Follow the Prophet, He Knows the Way
Posted by Connor on August 28th, 2006
In recent weeks I have been pondering about the role of the prophet. Some people in the “bloggernacle” seem to doubt the inspiration, direction, and words of the prophet. They seek to “critically analyze” what he says before choosing to obey, and often use secular knowledge and understanding to discredit, demean, or disbelieve what he has said.
This morning I cracked open The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, which I have owned for some time, but never read. I dove into a few pages dealing with this topic, and would like to cite them with my comments, to illustrate what I have come to learn.
The prophet will not necesarily be popular with the world or the worldly. As a prophet reveals the truth, it divides the people. The honest in heart heed his words, but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or fight him. … As we come close to the Lord’s second coming, you can expect that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will be less popular with them. (p. 133)
Such a division is occurring within the church right now. The First Presidency’s stance on the family and same-sex marriage have divided the church. Many feel that the prophet should not tell us how to vote, or what to think politically, or be involved in any way in this regard. This quote is especially insightful considering it comes from President Benson, who spoke out quite frequently regarding secret combinations and government corruption in our own nation. Many people disregarded what he said, ignored him, disbelieved him, or were annoyed by his frequent calls to action and understanding. Prophets rarely have been popular with the people, for theirs is the charge and responsibility to denounce the sin and abominations of the people. In doing so, President Hinckley stands with Samuel the Lamanite, who testified:
…if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil. (Helaman 13:26)
Referring to the prophetic office of President of the Church, President Benson has said:
The President can speak on any subject he feels is needful for the saints. As Brigham Young stated: “I defy any man on earth to point out the path a prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be.” Other officers in the kingdom have fallen, but never the Presidents. (p. 134)
True, some church leaders have fallen. Even some of the elect will be deceived, as we know. However, the prophet has never been led astray, nor will the Lord suffer him so to do. He would sooner be removed from office (by God playing the “death card“). As Presidents Benson and Young declare, the prophet can and will testify and command on any subject seen as needful for the saints. When he commands, we should obey, for what he says is the mind, will, and voice of the Lord. Commenting further on this, Benson said:
Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence. President Wilford Woodruff stated: “I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (p. 136)
The prophet will never lead this people astray. It won’t happen, no matter what some might say and speculate. As long as we follow and obey the current prophet (and not cling to the teachings of a previous one, whose teachings and commandments might have been superceded by successive prophetic direction), we will be fine.
The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning. There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelations of God and the reasoning of men—between the prophet and the politician or professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire” (p. 134)
I come across many people who guide themselves by the “reasoning of men”, or the “arm of flesh”. Such a stance to take is a dangerous one, for the word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword and we should all choose to adhere to the revelations of God, so that we may be found on the right hand of God. However, if you choose the reasonings of men, Alma says: “it matters not, for the word of God must be fulfilled” (Alma 5:58).
A revealing characteristic of a true prophet is that he declares a message from God. He makes no apology for the message, nor does he fear for any social repercussions which may lead to derision and persecution. (p. 135)
Has the First Presidency in our day watered down their proclamations? Have they tweaked the language so as to be “politically correct” and offend no one? Of course not. People are going to be offended by God’s word, as it always has been. Prophets do not seek popularity, nor do they fear the social repercussions which almost always are associated with their messages.
We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you’ll be blessed and time will vindicate you. (p. 137)
If the reasonings of men say that same-sex marriage isn’t such a bad thing, it does not matter. There is currently a conflict between earthy knowledge and the words of our prophet. Who will you stand with? Will you accept, promote, and live the counsels taught in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World“? If you do, as the prophets have urged, then time will vindicate you.
