Saints Unscripted - Series of Vids Re: Blacks and the Priesthood

[rchorse]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Preserving the continuation of the Church at all costs is priority one?

It's hard for the Church to fulfill its mission when it doesn't exist.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

And yet it appears the Ban made little difference as accusations against the Church for racemixing continued all along.  

Yes, but accusations are as far as it went. I suspect had the church been fully integrated with blacks as full equals, it would have been more than accusations.

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think that there was more than enough diversity in America on the issue of race to support a small and fledgling church who did not deprive blacks of the priesthood to grow and survive.  It really was not much of an issue for growth in the church until Brigham Young made it one.  The abolitionist movement (including all those sympathetic to it) in America was not small, and was growing, plus Joseph was focusing all his missionary efforts on the free states.   

There's a big difference between supporting abolition of slavery and being ok with full racial integration, which is what the ban was about. Were blacks treated equally to whites in the free states back then? What was the level of integration in free states prior to the civil rights movement?

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

The church was most vulnerable in the early church pre-Utah, and yet it survived this period and thrived growth despite the lack of any priesthood ban and despite the priesthood being given to black men in the church, the church survived this most vulnerable period.  

The same could be said of plural marriage and yet look at how that turned out a few decades later.

 

 

Maybe I'm wrong, and it was just racist leaders. Maybe the church would have survived, thrived and grown even more than it has without the ban. But I think that view has its own problems, as many have pointed out already on the thread.

I'm not going to say any more. You all can have the last word. I just wanted to present another way to look at it.

Edit to add: In case it's not clear, I'm not a fan of the priesthood ban or the past and current racism in the church and in society. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by rchorse

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It does make you wonder if the previous church leaders hadn't spent so much time coming up with reasons for the ban and then teaching them over the pulpit and in manuals, if the church would have been ready and able to accept the end of the ban much earlier than it did.

Extrapolating doctrine from other doctrine seems to turn out badly for us.  I wonder if we'll ever stop doing it.

All it takes is one or 2 confident and strong voices, precedence, and tradition to overpower dissenting voices.  After Brigham, and even during his time, the ban was deliberated amongst the brethren many times.  There have always been dissenting voices.  If it wasn't for George Q Cannon confident and strong opinion, the ban probably would have ended soon after Brigham Young as many questioned the ban and its justification, but George always came out swinging with powerful conviction over unfortunately false justifications.   Once precedence and tradition have become established in the church, it becomes dogma/doctrine.  It has been said that the consistent and repeated voice of past leaders serves as evidence of doctrine.  It is hard to question something once it has reaches the level of doctrine via precedence.  At one point, one of the prophets (I can't remember which one) said something to the effect, when pressed on the issue of the ban, "what more can be done on this issue than what has already been done and said by previous prophets?"  And so the ban continued. Tradition and precedence is hard to break in the church.  

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, rchorse said:

There's a big difference between supporting abolition of slavery and being ok with full racial integration, which is what the ban was about. Were blacks treated equally to whites in the free states back then? What was the level of integration in free states prior to the civil rights movement.

I agree.  But other churches survived despite lacking such bans.  Yes there was segregation, yes there was still discrimination, even in the free states, but our church's ban was notably extreme among the other churches which somehow survived the times.  We didn't need to ban the priesthood to survive.  There is no evidence for that.  We survived and were growing just fan and had fully developed roots before the ban ever took place.

27 minutes ago, rchorse said:

The same could be said of plural marriage and yet look at how that turned out a few decades later.

That is true and I think strengthens my point.  If the early church survived polygamy and the lack of a priesthood ban before coming to Utah, it is almost certain that the church would have continued to survive without a ban (especially in Utah).  

I also neglected to mention the global growth of the church and how the ban has hurt us.  One of the issues that kept popping up and partly influenced the drop of the ban was that missionaries were baptizing like crazy in Brazil and other places, the question of where do you draw the line became impossible. They couldn't grow a church in Brazil and Africa etc. without giving the priesthood to local members. It was a hinderance to global growth more than anything.

33 minutes ago, rchorse said:

Maybe I'm wrong, and it was just racist leaders. Maybe the church would have survived, thrived and grown even more than it has without the ban. But I think that view has its own problems, as many have pointed out already on the thread.

