Who has read Matthew Harris’s work and how much should we believe?

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well first of all I seem to always need to clarify this. I don't expect infallibility.  But I do expect accuracy on major doctrinal issues and well as major policy issues, though the latter is less important to me.  There are a number of major doctrinal issues that I found very problematic and still do from those claiming to be God's mouthpiece on earth. Keep in mind, that Bible has some pretty heavy words for prophets that get things wrong. I don't believe the Bible is any more God's word than anything else but it can be used as a measurement for those who do beieve it to be God's word.

But I had a testimony that was likely as fervent and deep as yours.

I did read the article.  I understand her viewpoint but there are a number of assumptions she makes that one must accept for her approach to work.

A few thoughts.

How does she know that the LDS leaders are the least fallible leaders on earth?  This seems like a pretty big leap right out of the box. Who does one determine that they are the least fallible leaders on earth?  If we look at their track record this seems very presumptuous on her part.  She says because they have the priesthood keys, but that is a statement of faith really.  See around corners/  Not really. What corners have they seen around lately. Did they see the pandemic coming?  That would have been a pretty useful thing to see a bit about ahead if time?  What corners do they see around?

Why do I/we need someone to give us "inspired" advice at all?  In my experience we set ourselves up to be very disappointed if we have to have someone tell us what to do. That said, I find a lot of people our there who have great ideas and wisdom on a variety of topics and many seem much more insightful than the LDS leaders.  They just ain't all that special unless one makes them out to be such.

I am sure there are plenty of trustworthy leaders. And again, based on the LDS leaders track record and their history of suppressing where they can items that put the historical narrative of the church and question, I do not find them especially trustworthy.

I don't know that they are any smarter than other people. I think they all seem to be highly intelligent and successful men both in and out of the church. But so what?

Ah well I could go on but that suffices. I appreciate you sharing the article.

Her assumptions are based on her testimony (which comes from a witness of the Holy Ghost and requires faith) that the gospel (and it's appendages) as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.  

If you don't have that base, then her answers are not going to be "answers".  They are just going to be opinions as relevant as anyone else's.

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Her assumptions are based on her testimony (which comes from a witness of the Holy Ghost and requires faith) that the gospel (and it's appendages) as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.  

If you don't have that base, then her answers are not going to be "answers".  They are just going to be opinions as relevant as anyone else's.

Yes I agree. One needs to make a lot of assumptions and take them on faith. Otherwise it does not work. There was a time I would  have found her argument compelling. But what I hope you understand is I applied all of the premises faithfully for most of my life. But when one realizes or conclude the basic premises are built of a sandy and even dishonest representation, will then the rest can crumble. I am always open to be wrong.  But it really became a "The  Emperor Has No Clothes" type of problem for me.  Once that happens all of Dew's positions simply crumble. You have a different conclusion and a very different paradigm that works for you. And I am happy for you. It just does not work for me.

[MrShorty]

@bluebell I'd like to think I still qualify as a believer, and I have long been a bit frustrated by Sr. Dew's talk. I don't want to take anything away from the good you get out of the talk, but I find that the OP's topic (some of the history that Matt Harris presents in his book) feels like it directly contradicts many of Sr Dew's points. When I read Elder Petersen's '54 talk on race, I do not see "An Apostle [whose] only agenda is the Lord’s agenda." When Harris talks about Pres. Brown lobbying for  change, I see one apostle who is seeing around the corner, but Harris also shows several apostles who seem unable to see around the same corner as Pres. Brown.

I think Sr. Dew tries to make some very good points, but, to me, they fall kind of flat when contrasted against the kinds of things Harris is talking about. I often wish I could convince Sr. Dew to revisit this talk in light of the kinds of things Harris is describing and ask her how she makes this all fit together.

[Calm]

On 10/6/2024 at 1:38 PM, Calm said:

Is this the LaJean Carruth corrected version?

It is.