The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich. (p. 138)
This resonates perfectly with 2 Nephi 9:28:
O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
And lastly:
We cannot compromise good with evil in an attempt to have peace and unity in the Church, any more than the Lord could have compromised with Satan in order to avoid the War in Heaven. Think of the impact for good we could have if we all united behind the prophet in preserving our Constitution. Yet witness the sorry spectacle of those presently of our number who have repudiated the inspired counsel of our prophet when he has opposed federal aid to education and asked support for the right-to-work laws. (pp. 141-2)
I would alter this to say “witness the sorry spectacle of those presently of our number who have repudiated the inspired counsel of our prophet when he has asked us to contact our senators and express ourselves regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment. Did you contact yours? Or did you repudiate the counsel given from our prophet?
I’m grateful to have a prophet today who knows the mind, will, and voice of the Lord. I will follow him, for “he knows the way”.
Now we have a prophet, in the latter-day,
He is here to guide us in so many ways.
If we choose to follow all that he may say,
We will have the Spirit with us every day.—alternate ending verse for the primary song “Follow the Prophet”
Well said, man.
I think this is pretty timely.
Not to detract, I do find President Hinkley saying things in a more … tolerant way? Politically correct way? Understnading way? Than previous prophets and apostles have. Am I wrong here? I don’t think what SWK said about homosexuality is significantly different than what GBH and the church today are saying, but the wording seems softer most of the time.
Does this match what others observe?
I do not say this to disagree with your post or to discredit GBH. I just think he has a - softer? - approach while giving the same message.
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on August 28th, 2006
Connor,
Nice review. Since I wrote briefly on this already, I will just ask how you respond to my view. Briefly, I think there are more pressing problems in the world than gay marriage. And I think that my talents place me in a position to address those problems, whereas I don’t even see the problems of gay marriage. (I am happy to accept the prophets’ words that there are problems with gay marriage, I just don’t see them.)
I also wonder if you could briefly explain what Benson meant by “…our prophet when he has opposed federal aid to education and asked support for the right-to-work laws.” I don’t want this question to detract from the point of your post.
Comment # 2 left by BrianJ on August 28th, 2006
Eric,
I would say that about GBH in regards to everything he talks about, not just homosexuality. (And I think Elder Oaks is similar.) Like you, I do not think that this fundamentally changes Connor’s point.
Comment # 3 left by BrianJ on August 28th, 2006
Eric:
I have thought about this, in relation to Benson’s speaking out about the looming secret combos and such, and nowadays, you don’t hear that much. What I’ve come to is this opinion: we don’t have the sealed plates of the BoM because we’re not ready for them, and have not remembered what it teaches us. So why do we deserve to hear more of the same, or anything greater?
Along the same lines, once we’ve been taught something by a prophet, why do we need to be told again? If we can’t obey the first time, then why should there be a second? Granted, I understand that many GAs repeat and discuss things that have already been taught or commanded, but in many circumstances, I feel that once they speak out about something, there’s no need to repeat what they’ve said so much, since we have their words before us.
Perhaps that relates to your view of GBH getting softer, perhaps not. Perhaps once is enough for boldness, and then after that it can be spoken in love. Not sure. Your thoughts?
BrianJ:
Interesting post. I’m glad you had the change of heart you did. Some things the brethen speak about may be of little importance to us individually, but of great importance to us collectively. By collective, I refer to both the church, and the world. Whether or not you feel that the issue will affect you individually, the prophet knows what it will change collectively, and the collective change ultimately will trickle down through society and affect every individual.
So, as President Benson said, stick with the prophets, and then time will vindicate you. With hindsight being 20/20, you’ll be able to look back and understand the importance of the issue, and feel good about obeying the prophet when asked to do so.
My 2¢. Thanks for your comments.
Comment # 4 left by Connor Boyack on August 28th, 2006
All,
I’d be interested to hear your feedback regarding this comment on this same post (on my site) by “the narrator”, the bane of my blogging existence.
Comment # 5 left by Connor Boyack on August 28th, 2006
Isn’t there a balance to be had here? What’s the point of personal intelligence and personal testimony if we’re supposed to obey the prophet without any work or thought on our part?
First of all, prophets are men, so leaning too much on even a prophet’s words might fall under leaning on the arm of the flesh - that is, if you’re not taking past scripture and especially the Spirit into your decision, right?