I'm not going to say any more. You all can have the last word. I just wanted to present another way to look at it.

Edit to add: In case it's not clear, I'm not a fan of the priesthood ban or the past and current racism in the church and in society. 

 I can understand how it could affect the testimony for some in the church - but it need not.  

[Calm]

Watching the rest of SU video part 2, starting at about 20 mins into it, I watched part of this yesterday but don’t remember recapping it.  Apologies if repeat  

Orson Pratt, in arguing against the modified slavery bills, states they should not bring slavery into a territory where it hasn’t been. They will end up being under more condemnation than slavers who inherited the system from their ancestors.  Why would they shackle innocents with these ideas of curses?  Curses are not multigenerational.  God may have curses individuals in the past, but he has given them no authority to do so. 
 

In another speech in 1856, Pratt says we have no proof blacks are descendants of Cain. 
 

There isn’t much new after that, at the end Reeve points out that the idea that God is controlling everything the prophet does as a prophet is actually a violation of the doctrine of agency and God is never going to violate that. We backed it when we accepted God’s Plan and we need to realize that means there is going to be messiness, which may cause you to stretch your faith. “We have don’t need an infallible prophet if we have an infallible Saviour.”

End with a short discussion Century of Black Mormons. 
 

There should be 300 to 400 entries by the end. They will know how many were given the priesthood, how many enslaved when baptized, how many were passing as white, etc. 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

 the idea that God is controlling everything the prophet does as a prophet is actually a violation of the doctrine of agency and God is never going to violate that. We backed it when we accepted God’s Plan and we need to realize that means there is going to be messiness, which may cause you to stretch your faith. “We have don’t need an infallible prophet if we have an infallible Saviour.”

I think that idea was popular in the early 20th century.

I also think at some point later that century we graduated to "everything the prophet does isn't straight from God but if he's wrong we'll be blessed for following him anyway".  We see that often with older members even here.

And I think we're witnessing a transition to a new TBD stage where members feel more comfortable not just disagreeing but actually going against his advice/instructions without considering their salvation impacted.

[Calm]

On 2/18/2022 at 4:25 PM, rchorse said:

It's hard for the Church to fulfill its mission when it doesn't exist.

I hear this used as an explanation quite a lot, but it is never really explained how this destruction would have happened save to point to how close it came with polygamy.  
 

All the mob violence and driving Saints out of their homes happened prior to the ban and the Church survived.  Once the Saints moved out to Utah, while individuals and small groups of missionaries were at times were attacked elsewhere I believe and even killed, the main base of the Church and headquarters were a bit far for mob action.

It was not the Church’s reputation or interaction with its neighbors that led to its near destruction, but the ability of the government to take action  according to the law.   What came close to destroying the Church was when the federal government stepped in, but not by kicking Saints out of government positions because the Church was still going strong at that point.  The feds used polygamy through the SC declaring plural marriage as not qualified for a religious exception and instead to be bigamy or cohabitation and illegal. They arrested many leaders and drove others into hiding because they could legally arrest them as criminals.  They threatened to take the temples not because they were church property, but because the Church continued to perform illegal marriages in them as I understand it.  Since they were able to frame a certain Church related behaviour as criminal action and those involved in plural marriage as criminals, they got to the Church through that.  They weren’t throwing every Saint in jail just on principle.  Nor were there mobs attacking Church settlements in Utah or kicking the Saints out of the state this time around.

So let’s assume that the ban didn’t occur or at least didn’t last past Brigham Young and blacks continued to be integrated into Church society as they were before.  We can imagine it as similar to other states where social pressure kept the mixing down even if interracial marriage was legal.  Or we can think highly of early leaders and imagine they even went so far as to bar slavery on their own and allow interracial marriage.  Or maybe Orson Pratt didn’t go as far in his rebellion and kept his seniority so he became President of the Church when his turn came.  What would have happened?  On what grounds could have the federal government intervened?  There were already several states that allowed interracial marriage, even if socially frowned upon.  To use that as a weapon against the Church, the government would have had to challenge the lack of laws in at least Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia as these states, territories (at the relevant time), and district never had such laws.***

Was there ever any successful legal challenge of having black ministers in the US?  We know there were a number in other states. So how could having black priesthood holders be turned into a crime for the Church?  Sure, there could be areas in the states where chapels were torched and members beaten, but at worst that restricts the Church to where it has the numbers to prevent such treatment.

