I'm not sure if you're making that limitation. However at minimum you have to demonstrate that's what Oaks means in terms of his talk. Make an argument. Thus far I just am seeing people projecting onto Oaks their preconceptions. If it's so clear that's what Oaks means it should be very easy either in the text in question or even in other talks to find Oaks telling people not to research or study non-Church published materials.

Honestly Clark, you aren't making much sense.  YOu are reading into Oak's comments some notion researching with the spirit is a good thing.  That he really likes research and thinks research requires the spirit.  That all may be true, maybe exactly what he thinks but it's not what he said.  Then you seem to say people are projecting onto Oaks their preconceptions.  That's exactly what you did.  Why is that a negative for another if that is exactly what you keep doing?  

The point remains, whether Oaks said that research is nto the answer or not, the Church over many years have advocated anti-intellectual positions.  So the notion is not coming out of nowhere.  The advice, I'd say it horrible.  Spouses should work together not work apart.  

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To be clear, you're talking about a person who helped start Dialogue, even if he became disillusioned with what it became, and who has written scholarly history books. Note that in his talks he'll cite such things. (Such as this recent talk) He elsewhere wrote,

• “Our quest for truth should be as broad as our life’s activities and as deep as our circumstances permit. A learned Latter-day Saint should seek to understand the important religious, physical, social, and political problems of the day. The more knowledge we have of heavenly laws and earthly things, the greater influence we can exert for good on those around us and the safer we will be from scurrilous and evil influences that may confuse and destroy us.”

He then qualified this in a manner quite similar to the current talk in question

• “In our quest for truth, we need to seek the help of our loving Heavenly Father. His Spirit can direct and intensify our efforts to learn and magnify our ability to assimilate truth. This learning with the Spirit is not confined to classrooms or preparation for school examinations. It applies to everything we do in life and every place we do it—at home, at work, and at church.”

In an other talk he wrote

• Latter-day Saints know that learned or authoritative commentaries can help us with scriptural interpretation, but we maintain that they must be used with caution.

  Commentaries are not a substitute for the scriptures any more than a good cookbook is a substitute for food. (When I refer to “commentaries,” I refer to everything that interprets scripture, from the comprehensive book-length commentary to the brief interpretation embodied in a lesson or an article, such as this one.)

  One trouble with commentaries is that their authors sometimes focus on only one meaning, to the exclusion of others. As a result, commentaries, if not used with great care, may illuminate the author’s chosen and correct meaning but close our eyes and restrict our horizons to other possible meanings. Sometimes those other, less obvious meanings can be the ones most valuable and useful to us as we seek to understand our own dispensation and to obtain answers to our own questions. This is why the teaching of the Holy Ghost is a better guide to scriptural interpretation than even the best commentary.

My reading of the talk in question is completely consistent with this. Is yours?

Yes, your love for Oaks is paramount.  Good for you.  

[CA Steve]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't know if it'd be a disaster, but so much preparation would be necessary, much as with the controversial history, that it seems difficult to do well. I suspect well meaning people would muddle it up and make things worse

I agree. I believe Biblical history poses as great a challenge as western hemispheric archeology does to the claim of a literal Book of Mormon. To me part of the difficulty in introducing Biblical history to a LDS audience arises out of what I see as the difference between study and research when it come to us as a religious group. As Mormons we have always studied the Bible and we rank up there when it comes to religious groups Biblical knowledge. But what that really reflects is our ability to recite passages and our familiarity with themes, stories and individuals from the text, an important part to be sure, but when it comes to areas like Biblical archeology, literary & textural criticism, philology, & history, as a group, we don't do so well. A difference that is illustrated in how we approach religious education at our universities where one can get a degree in religious education but not in religious studies. I don't know if you listened to  Dehlin's interview with David Bokovoy, but the part where David talked about his interview with other religious professors at BYU for a job there was fascinating. There seemed to be a huge concern from those other professors because David Bokovoy had studied under David Wright. If we are to teach Biblical history what better way to do so than the approach David took in his Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis-Deuteronomy? I believe BYU really missed an opportunity there.

 

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Getting back to the Original Post I think that what Elder Oaks counsels is wise. You need to get a testimony. If you have a strong testimony, particularly one born out of prayer, then these things won't bother you. As I said that's certainly what I found on my mission.