There are lots of examples in the scriptures of great men, even prophets, second guessing and trying to explain and justify the commandments of God. Nephi really debates the command to behead Laban. It is only after he has weighed all the options that he decides to commit to his decision.
An Ensign article written by Elder Call:
Waldo P. Call, “Follow the Prophets,” Ensign, Nov. 1990, 82
Yeah, we should always obey the prophet, but I think at the same time, we need to work to gain a personal testimony of their words, or when hard times come, you’ll crumple (because, in a sense, you’re relying on the arm of the flesh until you have the Spirit and the scriptures to confirm things)
Regarding political correctness and toleration, there’s a difference between fighting for the right and allowing people their personal agency and right to practice what they believe.
If it is never wrong to eliminate the bad, then why was Satan’s plan rejected?
The articles of faith tell us that we allow all men the same privilege as we have: that is to practice as we wish, to worship as we wish. When it comes to matters in government, a level playing field for all is the most important thing.
From D&C 134:
” 4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish bguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.”
Later in verse 9:
” 9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.”
Comment # 6 left by John on August 28th, 2006
Connor,
Your post was a breath of fresh air for me today.
One of my favorite talks on this subject is by Elder Eyring, entitled “Safety in Counsel.” I also found it interesting that Elder Eyring said in his most recent talk that it will be harder, not easier, to keep our covenants as time goes on. To me, that underscores the importance of having prophets who can be our watchmen on the tower in this crazy times when so many voices clamor around us. My experience has been that following them, regardless of what other voices (even in the Church) are saying, brings peace, clarity and light.
Thanks for your post.
Comment # 7 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on August 28th, 2006
Connor,
As I believe I stated in a previous post, I wholeheartedly agree with you, well almost. Following a prophet requires a leap of faith. It can be frightening. It also requires a certain humility. Yes, there is a reason that prophets through the ages have been rejected, persecuted, and slain.
However, there clearly have been an occasion or two where the prophets made at least technically incorrect statements. Arguably, some of these have been harmful, as in the case of Black premortal fence sitters carrying the curse of Cain. Clearly, this view was influenced by the greater society these individuals came from. Clearly, prophets are men, and subject to man’s follies.
My question is this. How do we figure out when something doesn’t jive with our understanding of the world, that the prophet really is inspired?
It seems to me we are duty bound to seek some kind of personal witness and understanding. There is a kind of spiritual laziness that can lead one to just reason, well they are the prophet, why do I need to think about it. Additionally, we may feel the need to bridge our lack of understanding with elaborate personal folklore, the wisdom of men. This can be ugly.
This said I have a hard time believing God will hold us responsible for following the Prophet’s advice even if it later turns out to be in error. We just have to realize this is a distinct possibility. If we hold on to hard to those words we will be the one’s whose faith crumbles when the next prophet comes along and corrects the doctrine.
I also completely believe some revelations we just aren’t ready to accept. Christ’s bread or life sermon lost him many of his most ardent supporters. How many truly stalwart leaders of the church broke with Joseph Smith over polygamy. Our culture, our society, our traditions may be so foreign to some truths that we simply cannot take them. Our Father in heaven knows they would tear the Church apart and therefore, nudges gently and waits for us slowly to come around, Hinkley style if you will. For this reason, humility and open-mindedness that what we think we understand, we really may not understand at all becomes very important.
So my advice, be true, be forgiving, seek understanding, be humble, be open. Take it for what its worth.
Comment # 8 left by Doc on August 28th, 2006
Yeah, we should always obey the prophet, but I think at the same time, we need to work to gain a personal testimony of their words
John, I think the definition of a personal testimony is a bit upside down in your comment (if I am understanding you correctly, that is)
Ours is not to try and gain a testimony of whether or not a prophet is right. Ours is to recognize the counsel of the Lord through his prophets and then become personally converted (i.e., have a conviction that what he is saying is not only true but that it has real efficacy in our lives). That’s the kind of testimony we should strive for.