Quote

We offer LaJean Pursell Carruth’s transcription of Watt’s shorthand in its entirety first. It is the closest version available to what Young said and the most fully developed rationale articulated by a Latter-day Saint prophet/president for a racial priesthood restriction. Next, we place Carruth’s transcription alongside Watt’s transcription of his own shorthand, and Woodruff’s summary in three parallel columns. This again highlights the liberties that Watt sometimes took in refining and modifying the shorthand version as he transcribed. It also demonstrates the remarkable skill Woodruff possessed in capturing the general sentiment of Young’s speech even as it simultaneously lays bare Woodruff’s woeful lack of precision. It should also serve as a caution against relying on Woodruff’s version of the speech in the future when Watt’s verbatim and transcribed versions are now readily available and certainly more accurate.

From the link rpn provided

https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/this-abominable-slavery/page/4_2

Edited October 8, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Just an FYI for accuracy…

It is possible that Harris is no longer a member, not disciplined, but by choice. Doublechecking if I can get a source of him making the statement as I don’t know if the source I read is repeating what they heard or has personal knowledge. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why do I/we need someone to give us "inspired" advice at all?

Sometimes we can’t see things right in front of our faces because we are so set in our ways. Sometimes we might not see because there is too much clutter around us occupying our thoughts.

It may take someone from outside to see what we can’t see.

I do have some disagreement even from a believer’s angle with how Sr Dew presents her conclusions. 

Quote

QUESTION 2: Is there anyone you would trust to give you better, more inspired advice—meaning counsel unaffected by personal agenda—than members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles?

I actually think my bishops who are familiar with me might be more inspired for what I should be focusing on at times because they have a personal connection.   I would tend to trust they would be more familiar with my issues and therefore offer more on target advice. 

The idea that there are no other leaders more trustworthy may be true in the sense of believing they are telling the truth as they best know it, but all I have to do is look at JFS’ reliance of pseudoscience to explain creation scriptures (unfortunately still documented in the OT Institute manual, I think I might just throw a party when that text gets updated I have been waiting longer than my grandchildren have been alive for that day) as literal to see there are at times other types of leaders we should depend on more. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

How does she know that the LDS leaders are the least fallible leaders on earth?  This seems like a pretty big leap right out of the box. Who does one determine that they are the least fallible leaders on earth? 

That assumption presented as a fact bugged me.  Especially when not qualified as to what type of knowledge that I could tell. In fact, the lack of qualification seemed to be throughout the talk. I would choose a medical doctor if I had a question about my health rather the prophet (I am assuming as brilliant as he was, he hasn’t been keeping up on the latest medical research plus he was a specialist in probably the only area I am not currently worried about  ), a therapist rather than the prophet if I wanted to discuss coping skills of a nonspiritual type, an epidemiologist about Covid or similar outbreaks, etc. 

I wish she had focused on spiritual advice or how to live a good life in general. I can get behind that on a general basis…though honestly I still think my bishop might be more useful as per my above post.

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@bluebell I'd like to think I still qualify as a believer, and I have long been a bit frustrated by Sr. Dew's talk. I don't want to take anything away from the good you get out of the talk, but I find that the OP's topic (some of the history that Matt Harris presents in his book) feels like it directly contradicts many of Sr Dew's points. When I read Elder Petersen's '54 talk on race, I do not see "An Apostle [whose] only agenda is the Lord’s agenda." When Harris talks about Pres. Brown lobbying for  change, I see one apostle who is seeing around the corner, but Harris also shows several apostles who seem unable to see around the same corner as Pres. Brown.

I think Sr. Dew tries to make some very good points, but, to me, they fall kind of flat when contrasted against the kinds of things Harris is talking about. I often wish I could convince Sr. Dew to revisit this talk in light of the kinds of things Harris is describing and ask her how she makes this all fit together.

As wrong as I believe that Elder Petersen was, I still think it was likely that he was seeking for his only agenda to be the Lord's agenda.  Biases are often unknown by the people who hold them, and sometimes we are just wrong even with the best of intentions.  Someone can be completely sincere in their desire to follow God or do His will, and also be completely wrong about how they are doing it.  