This makes me wonder what the difference is between someone whose faith is so strong that in spite of anything they learn or encounter they remain steadfast and someone who is just living by blind faith?

Edited February 7, 2019 by CA Steve

[blueglass]

I found an Ensign which gives the full text of the 1832 from Dec, 1984.  Looks like all the others until the JSP H1published in 2012 only included excerpts or pieces of the 1832 or referenced through footnotes.  I don't think a conference talk has quoted from the 1832, but a few devotionals have. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/12?lang=eng

Joseph Smith Jr.—in His Own Words, Part 1

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/12/joseph-smith-jr-in-his-own-words-part-1?lang=eng&_r=1

From 1965 to 1832 is 133 years.  I am surprised not more prophets, apostles got a hold of such an important document and discussed it, or wrote about it in journals?  

Here's my off the wall guess for why the other 8 leaves were cut out of H1.  My guess is that it goes into more detail about the angel and JS hand writing calls the angel Nephi, and this is why Joseph Fielding cut it out and hid it in a vault to this day 2019.  Any other guesses what might merit cutting out all 8 pages?  

Not sure we can say the entire JSP project is complete until these 8pages are restored and analyzed/released to the public.  

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by blueglass

[Thinking]

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But to turn it around, what responsibility do we have in our personal study for things?

If I didn't know that there were four different versions of the first vision, why would I even try to find them? Did the Church hide them? No. Was it forthcoming? No.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Honestly Clark, you aren't making much sense.  YOu are reading into Oak's comments some notion researching with the spirit is a good thing.

But I provided evidence from the text (a mere two sentences apart) as well as from other texts of Oaks. That's not projecting, it's arguing based upon the textual and contextual evidence.

You're right though, this isn't too fruitful so I'll drop it.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

If I didn't know that there were four different versions of the first vision, why would I even try to find them? Did the Church hide them? No. Was it forthcoming? No.

I agree. However my point was more broad about how one would find out about the different versions by reading books on history and theology. That doesn't even require going to more academic and perhaps critical sources. There were lots of books from the main Church oriented publishers that engaged with this. I mentioned Backman's book that was in the footnotes of most of the Ensign stories for instance and was in my Ward library. I think my ultimate point is that study involves more than just listening in Sunday school or reading scriptures.

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

This makes me wonder what the difference is between someone whose faith is so strong that in spite of anything they learn or encounter they remain steadfast and someone who is just living by blind faith?

That's more or less what I was trying to get at earlier. To give my favorite analogy the purported conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity with quantum gravity isn't an issue for physicists because the evidence for both is so strong. Thus any conflict they know is just apparent due to limited knowledge. By the same measure a person with a strong testimony isn't bothered by things like say deutero-Isaiah concerns because the evidence for a historic Nephi is so strong. (Recognizing not everyone will agree with that claim - I'm just getting at why people aren't bothered by historical issues)

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I agree. I believe Biblical history poses as great a challenge as western hemispheric archeology does to the claim of a literal Book of Mormon. To me part of the difficulty in introducing Biblical history to a LDS audience arises out of what I see as the difference between study and research when it come to us as a religious group. As Mormons we have always studied the Bible and we rank up there when it comes to religious groups Biblical knowledge.

 Well, I think Mormon scriptural knowledge is pretty poor. It's just that most Christians have even worse scriptural knowledge - compounded by a tendency among certain movements to devalue the importance of theology or the like. I think I referred to the Pew study on this the other day in one of the threads. In my opinion it's damning with faint praise. Jews and Atheists do better, but I think that's an IQ bias effect. Mormons have a pretty average bell curve for IQ.

I don't think it's actually hard to teach these sorts of things. I've definitely done it even with 12 year olds. But it's been quite some time since I last taught adult Sunday School and it never came up the times I taught Priesthood since getting married.

The easiest way to introduce it is actually through the Documentary hypothesis. I know among more literalists that's controversial, but if you first teach 1 Nephi 13 about "the mouth of the Jew" and then talk about Priestly and Deuteronomist redactions - particularly of Jeremiah - then you typically have the class all prepped. You can then explain how this clarifies questions about the Book of Mormon like issues of priesthood. Once that's in place then you start problematizing the scholarly assumptions. However you still largely buy into the model and push the idea of changing scripture. Noting the differences between the Book of Commandments and D&C as revelations were reworked for new contexts. Bring in the idea that scripture is changeable and you're most of the way there. Then go to Nephi's use of Isaiah and talk about the tradition of a pesher, midrash and targum. Compare the Biblical text to Nephi's texts. Then show the same with the JST. Bring up the relation of Matthew and Mark and note how most scholars see Mark as originally an oral performance. Finally raise the problem of deutero-Isaiah, note the problematic redactions/editing, but broach the idea of an ur-text available at the time of Nephi but heavily modified in the exile. 