Elder Call’s quote was saying that if you follow the commandments, the testiony will come. Not that we should be wary of the prophet’s direction until the Lord gets around to confirming it. This is evidenced by his phraseology:
“You can know that it is true”
not,
“You can know if it is true or not”
Comment # 9 left by Ryan on August 28th, 2006
Connor,
I hesitate to respond to your request to give my “feedback regarding this comment on this same post (on my site) by “the narrator”, the bane of my blogging existence.” Nevertheless, you asked….
The narrator’s comment came across as intentionally rude, but I don’t think your response helped you or him/her. There is some sarcasm and smugness in what you wrote: “I’ll be interested to see where you stand when things get dicey in the last days and we all have to choose sides. For some reason, I think you and I will be on different sides of the fence.” I realize that there may be a history of attacks—perceived and/or real—on you by the narrator, but from what I’ve read elsewhere, you’ve got a better mind and a better heart than what your response to the narrator portrays.
Comment # 10 left by BrianJ on August 28th, 2006
BrianJ:
The narrator’s comment came across as intentionally rude, but I don’t think your response helped you or him/her.
If you look through some of my previous comments on which the narrator has commented, you will see, perhaps, a justification for why I said what I said. Yes, he has a history of being frequently rude.
You are right. It was smug of me to make the comment that I did. However, it is how I feel. I simply am in awe at how two people who profess to believe in the LDS faith can be so diametrically opposed on almost every single issue. I fail to understand why he believes how he does, and yes, have grown tired of his rudeness, attacks, and comments in general. But that was no reason for me to polarize things as I did with the comment. Thanks for calling me out on it.
Comment # 11 left by Connor Boyack on August 28th, 2006
I think leading astray is pretty extreem. This is not very likely to happen. I think it might be possible for a prophet to have his own pet topics that he might emphasize more than another prophet might in the same situation, without leading anyone astray. One prophet might emphasize ’self reliance’, while another might emphasize ‘watch out for corruption’ while another might emphasize ‘read the scriptures’, etc., etc. at the same time to the same people without leading anyone astray. There is so many important issues to be taught, perhaps the Lord allows a prophet to pick his own theme for the year, and that theme could be one of hundreds of possible themes that would all be acceptable to the Lord in many cases. The fact that Benson may be different from Hinkley may not mean that the world has drastically changed or that either are missing something. Is there only one message that could be preached to the world at a time? I kinda doubt it.
Comment # 12 left by Eric Nielson on August 28th, 2006
My question is this. How do we figure out when something doesn’t jive with our understanding of the world, that the prophet really is inspired?
I think Elder Eyring gave us the key to help us figure this out: when the law of witnesses has been invoked, we can know inspiration is at work.
In my mind, it is THOSE kinds of prophetic patterns about which we are speaking in particular when we talk about following the prophets. Not that I’m not a fan of following individuals’ words, too, but in my mind, this system (law of witnesses) probably removes some of the “exceptions” that people like to bring up (over and over and over…). (”Well, so-and-so said this weird thing 150 years ago, and it was wrong, so that means prophets can be wrong.” I think this is a weak argument for not following the prophets.) When we speak of following the prophets, I think we should be talking about the rule, not the exception.
I agree with Ryan as well. One key way to know if what they are teaching is true is to test it. Live it. Try it out (think Alms 32). “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17) I think that can also protect us from spiritual laziness, which Doc addressed above. I think it’s possibly as spiritually lazy (if not more so) to spend too much time “thinking” about and analyzing what the prophets say to determine whether their words are inspired) as it is to just hunker down and follow them. My feeling is that the confirmation will more likely come while doing than while simply thinking and not acting on what they say. Faith is a principle of action, after all. And reason alone can be the devil’s tool. Ask Korihor.