Like Saul/Paul.  Sincere people will take correction from God when it comes (like Saul/Paul) regardless of the cost.  I like to hope that that describes our leaders and those of the past, if the correction had been able to get through/sent during their time.

I wish that the apostles would acknowledge the places that they went wrong, or needed to regroup, but I don't agree with Teancum that going wrong sometimes means we can't trust them anytime.  If I applied that logic to myself (or anyone else), it would catastrophic.  I think there are plenty of reasonable reasons to decide that these men are not prophets, seers, and revelators (none that I agree with, but still reasonable from certain perspectives), but the 'not always right = not trustworthy does make sense to me.

It's a fair point that sister Dew's talk won't be completely valid for every saint who has a testimony, but I think you have to have a testimony to find any of it supportable.

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sometimes we can’t see things right in front of our faces because we are so set in our ways.

The more I read, the more I see this in several of the leaders of the church. Just the parts about what President Wilkinson of BYU was dealing with on recruiting blacks to the university and how so many of the leaders were dealing/not dealing with it shows couldn't seem to see things right in front of their faces.  

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sometimes we might not see because there is too much clutter around us occupying our thoughts.

This applies to leaders as well. 

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

It may take someone from outside to see what we can’t see.

That's what we see happening with mostly those outside of the church and the ban.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I do have some disagreement even from a believer’s angle with how Sr Dew presents her conclusions. 

I actually think my bishops who are familiar with me might be more inspired for what I should be focusing on at times because they have a personal connection.   I would tend to trust they would be more familiar with my issues and therefore offer more on target advice. 

The idea that there are no other leaders more trustworthy may be true in the sense of believing they are telling the truth as they best know it, but all I have to do is look at JFS’ reliance of pseudoscience to explain creation scriptures (unfortunately still documented in the OT Institute manual, I think I might just throw a party when that text gets updated I have been waiting longer than my grandchildren have been alive for that day) as literal to see there are at times other types of leaders we should depend on more. 

 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Rain said:

The more I read, the more I see this in several of the leaders of the church. Just the parts about what President Wilkinson of BYU was dealing with on recruiting blacks to the university and how so many of the leaders were dealing/not dealing with it shows couldn't seem to see things right in front of their faces.  

Amen

[Rain]

Hmm. Interesting. 

In the quote below, the Rochester bishop let President Kimball know about his experience testifying in court and how it changed his feelings.

"What the Rochester bishop didn’t know is that Kimball had already decided to lift the ban. He just needed to secure buy-in from his counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve. Kimball had even broached the idea with his counselors. As church president, he had the authority to lift the ban unilaterally, but he was acutely aware of what usually happened when church presidents exerted their authority without support from the apostles. Doing so almost always caused chaos and division within the church ranks. This was particularly true when church president Wilford Woodruff proclaimed a revelation in 1890 to end polygamy without first securing the approval of the apostles, which sparked a huge backlash within the Quorum of the Twelve as well as a massive exodus from the church."

I wonder how often the prophets of the church have changed things on their own and how often they decided to work on getting support from the other 14 first.

Edited October 8, 2024 by Rain

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

This was particularly true when church president Wilford Woodruff proclaimed a revelation in 1890 to end polygamy without first securing the approval of the apostles, which sparked a huge backlash within the Quorum of the Twelve as well as a massive exodus from the church."

Given he was asking the men (most at least?) to more or less give  up all but one of their families, it wasn’t just an issue for others though it was definitely that too, I suspect that will probably be the most contentious issue the 15 will ever have to deal with among themselves…at least I hope so.

Edited October 9, 2024 by Calm

[Frank11]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why do I/we need someone to give us "inspired" advice at all? 

I think the members would be very unhappy without the "inspired" advice of the church leadership.

When I was dating my first girlfriend within the church a few months after my conversion, I immediately noticed how often she quoted prophets and church leaders at every opportunity.  I had never seen that before and sometimes asked myself whether she had an opinion of her own. It seemed to me that she constantly needed this reassurance that she wasn't making a mistake.

And perhaps the church leaders give the members this security, so you don't have to think much yourself. Just obediently follow the last statement on the subject and then you are on track and God is satisfied.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

immediately noticed how often she quoted prophets and church leaders at every opportunity.