At that point even if you can't answer every detail, you've given a framework/paradigm for them to understand the issue in a faithful fashion.

Edited February 7, 2019 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

From 1965 to 1832 is 133 years.  I am surprised not more prophets, apostles got a hold of such an important document and discussed it, or wrote about it in journals? 

I suspect most didn't know about it. While I disagree strongly with Joseph Fielding Smith's literalist and de facto infallibility approach to scripture, it's also worth noting that the same secular conflict that I think has been going on the last 5 years or so was also going on then. It's just unfortunate that, by and large, it led to a false dichotomy - at least until Nibley wrote his defense of the Book of Mormon.

Some of the other accounts, including both 1835 versions, actually were published and were part of the JSH first published in 1852. The first engagement, outside of the Tanners, with all the accounts that I'm aware of is Cheesman's 1965 thesis. Then five years later you have the 1970 Allen article in the Improvement Era followed by various books and articles over the next 10 years. 

The reason for the cut isn't clear. While it's definitely possible it was JFS suppressing the account, it's not clear that's what he was doing. The fact that page 6 ends about an inch up from the bottom, unlike the prior sheets, makes me skeptical there was a continuation of the history. Given the openness of the Joseph Smith Papers I'm pretty skeptical they're hiding them nor that they are in a safe somewhere. I'd want to see evidence for that. 

As I suggested, JFS had a problematic view of history and texts. While he was Church historian he actually was pretty ignorant of even the basics of historical consideration of sources that I assume most here are familiar with. Since he was a literalist who assumed a kind of de facto dictation model of scripture, any variation however small he saw as a problem. This may seem incredible to us, especially given the nature of the Biblical texts, but it was a common fundamentalist mindset perhaps brought on by the nature of his life when young. I know Ben Spackman has suggested that. Edit: bad link. That's for his father although worth reading too. Here's a brief link on JFS jr.

While I think JFS was a good man, there's definitely a very legalistic approach to texts that both he and BRM followed. Further he was very threatened (probably with cause) with the secular textual criticism of the era, including from many of the first generation of members sent east for education. After his death things start changing rapidly for the better. Once Hickley becomes President then we start getting a very strong openness helped along (IMO) by Oaks. It took a while to get people like Packer to embrace some changes, but eventually it happened. By 2010 we get the scans of LB1.

Edited February 7, 2019 by clarkgoble

[HappyJackWagon]

This is a brief but interesting article about the "lost generation" her are suffering from a crisis of trust in church leaders. The author makes some good points, primarily, that faith crisis tends to be much more of a trust crisis, and often for good reasons.

Quote

There’s an important difference between a faith crisis and a trust crisis. A crisis of faith faults this new lost generation with a lack of willing belief; a crisis of trust shifts the onus from the disaffected to those who severed the trust. It calls the trust-breaker to repentance, rather than shames the person experiencing crisis.

I know about trust crisis. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gone topsy-turvy. Where once I was encouraged to pursue light no matter where it’s found, I’m now cast as disobeying a modern prophet because I won’t forsake my decades long interest in Mormon history. Over the weekend, President Dallin H. Oaks, while speaking to young married couples in Chicago, advocated against the kinds of study for which the School of the Prophets was created, telling attendees to stick to prayer and scripture.

https://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.com/2019/02/06/todays-lost-generation-and-the-crisis-of-trust/?fbclid=IwAR14c7t339gUBmX55Thru-ku6Msd4EV0FG8PZXtCXkzgowGh3GY1eTuyOFo

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a brief but interesting article about the "lost generation" her are suffering from a crisis of trust in church leaders. The author makes some good points, primarily, that faith crisis tends to be much more of a trust crisis, and often for good reasons.

 

She does make a great point about it being a crisis of trust more than a crisis of faith.

Thank you for sharing that article @HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a brief but interesting article about the "lost generation" her are suffering from a crisis of trust in church leaders. The author makes some good points, primarily, that faith crisis tends to be much more of a trust crisis, and often for good reasons.