I will say that my own convictions about topics such as the inspired nature of the Proclamation, the stand on gay marriage, the doctrine of the divine design of gender roles, etc. have not come in an instant, nor solely by thinking about them. It is by accepting on faith and acting in faith, pondering as I go, that the truths therein have distilled on my mind and spirit. The more I live and accept these things, the more real and true they become to me. And the more likely I am to follow the prophets — because I have tested and tasted their words and have found them to be delicious. Easy? Not always. But sweet and true nonetheless.
Comment # 13 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on August 28th, 2006
I know that I often come across as rude. Like Connor, I like to say things as I see them. Some times it’s blunt and too the pint, often refraining from the niceties of politeness. Though I may be blunt (and rude) I at least attempt to provide content in my responses. I am constantly blasted by anonymous cowards on my own blog who vomit out insults and hollow critiques without content. Instead of discussing my thoughts, they instead purely attack and question my character, failing to even point out or show me where I am wrong.
To be honest, I find many of Connor’s posts to be extremely offensive. I have dozens of friends who have left the chuch because they could no longer handle the ultra-conservative and often very ignorant opinions of those who arguably hold a theological position not far from the Pharisees of Christ’s day. Some of the greatest and most Christlike persons I know are leaving the church because they no longer feel like they see the Gospel of Christ lived out in the lives of the Latter-day Saints. Instead they see exclusivism, pride, arrogance, ignorance, hatred, and judgement leashed out by perhaps well-meaning individuals, who espouse a view of the Gospel that has often become popular because of the deceit, disobedience, and insubordination of the original espousers (Man: His Origin and Destiny, Mormon Doctrine, and a large amount of Benson’s Communist and conspiracy teachings are examples of these).
Unfortunately, in the Church today, raising certain issues and questioning certain traditions has become taboo and is seen as apostacy and evil by members of the church. This is highly unfortunate.
Comment # 14 left by the narrator on August 28th, 2006
The narrator’s comment came across as intentionally rude,
Okay. I just reread my first comment on Connor’s blog and am quite confused. I could not quite figure out what or where you thought my blog was intentionally (or even unintentionally) rude. Could someone please clarify. Does disagreement count as rudeness?
Comment # 15 left by the narrator on August 28th, 2006
Some of the greatest and most Christlike persons I know are leaving the church because they no longer feel like they see the Gospel of Christ lived out in the lives of the Latter-day Saints
Christlike? Yes, because Christ was the first one to jump ship when people around him were critical.
I agree that church members are critical and gossip-y and back stabbing and annoying and self-righteous and on and on.. but I think it’s a ridiculous position to pin a person’s apostasy on anyone but themselves.
Comment # 16 left by Ryan on August 28th, 2006
Narrator:
. . .because of the deceit, disobedience, and insubordination of the original espousers. . . .
After saying this, you cite to Man, His Origin and Destiny as an example. I own this book and have read it; for those who are unfamiliar, it was written by Joseph Fielding Smith. I’m currious Mr. Narrator: can you point to any particle of evidence showing President Smith’s “deceit, disobedience, and/or insubordination”? Please substantiate this very presumptuous claim of yours!
Comment # 17 left by Wade on August 28th, 2006
Ryan:
Christlike? Yes, because Christ was the first one to jump ship when people around him were critical.
Not only did Christ jump ship, He started a new religious movement set against the ‘church’ of His time. That’s beside the point though. When I use the term ‘Christlike’ I use it how most people do when describe other persons, i.e. loving, caring, and charitable.
Comment # 18 left by the narrator on August 28th, 2006
Wade:
After saying this, you cite to Man, His Origin and Destiny as an example. I own this book and have read it; for those who are unfamiliar, it was written by Joseph Fielding Smith. I’m currious Mr. Narrator: can you point to any particle of evidence showing President Smith’s “deceit, disobedience, and/or insubordination”? Please substantiate this very presumptuous claim of yours!