That seems pretty unusual, did you ever see it again?…outside of a political context where I have heard For Me and My House and the Title of Liberty on rare occasions, I am not sure if I have ever heard any church leader being quoted except in a religious discussion.  I will have to ask my husband who grew up in the heart of Utah Valley if he knew people who did that.

Seen quotes on the wall in homes, lots of those and of course they are all over FB and I assume elsewhere, but in conversation…it is actually pretty impressive.  I don’t think any of my friends would have made the effort to memorize, let alone quote.  The one kid who was my equal in scripture chase was also highly conservative and traditional and not even he did that.

Edited October 9, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given he was asking the men (most at least?) to more or less give  up all but one of their families, it wasn’t just an issue for others though it was definitely that too, I suspect that will probably be the most contentious issue the 15 will ever have to deal with among themselves…at least I hope so.

That is true. Interesting that in a case like that they weren't asked for support, but with the priesthood where it wouldn't affect them like that they were.

[Frank11]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

 I don’t think any of my friends would have made the effort to memorize, let alone quote.

Don't forget, I was a stupid convert and there are already a lot of rules of behaviour around the topic of chastity.

And I don't think the members realise how many opinions they adopt from church doctrine. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

And perhaps the church leaders give the members this security, so you don't have to think much yourself. Just obediently follow the last statement on the subject and then you are on track and God is satisfied.

This comment caught me off guard because I don't think i've seen this from you before.  Now I'm trying to figure out if the above statement was just a one-off miscommunication that was worded poorly, or if I've missed some of your previous posts and need to re-evaluate how I'm interpreting you.

It would be insulting if a member said that maybe exmembers believe what they do because there is security in following the crowd and popular culture so they don't have to think for themselves.  It's the same level of insulting when an exmember says it about members.

Can you clarify your intentions?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

That is true. Interesting that in a case like that they weren't asked for support, but with the priesthood where it wouldn't affect them like that they were.

My guess it was the urgency of the matter.  The federal government was pressing hard from the outside with plural marriage.  While there were certainly outside social pressures with the ban to change towards the end of it, it was more of an issue within the Church with membership growing in areas where it wasn’t seen as easy to determine lineage… and therefore time could be taken to get everyone on board.

Plus my guess is Pres Kimball was a less autocratic personality, but I don’t know much about him personally to be open about it.

[Okrahomer]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

That seems pretty unusual, did you ever see it again?…outside of a political context where I have heard For Me and My House and the Title of Liberty on rare occasions, I am not sure if I have ever heard any church leader being quoted except in a religious discussion.  I will have to ask my husband who grew up in the heart of Utah Valley if he knew people who did that.

Seen quotes on the wall in homes, lots of those and of course they are all over FB and I assume elsewhere, but in conversation…it is actually pretty impressive.  I don’t think any of my friends would have made the effort to memorize, let alone quote.  The one kid who was my equal in scripture chase was also highly conservative and traditional and not even he did that.

I was going to make a similar observation.  I grew up in an LDS home in the “mission field.”  We were a pretty tight group of LDS kids at Church, and there were some really good kids among us, but I don’t recall any of these friends being able (or willing) to quote a Church leader as a means of support for specific behaviors.  I do recall one of the Mom’s (a wonderful convert lady) telling her daughter (who was one of my very closest friends):  “You are a daughter of Israel.  Please remember that while you’re having fun with your friends tonight.”  There was something about the way she said it — it was very heart-felt and impressive.  Today, my friend is the mother of 7, and I don’t even know how many grandchildren she has.  She could make me laugh like nobody else.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

Don't forget, I was a stupid convert and there are already a lot of rules of behaviour around the topic of chastity.

And I don't think the members realise how many opinions they adopt from church doctrine. 

I am not debating adopting opinions as I know that happens…and more (my husband had a zl or someone who forced himself to eat milk toast because he heard the prophet did even though he hated it) though don’t see it as SOP in the way you appear to be implying to me.  I just have never seen anyone quote opinions like you were saying happened with your girlfriend.  Seems unusual to me, if not gobsmackingly rare as that is a lot of work, lol.  Is this a thing new converts experience due to overly helpful longtime members?  I would be very interested in hearing others’ experiences.