If there wasn’t mob violence out West when it came to polygamy, not much likelihood they would have been able to gather the numbers to trek out to the territory and somehow drive them out of there for their more equal treatment of blacks.  If there wasn’t a governor signing an extermination order for polygamy out in Utah, why would there be one for racial integration?  Would the South have somehow managed to invade Utah and execute enough Church leaders and destroy property that what remained of the Saints won’t be able to rebuild?  Given what Young was able to do to Johnson’s army, there is a good chance even if the South believed it could spare enough troops to go off to attack rather than stay closer to home to prevent the Union from taking advantage, that key leaders would have enough warning to go into hiding and the Saints had enough numbers with the advance warning they would have received they could have set up a decent defense.  

So what could have been triggered by racial integration that could have realistically threatened the Church?  Unlike polygamy, what legal grounds were there for attacking the Saints that wouldn’t have had to be initiated against other states to justify the action? On what basis could the federal government have added to the Church’s crimes and therefore called on the army to wipe the Mormons  out of existence after the Church had accepted the polygamy restriction and the Manifesto was issued?

***https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States#After_independence

edited:  if this comes across as dismissive or sarcastic, it is not meant to…I was writing as I was thinking it out, trying to imagine possibilities myself.  They are serious questions, history is not my niche and I may easily be missing something.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

@rongo I am curious given that James was not the impetus for all of the multiple investigations (since she didn’t begin her appeals until 1884*** plus we know what was discussed in many of them), nor likely the changes in JFS’ interview of Able and his position on Able’s certificates as valid, how that affects your understanding of the ban’s development now.

***https://www.ldsliving.com/is-there-no-blessing-for-me-jane-manning-jamess-pleas-to-receive-her-endowment-her-powerful-testimony-of-the-temple/s/90394

Edited February 20, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Just read this on FB:

Quote

This issue also intersects with that of prophetic fallibility. Bruce R. McConkie, considered more conservative, wrote in a letter to Eugene England in 1981, "I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned."

https://www.facebook.com/hseariac/posts/5172584756152917
 

I will admit I like the first part—reminding us that even prophets can teach false doctrine, so we need to be careful not to simply accept any teaching we hear even from the Prophet—better than the second as I think that highly depends on what the Spirit chooses to reveal to us and I don’t believe he will automatically correct any and all error, big or small, taught us even if we ask, at least not before death.  And if believing false doctrine is going to get us condemned to damnation, then those who taught it including prophets are also condemned as they surely believe what they teach…so condemnation is unlikely to be permanent I am guessing in Brother McConkie’s view if we repent when the truth is revealed to us, either in this life or in the spirit world after death.

His specific view here is an interesting contrast to those who say if we follow our leaders even if they err, we will be blessed for our obedience, etc. (which includes Marion G Romney, April 1972)…added much later:  at this point I hadn’t reread the whole letter and forgot he had included pretty much the same sentiments latter on…which is really hard for me to wrap my head around as they are such a contradiction.

Added shortly after posting:  I found the whole letter on an anti site, so not going to post it here…will just give these paragraphs for better context.  It is interesting to me to see how he tries to reconcile a man he believes has not lost his soul, who is likely worthy of exaltation in his view with teaching false doctrine.  It is like he waves it away for Brigham, but slams down on anyone who chooses to believe Brigham on these points because he was their prophet or later members believe it to be revelation.  I respect that Brother McConkie didn’t try to pretend the false doctrine never happened or was no big deal.  I do think he wasn’t particularly balanced in his view of accountability.  Nephi didn’t add ‘but if they only do it sometimes, their souls are just fine.’  

Quote

This puts me in mind of Paul’s statement: “There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1 Cor. 11:19.) I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. If that belief is on basic and fundamental things, it will lead us astray and we will lose our souls. This is why Nephi said: “And all those who preach false doctrines, . . . wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!: (2 Ne. 28:15.) This clearly means that people who teach false doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls. The nature and kind of being that God is, is one of these fundamentals. I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in his instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us.