J. Fielding Smith’s publication of Man, His Origin and Destiny was the culmination of years of ‘deceit, disobedience, and insubordination’ used by Smith to promote his highly anti-scientific and radically fundamental views. Much of it began in the early 20th century with open battles Smith had with James E. Talmage and B.H. Roberts (Talmage’s daughter later called it the Smith-Talmage Feud’ because Talmage’s son Sterling was also into the mix). Talmage, who was a trained geologist taught and believed that the earth was millions of years old, that certain aspects of Darwinian evolution were true, that humans (or Pre-Adamites) existed before Adam, and that life and death occurred on Earth before the fall of Adam. Smith believed and taught that all of those things were lies and attempted to publically ridicule Talmage by repeatedly saying that ‘The Earth was no older than 13,000 years old and scientists who believe differently are fools decieved by Satan.” While Talmage, Roberts, and Smith were told not to publish their ideas, Talmage and Roberts refrained, while Smith went ahead and published his anti-science views.
After the death of Roberts and Talmage, John A. Widstoe picked up the battle with similar results. In the mid 20th century, Smith further raised his rhetoric and planned to publish MHO&D. David O. McKay enlisted Henry Eyring (Elder Eyring’s father and accomplished scientist) to critique Smith’s book. Eyring heavily critiqued it’s flaws, bold claims, and harsh rhetoric. McKay then denied Smith permission to publish it. Smith went through McKay’s secretary, claiming he recieved permission, and went ahead and published his book.
All of this can be found in Oberg and Sessions’ The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, Stephens and Meldrum’s Evolution and Mormonism: a Quest for Understanding, and a plethora of articles available online.
Comment # 19 left by the narrator on August 29th, 2006
In a sense, narrator, none of what you bring up really matters. What matters to us today is what our prophets are teaching today. We don’t have to agree with every thing every prophet has ever said, officially or personally in a book to be able to embrace the concept of following our leaders in faith. What does it accomplish to pick apart the past with a negative spin? What about today, the present, the now?
What I hear is leaders teaching us truths that can keep us safe from the evils of our day, truths that can help our families be stronger, truths that can lead us to Christ. Isn’t that wonderful?
Somehow I don’t think Christ would want us criticizing and picking His anointed leaders apart (He was the One who chose them, after all — even though they were imperfect, just like we all are!) — or those who rejoice in their teachings. That is no more Christlike or no less judgmental than the behaviors you have condemned. Please show the same respect for our leaders — past and present — as you rightully assert that members should have for each other. And please show respect to those who choose to follow those leaders. Personally, I would rather look to prophets called of God — imperfect as they may be — than the people you have cited (imperfect also!) to smear a prophet’s name. To each his own, right?
Comment # 20 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on August 29th, 2006
[…] Other posts on this topic can be found here and here. […]
Comment # 21 left by Nine Moons » Blog Archive : Prophetic Inspiration » Prophetic Inspiration on August 29th, 2006
Narrator,
You ask, “Okay. I just reread my first comment on Connor’s blog and am quite confused. I could not quite figure out what or where you thought my blog was intentionally (or even unintentionally) rude. Could someone please clarify.”
Connor stated that he feels there is a history of rudeness from you. Surely this is no surprise to you. You state yourself that you realize that you are sometimes blunt and rude, “refraining from the niceties of politeness.” Some people would love to have your style of critique and counter-argument on their blog, but Connor has made it clear that he does not.
In your comments above, you express concern for people who feel excluded from the Church due to perceived “exclusivism, pride, arrogance, ignorance, hatred, and judgement leashed out by perhaps well-meaning individuals…” Could you be doing anything, intentionally or unintentionally, to make Connor feel the same way? After reading your comment on Connor’s other blog, I supposed that your main intent was to discredit Connor rather than engage in a discussion with him.
“Does disagreement count as rudeness?”
No, but delivery matters. (Paul had something to say about this.)
Comment # 22 left by BrianJ on August 29th, 2006
m&m:
In a sense, narrator, none of what you bring up really matters.
I along with dozens of others have tried to have this conversation with you, only to be reminded of your stock personal testimony responses. You know our answers to why we feel these things can matter, but you don’t care. That’s fine, but that is why a lot of the Mormon blogging community doesn’t care to interact with you (or thought you were part of the online-wing of the Strengthening the Members Committee).