Edited October 9, 2024 by Calm

[Frank11]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

quote opinions

I didn't mean quoted exactly, but for example Elder X said that you shouldn't do this or that.

[Rain]

Hmm. I wonder if I have missed a difference here with the above saying Kimball could do it alone and the below saying it needs to be unanimous.

"In any event, the prophet knew that a revelation required unanimity from the Twelve, so he asked the apostles if they had “anything to say,” hoping to enlist their support to win over Benson."

 

 

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

I didn't mean quoted exactly, but for example Elder X said that you shouldn't do this or that.

I can see paraphrasing as much more common, especially if one was romantically involved with a new convert and possibly imagining them as a future spouse.  And hoping to encourage the kinds of behaviour one wants in a spouse, much like I even now bring up nutritional studies with my husband.  Now he is doing it to me, lol.  It brings a tear to my eye, sniff, I am so proud.   We used to paraphrase our behavioural psych teacher (same professor, took it different years) to each other in our early years as parents.  We were mostly on the same page as far as discipline even if he was making them Mac and cheese if they refused their meal when I was trying to get them to eat healthy, urgggg.  He came from a family of 8 kids, so I am guessing he gave our kids what he wished he had more of when young, a chance to say no and food they wanted to eat….but Kraft Mac and Cheese when he knew I considered it an abomination!

I still don’t remember anyone who paraphrased as a habit or even more than once or twice in my presence though.

I couldn’t do it unless it was from a prophet as the apostles kind of all blurred together in my youth…and about half of them still do.  I really should take the time to know them better.

Edited October 9, 2024 by Calm

[Frank11]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It would be insulting if a member said that maybe exmembers believe what they do because there is security in following the crowd and popular culture so they don't have to think for themselves. 

But the church argues in its favour with precisely this certainty. ‘Stay in the boat, follow the prophet, etc.’

Then there is a covenant path and worthiness is attached to it and with it a number of rules, right down to the underwear. And everyone who takes this seriously tries to do everything right so that they remain worthy.  

I don't want to criticise that at all and for many people it's also very positive. However, most members also interpret i. e. the Bible as taught by the church, for example. There is certainly room for manoeuvre, but if there is an explanation from a general authority, then you accept it, because you can assume that it is inspired. 

[Rain]

On 10/6/2024 at 8:22 AM, CV75 said:

I think I would be great if a covenant-keeping historian, while being open about the facts as he sees them, would publish a companion essay that describes how the Lord helps Him manage those facts in a way that resolves offenses and wounds that might be provoked by their introduction. Not so much by way of offering secular solutions to resolve the identified offenses and problems, and especially not by way of apologetics, but by way of offering a Christ-supported spiritual perspective of what others do or fail to do, of our own perceptions and conclusions in the first place, and of viewing everyone and the circumstances involved as the Lord does. This puts a lot of responsibility on the author to be open about his personal conversion and discipleship, but I think it would be helpful as an opportunity to witness of Christ.

I don't think that would be a good thing, unless BIG MAYBE, he never planned or thought of doing it till after writing Second Class Saints. It would put him in bias mode too much, knowing that after the book he would be doing the second piece.

Have you read it? I've just finished and looking at it from a faithful saint perspective and not my own unbelieving perspective, I don't think it needs the spiritual piece. I'm reminded of how @BlueDreams talks about being ok with being uncomfortable.  The idea of how you learn more with that uncomfortability. The book actually ends with a lot of positive things the church is doing, and how it has changed.  It is not afraid to be honest though so it still shares things that will make people uncomfortable, and frankly should make them feel uncomfortable. 

But if you are a faithful member I see how that will draw you to God to have Him help you through that - which will be of much higher value to people than having someone basically spoon feed you.

And if you are not a faithful member it should have you at least looking at yourself and where you can do better.

Edited October 9, 2024 by Rain