 

While I obviously disagree with the author’s interpretation of Pres. Oaks words, I think she makes an important distinction between a crisis of faith and one of trust. 

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a brief but interesting article about the "lost generation" her are suffering from a crisis of trust in church leaders. The author makes some good points, primarily, that faith crisis tends to be much more of a trust crisis, and often for good reasons.

 

Oh, how would it be to get an apology for the ruined lives. The closest we get is the talk by Elder Uchtdorf. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

After listening to it, like the little girl in the story, I had a change of heart but hasn't lasted, sad to say. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There’s an important difference between a faith crisis and a trust crisis. A crisis of faith faults this new lost generation with a lack of willing belief; a crisis of trust shifts the onus from the disaffected to those who severed the trust. It calls the trust-breaker to repentance, rather than shames the person experiencing crisis

This excerpt comes across to me as black and white rather than framing a more accurate view of the complex interaction most human relationships are.  It reads to me as 'Someone has to be blamed and I don't want to be in that group, so how can I frame it so it is someone else's fault'.  If the rest of the article goes along the same theme, it will be disappointing to me.

I don't see very effective solutions being arrived at by that kind of method, whether it dumps responsibility solely on the person in crisis or makes someone else the target.

I would prefer an examination that starts from an assumption of 'the process of teaching isn't complete as neither leaders nor students are satisfied in the results, what can be done to improve the process from all avenues we have available to us?'  Not only would this examination include seeking out improvements in teaching the material (history, doctrine, policy) and creating greater access to them, but it would also explore how to better improve the environment of learning....think of how providing school breakfasts is part of the process of improving learning in schools even though it appears to have nothing to do with teaching.  I love one improvement to illiteracy in public school children, which I think is a great example of making use of multiple resources and involving the greater community and that is the Book It program sponsored by Pizza Hut (did they have this in the States as well as Canada?...it appears so). It involved the student, the school, the family, and the greater community in the 'person' of Pizza Hut.  Parents/caregivers were to read to/with/oversee the student for 20 minutes a day in my daughter's school, the student would report to the teacher and then be given coupons to redeem for free pizza at Pizza Hut. The current program has the teacher set workable goals for each student.  It is apparently massive in its involvement, 1 in 5 adults in the States participated. 

http://www.bookitprogram.com/

Kind of reminds me of the addition of more structured home/family study this year with Church.  Now we just need cool pins and stars to keep track of our small successes that grow into big ones.  I would love to see Church parties set up to celebrate our efforts.

When we see gaps in learning, we can get involved in programs like these; hopefully when we see illiteracy in high school graduates or LDS members we won't fall into the trap of blaming the student or blaming the schools/church classes and then feel relieved it isn't our fault or our responsibility.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 2/5/2019 at 6:49 PM, Bernard Gui said:

The fact is that President Oaks was unfairly demeaned both in your post and by the publishing of a surreptitious recording on YouTube in a thread whose purpose is to discredit him. Having read your paraphrase and listened to the tape, I think that is obvious. I don’t think doing that is funny. So in one step we go from teaching deacons the correct way to take the sacrament to polygamy and institutional sexual abuse? How is that fair?

The repercussions of the high tech society we are. Watch your words or won them.

[Teancum]

On 2/5/2019 at 8:14 PM, The Nehor said:

To the first: Because they were specifically asked not to and only an unethical jerk records someone without their permission outside of some kind of legal situation which does not apply here. We sadly have a few unethical jerks who record it anyways. I will leave it to your imagination as to how I characterize those who defend this behavior.

To the second: Yes, they are. Specifically that advice given to one specific group of people will be inappropriately universally applied. Also that their enemies will try to make hay of their words (see this thread). Also, on occasion they will reveal sacred experiences to groups in meetings that are NOT for general consumption. Sadly the ease in which people can record these meetings means that this is less happening less and less outside of leadership meetings. I personally think the Lord could just go with the Annanias and Sapphira solution and strike those who try to record these meetings dead but God has sadly not asked for my counsel on the matter and shows mercy beyond my own.  

I have no sympathy. They make great claims to be the Lord's anointed and have direction straight from God for the church and world. "Follow the brethren" is the mantra I have heard all my life. They need to suck it up and own it and not be afraid of the repercussions. Abinadi wasn't. 