Comment # 23 left by the narrator on August 29th, 2006
BrianJ:
Some people would love to have your style of critique and counter-argument on their blog, but Connor has made it clear that he does not.
Yeah. I have kind of gotten the idea that Connor really only wants commentors who’ll pat him on the back and remind him about how awesome he is. From now on I’ll preface my comments with:
“Wow Connor! Great ideas! I totally agree with you except….”
Comment # 24 left by the narrator on August 29th, 2006
I used a quote from BH Roberts once (sorry, to lazy to provide a link now) that states that the farther away we get from the gospel of Jesus Christ the more likely we are to find errors. I believe this to be the case. What a prohpet thinks politically and scientifically or personally matters less than what he preaches regarding the core of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Slavation.
Comment # 25 left by Eric Nielson on August 29th, 2006
I used to tell my missionaries when I was a district leader that it didn’t really matter if the leadership was right or wrong. If they asked us to pick up pebbles all day to increase our success, that’s what we do. If it turns out to be uninspired direction, that’s on the head of the leader. I would rather stand before the Lord and say that I followed the structure He set up than try to explain why i didn’t follow some correct principle because I had a philosophical difference of opinion.
Comment # 26 left by Ryan on August 29th, 2006
I would rather stand before the Lord and say that I followed the structure He set up than try to explain why i didn’t follow some correct principle because I had a philosophical difference of opinion.
I would rather stand up to the Lord and tell him I tried to do the best I could to live how I believe he wanted me to live, taking into account the various resources I had available.
I would rather stand up to the Lord and say that I tried to live a life that he lived and did my best to live up to the standards He set in Matthew 25.
I would rather stand up to the Lord and say that I followed my heart to love others.
If that’s not good enough for the Lord, then I wouldn’t care much to be in his presence in the first place.
Comment # 27 left by the narrator on August 29th, 2006
taking into account the various resources I had available.
What resources, besides the prophets, do we have available? Tear the prophets down and there isn’t anything left.
Comment # 28 left by Ryan on August 29th, 2006
Narrator:
Your statements are supported only by citations to unsubstantiated sources and they promulgate inaccurate and defamatory statements about a prophet of God (this is the problem with believing statements made by disaffected and politically motivated members and/or family members of authorities).
I think I understand what you’re trying to do: raise questions about authorities and their differing views of science etc. I really don’t think this is inherently bad. However, when these questions are raised and coupled with false statements, I tend to think the person making the false statements has an agenda of some sort. Typically, the agenda is negative toward the Church and its leaders.
I have a problem with your following statment:
. . .well-meaning individuals [in this case you refer to an ordainded prophet: J.S.F.], who espouse a view of the Gospel that has often become popular because of the deceit, disobedience, and insubordination of the original espousers. . . . (Bold added for emphasis).
Not only are you mistaken about the reality of the writing and publication of MHOD, but you make a claim about the cause of the book’s popularity. You claim the book’s popularity (which by the way, is and never was a very popular book–I had to get it by special-order because there are only a few copies that remain) is due to Smith’s deceit, disobedience, and insubordination. This is absurd! Not only was he not deceitful etc., but the defamatory statements about him being deceitful began cirulating several years after the book was depublished and no longer available. Thus, I view your comment as part of an agenda to undermine the character of Smith in general; if this is not the case, please correct me. But why else would you make such a careless remark if you didn’t intend for it to persuade people one way or the other?
Finally, you may want to consider looking into the veracity of the defamatory remarks you have been promoting about the tenth Prophet of this dispensation, Joseph Fielding Smith.
I suggest you consider this, or this. If Smith’s writing and publication of the book was a deceitful act of insubordination, WHY would David O. McKay and the Twelve give their approval of “his vigorous denunciation of certain theories of men would negate the truths of the restored gospel.” This statement came in 1956; JSF’s book was published in 1954.
Comment # 29 left by Wade on August 29th, 2006
What resources, besides the prophets, do we have available? Tear the prophets down and there isn’t anything left.