It should be perfectly evident that under our system of church discipline, it would be anticipated that some others besides Brigham Young would pick up some of his statements and echo them. Those who did this, also on other occasions, taught accurately and properly what the true doctrines of the gospel are. I do not get concerned when a good and sound person who. On the over-all, is teaching the truth happens to err on a particular point and say something in conflict with what he has said himself on a previous occasion. We are all mortal. We are all fallible. We all make mistakes. No single individual all the time is in tune with the Holy Spirit, but I do get concerned when some person or group picks out false statements and makes them the basis of their presentation and theology and thus ends up having a false concept of the doctrine, which in reality, was not in the mind of the person whose quotations they are using.

 

I think teaching false doctrine tied to pride and perverting the gospel is what causes their soul to be lost as opposed to teaching false doctrine because one believes it is true and will help to seek the Lord.  Repentance will be required for the last as it is for all sins if we wish to be one with God, but I don’t see it tossing us into the hands of Satan unless we are intentional in seeking darkness.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28?lang=eng

Quote

9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

On 2/18/2022 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

All it takes is one or 2 confident and strong voices, precedence, and tradition to overpower dissenting voices.  After Brigham, and even during his time, the ban was deliberated amongst the brethren many times.  There have always been dissenting voices.  If it wasn't for George Q Cannon confident and strong opinion, the ban probably would have ended soon after Brigham Young as many questioned the ban and its justification, but George always came out swinging with powerful conviction over unfortunately false justifications.   Once precedence and tradition have become established in the church, it becomes dogma/doctrine.  It has been said that the consistent and repeated voice of past leaders serves as evidence of doctrine.  It is hard to question something once it has reaches the level of doctrine via precedence.  At one point, one of the prophets (I can't remember which one) said something to the effect, when pressed on the issue of the ban, "what more can be done on this issue than what has already been done and said by previous prophets?"  And so the ban continued. Tradition and precedence is hard to break in the church.  

I am curious, do you know the breakdown of those who in some way were against the motions or BY’s assumptions about blacks. My sense is that those with more egalitarian views or pushing against was still in the minority. There’s examples, yes, but I’ve never seen more than a couple.

I assume most probably fell in the “middle” ideologically among white Americans at that time. Which would be a mix of not liking slavery but also not wanting a fully egalitarian society to one degree or another (ex. Back to Africa movements, assumptions on different capacities of blacks v whites, maintain social separations, opposition to mixed marriages, etc). I would also assume those stridently for slavery and such were in the minority in UT and more likely among those benefiting from it or from the south. Which is why the legalization of slavery looks more like a compromise between various factions to make a more “humane” slavery system than was seen in other states or territories allowing slavery. (See here). 
 

though more or completely egalitarian perspectives existed they were still culturally in the minority (at least among white Americans). 
 

with luv,

BD

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Just read this on FB:

https://www.facebook.com/hseariac/posts/5172584756152917
 

 

 

That quote is a bit weird, since he was one who believed and perpetuated false doctrine, so he would be one of the condemned.  Plus, I doubt there is anyone alive who does not believe some false doctrine, so in that sense, we would all be a little condemned as well.

What's the providence on that letter and quote?  Has it been vetted?  If it has then it makes me think that he using either false doctrine or condemned in a way that we are not understanding correctly.

[rongo]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What's the provenance on that letter and quote?  Has it been vetted?  If it has then it makes me think that he using either false doctrine or condemned in a way that we are not understanding correctly.

It's genuine. It's stamped "do not reproduce" or "for recipient only" on every page (we're all boxed up to move,so I can't dig it up at the moment). It was sent to Eugene England's office at BYU but he was out of town,and someone opened it, copied it, and delivered it anonymously to Sandra Tanner (she confirmed this personally to me). It's a frank appraisal of the Adam-God situation,and concludes that Brigham Young taught both "orthodox" and "heterodox" things about it, so we throw out the heterodox stuff and just go with the orthodox stuff.

ETA: he's using false doctrine how we would understand it. The purpose was to call Eugene to repentance for apparently believing certain things McConkie didn't think he should entertain.