Edited February 7, 2019 by Teancum

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have no sympathy. They make great claims to be the Lord's anointed and have direction straight from God for the church and world. "Follow the brethren" is the mantra I have heard all my life. They need to suck it up and own it and not be afraid of the repercussions. Abinadi wasn't. 

That is a really stupid reason to deny people common courtesy.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have no sympathy. They make great claims to be the Lord's anointed and have direction straight from God for the church and world. "Follow the brethren" is the mantra I have heard all my life. They need to suck it up and own it and not be afraid of the repercussions. Abinadi wasn't. 

I actually agree with you here.  I think anyone who is speaking publicly these days, should just expect or assume they are being recorded (or may be).  Everyone has a phone on them now it seems.

Now, a private conversation is different, IMO.

Edited February 7, 2019 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The repercussions of the high tech society we are. Watch your words or won them.

Ain't it grand? I don't see President Oaks' comments as reprehensible, yet some want to make hay of them.

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I actually agree with you here.  I think anyone who is speaking publicly these days, should just expect or assume they are being recorded (or may be).  Everyone has a phone on them now it seems.

Now, a private conversation is different, IMO.

Who recorded and published this conversation in the deacons quorum? If one is to be so bold, then one should also be honest enough to do so up front with their name and not hide behind anonymity or pseudonyms. It works both ways.

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have no sympathy. They make great claims to be the Lord's anointed and have direction straight from God for the church and world. "Follow the brethren" is the mantra I have heard all my life. They need to suck it up and own it and not be afraid of the repercussions. Abinadi wasn't. 

Saying they get direction isn't to say they always get direction nor that they aren't left to their own devices. God directed the brother of Jared to figure out how to light the barges. It was inspiration but not dictation over everything done.

I do think though that the distinction between faith crisis and trust crisis is apt. I think the problem is though that people have an unrealistic expectation of what it means to be an apostle. But it's also fair to say that the Church bears a lot of responsibility for those expectations.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Who recorded and published this conversation in the deacons quorum? If one is to be so bold, then one should also be honest enough to do so up front with their name and not hide behind anonymity or pseudonyms. It works both ways.

I don't know who recorded it and who then posted it (or if it was even the same person).  This does not change the fact that anyone speaking publicly today should assume they may be recorded.  

Edited February 7, 2019 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I actually agree with you here.  I think anyone who is speaking publicly these days, should just expect or assume they are being recorded (or may be).  Everyone has a phone on them now it seems.

Now, a private conversation is different, IMO.

The implication being that we'll have much less open discussion and GAs will always be on guard. I guess some people like that. I find it sad since it means we will not get them giving their own opinions. Although after several years of starting talks and especially Q&A sessions with requests not to record or put stuff up on Facebook they know that's going to happen a lot.  Which means a pretty big change in the nature of these sorts of meetings. Which then people complain about.

[Bernard Gui]

52 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know who recorded it and who then posted it (or if it was even the same person).  This does not change the fact that anyone speaking publicly today should assume they may be recorded.  

Is a chat in a deacons quorum public?

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is a chat in a deacons quorum public?

In today's world it is.  Were the young women there too?  (I'm just asking because I think he referenced them at some point....but I'd need to listen again.)  

Edited February 8, 2019 by ALarson

[CA Steve]

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

In today's world it is.  Were the young women there too?  (I'm just asking because I think he referenced them at some point....but I'd need to listen again.)  

I am not defending or arguing against the recording but the realty is that if you have to ask who recorded something in a deacons quorum you simply do not understand the ubiquitous nature and ease that today's electronic devices, especially cell phones, have to record and post online.   A good friend of mine is a high school counselor. She knows that everything she says has a chance of being recorded and posted online by a student or any other person nearby. So she measures everything she says to a student with that in mind. Is that a good thing or a bad thing or maybe both? I don't know' but as you say "In today's world it is". Any kid with a cell phone can reach into his or her pocket and trigger the phone to record without even looking at it. This is only going to get more common. Today's cell phones are constantly listening to what is being said. (Think "OK Google" or "Hey Siri") That means these devices are constantly listening to their surroundings. This will only expand with what are called "smart devices".  Some of us may have them in our home now where things like our refrigerator or TV are listening to us 24/7.

Leadership should be aware that every public statement is being recorded and adjust accordingly. It is simply foolish to ask that they not be recorded. It just isn't going to happen.

Edited February 8, 2019 by CA Steve