Edited February 20, 2022 by rongo

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's genuine. It's stamped "do not reproduce" or "for recipient only" on every page (we're all boxed up to move,so I can't dig it up at the moment). It was sent to Eugene England's office at BYU but he was out of town,and someone opened it, copied it, and delivered it anonymously to Sandra Tanner (she confirmed this personally to me). It's a frank appraisal of the Adam-God situation,and concludes that Brigham Young taught both "orthodox" and "heterodox" things about it, so we throw out the heterodox stuff and just go with the orthodox stuff.

ETA: he's using false doctrine how we would understand it. The purpose was to call Eugene to repentance for apparently believing certain things McConkie didn't think he should entertain.

Elder McConkie did have some strong opinions about things, and he didn't mince words if someone was doing something he didn't agree with.  It's funny how his own words condemn himself as much as anyone else, but I'm guessing that he is talking about believing false doctrine and not being willing to repent when we are called on it maybe?  

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Elder McConkie did have some strong opinions about things, and he didn't mince words if someone was doing something he didn't agree with.  It's funny how his own words condemn himself as much as anyone else, but I'm guessing that he is talking about believing false doctrine and not being willing to repent when we are called on it maybe?  

I think he would have applied the danger equally to himself. I like how forceful he was in his beliefs, even when I don't agree with him. I remember having a discussion, and I had my kids read the Seven Deadly Heresies talk. "What in the name of Mike?!" my sophomore said (Polar Express reference). We differ from him over believing wrong things. We believe that our actions and intentions are much more important --- though beliefs can impact those. His point is well-taken. Food for thought.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think he would have applied the danger equally to himself. I like how forceful he was in his beliefs, even when I don't agree with him. I remember having a discussion, and I had my kids read the Seven Deadly Heresies talk. "What in the name of Mike?!" my sophomore said (Polar Express reference). We differ from him over believing wrong things. We believe that our actions and intentions are much more important --- though beliefs can impact those. His point is well-taken. Food for thought.

I think that forcefulness can be a good thing, and it can also cause a lot of damage.  It just depends on the context.  I think that there are some things that Elder McConkie taught or espoused that are false doctrine, and I think that there are still members of the church today who believe them and hold up Elder McConkie as the reason that they do.

Being extremely sure of ourselves and pushing other people to agree with is us a really sharp double edged sword.  It can do a lot of good when we are right but man, when we are wrong.....

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That quote is a bit weird, since he was one who believed and perpetuated false doctrine, so he would be one of the condemned.  Plus, I doubt there is anyone alive who does not believe some false doctrine, so in that sense, we would all be a little condemned as well.

What's the providence on that letter and quote?  Has it been vetted?  If it has then it makes me think that he using either false doctrine or condemned in a way that we are not understanding correctly.

http://www.eugeneengland.org/a-professor-and-apostle-correspond-eugene-england-and-bruce-r-mcconkie-on-the-nature-of-god

Essay that discusses the events surrounding the letter…at the end Brother McConkie says he sent copies to others Brother England had communicated with, my guess is one of them made a copy and passed it around and it quickly went public, especially after it was sent to Tanner.

The pdf of the letter:

http://www.eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/BRM-to-EE-Feb-80-Combined.pdf
 

It is more than a bit weird to me.    So very human to be self contradictory, isn’t it? He recognizes this in Brigham Young (see previous paragraphs to the quote for this in detail), but not in himself. He speaks of forgiving Brigham Young for what Brother McConkie apparently saw as occasional lapses, no doubt the man will receive exaltation for his labors even though cultists use his words to mislead souls into apostasy. He speaks of determining truth for ourselves through the guidance of the Spirit and the foundation of scripture.  The latter comments follow the quote and are, IMO, a great description of our personal responsibility to find what is true rather than relying heavily on leadership…but it also misses that scripture was produced by fallible men, the prophets who make mistakes and scribes who don’t even have the calling to determine doctrine and the Book of Mormon itself refers to possible mistakes in the text, so logically it comes down to finding truth ultimately through seeking personal revelation from the Spirit.  Canonization appears to elevate scripture for Brother McConkie as handed to us by God, yet the process was done by fallible men.  And scripture itself is interpreted.  Contradiction embedded in certainty.

After several paragraphs admitting the fallibility of prophets, Brother McConkie still finds it possible to issue an extraordinarily authoritative demand based on his calling as one of the ones who define doctrine for the Church.  There is no sense of caution in his pronouncements that certainly arises for me immediately when I accepted as fact prophets can get it wrong.  If he gets it wrong he will be punished, but Brother England is to sit up and shut up or be damned now Elder McConkie has instructed him.  No discussion allowed.  It doesn’t appear to occur to him even after being corrected by Pres. Kimball, after stating he will be judged by the Lord if he is wrong, that he might in fact be teaching something “according to [his own] fancy” imo even if he gives lip service to the idea.  If he errs, it is his problem; if Brother England errs he will lose his soul.  What an imbalanced treatment of human weakness.

The letter is a strangely certain and absolute letter from one who admitted he himself had taught false doctrine 3 years earlier.  It is a great example IMO, when taken in the context of the Priesthood Ban and teachings there, how difficult it is to reconcile being able to trust leadership without doubt….because the letter itself is a demand for England to trust leadership without reservation and yet gives the obvious evidence that leadership gets in wrong (Brigham Young and his own mistakes).  I think it shows in the end how unbalanced an absolute position is…and that Brother McConkie realized that on one level and spoke strongly about it in the letter with his condemnation of those who teach false doctrine, but still he couldn’t let go of the POV that a spiritual leader could know with absolute certainty they were speaking eternal doctrine and could call down hellfire (verbal at least) on those who contradicted even while accepting he made several (at least) mistakes himself teaching personal opinion as doctrine (and imo had a habit of doing so).

And he had even been very recently corrected again by Pres. Kimball as part of the previous events to this letter and years previously with Mormon Doctrine…yet appears to repeat the same error in it, IMO.  From the link:

Quote

President Kimball was not doctrinaire, and he felt a need to interfere in doctrinal matters only when he saw strong statements of personal opinion as being divisive. Elder McConkie’s talk at BYU on “The Seven Deadly Heresies” implied he had authority to define heresy. . . . President Kimball responded to the uproar [caused by the devotional] by calling Elder McConkie in to discuss the talk. As a consequence, Elder McConkie revised the talk for publication so as to clarify that he was stating personal views and not official Church doctrine.5

The linked essay ends with a quote I find very appropriate here:

Quote

Human beings cannot be reduced to an action, a political or intellectual position, a quotation in a newspaper, an essay or a story they have written…. We are never less—and actually much more because of our infinite potential—than the complete sum of our history, our stories, a sum which is constantly increasing, changing, through time.

—Eugene England, “On Spectral Evidence,” 1993

 

PS:  When I first posted the quote from FB, I wasn’t thinking of what a contradiction it actually was considering who stated it, but just that it was a recognition that even prophets can get it wrong from someone we don’t usually think of as thinking that way, which makes it a very strong statement on prophet and leader fallibility .  This sub discussion might derail from the original discussion here, so perhaps if you (or anyone else besides Bluebell) want to discuss it in more detail we should start a new thread.  I will be happy to do so…just let me know.  At this point I don’t really have anything else to say, but I plan on refreshing my memory of the interaction later on and may come up with additional ideas.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

was sent to Eugene England's office at BYU but he was out of town,and someone opened it, copied it, and delivered it anonymously to Sandra Tanner (she confirmed this personally to me).

How would Tanner know it was from England’s copy if anonymous?  There were apparently multiple copies sent by Brother McConkie to those England had been communicating with.  The essay claimed the leak came from Elder McConkie’s office….though obviously the essay is very pro England.

Ach..I keep misspelling his name.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think he would have applied the danger equally to himself.

Intellectually I agree.  I don’t think he bought it in his gut though or how could he reconcile refusing to even consider receiving correction from anyone he does not consider the head of the Church?  And not particularly following that correction very well when from apostles and presidents of the Church it seems to me (refusing to change the title of Mormon Doctrine and repeating as absolute doctrine something he had been told by Pres. Kimball to teach as personal opinion).

Edited February 20, 2022 by Calm