That Holy Spirit thing.
Also, there are those best books, and science/education/insights that Brigham Young said were also revelations from God.
Comment # 30 left by the narrator on August 29th, 2006
Wade:
Your statements are supported only by citations to unsubstantiated sources
Have you read these books? Do you have any clue who the essays are written by? Do you have any idea what the contents and sources of their essays are?
they promulgate inaccurate and defamatory statements about a prophet of God
What do you mean?
However, when these questions are raised and coupled with false statements, I tend to think the person making the false statements has an agenda of some sort.
False statements? Explain.
Not only are you mistaken about the reality of the writing and publication of MHOD, but you make a claim about the cause of the book’s popularity. You claim the book’s popularity … is due to Smith’s deceit, disobedience, and insubordination.
Yes. Because it was by these things that he made his thoughts widely available, while those who obeyed their leaders (ie. Talmage and Roberts) did not have their thoughts as widely disseminated. It should be clear that popularity of a thought is largely dependant on it’s dissemination.
(which by the way, is and never was a very popular book–I had to get it by special-order because there are only a few copies that remain)
It was actually a fairly popular book when it was published. David O. McKay eventually made a public announcement that the book did not represent the Church. It eventually fell from it’s popularity. However, Smith’s anti-evolution ideas had already become largely the norm for the church.
This is absurd! Not only was he not deceitful etc., but the defamatory statements about him being deceitful began cirulating several years after the book was depublished and no longer available.
Wrong. Talmage, Roberts, Eyring, McKay, Widstoe and others were all frustrated with the ways that Smith used to spread his ideas. A very similar thing happened with Benson’s fanatical anti-communism craze.
Thus, I view your comment as part of an agenda to undermine the character of Smith in general; if this is not the case, please correct me. But why else would you make such a careless remark if you didn’t intend for it to persuade people one way or the other?
I initially brought it up as an example of the fallibilty and humaness of church leaders to counter Connor’s false notion of infallibility. You and others wanted me to go into more depth and context about the issues.
Finally, you may want to consider looking into the veracity of the defamatory remarks you have been promoting about the tenth Prophet of this dispensation, Joseph Fielding Smith.
Everything I have said dealt with his actions as a member of the Twelve (he was pretty much incapacitated during his Presidency - there was actually discussion among the twelve if he should become president, but they decided to hold to traditon). While this shouldn’t make a difference, there is an aesthetic difference among LDS between talking about a member of the twelve and talking about the president of the church. Historically, members of the twelve have a long tradition of talking trash about eachother… just look at the open exchanged Hugh B. Brown and Ezra Taft Benson had about eachother.
As far as the links provided. The ‘No Death Before the Fall’ website has some serious methodological flaws and fallacious argumentation. If you read the plethora of literature available on the subject, you’ll see what i mean.
Comment # 31 left by the narrator on August 29th, 2006
That Holy Spirit thing.
The spirit does not provide revelation beyond an individual’s stewardship. Any philosphy beyond this is merely speculation.
You say that you would rather stand before the Lord and tell Him you did the best you could given your resources as though this was in conflict with following the prophets.
In the end I think the Lord said it best when he said:”By Mine Own Voice or by the Voice of My Servants it is the Same”
Is there ambiguity in that statement that I am missing
Comment # 32 left by Ryan on August 29th, 2006
The spirit does not provide revelation beyond an individual’s stewardship. Any philosphy beyond this is merely speculation.
Revelation of any kind is available to anyone. It’s the authoritativeness of that revelation on others that is bound within one’s stewardship. For example, many LDS pre-1978 believed that it had been revealed to them that blacks would get the priesthood soon. They were totally entitled to received that revelation. However, it was up to the leaders of the church to make it binding. There are probably thousands of examples of this and similar occurrences. Furthermore, there is a long tradition of bottom-up revelation in the church where a member of the church is inspired for the church and submits it to the President of the Church for confirmation and application. The Perpetual Education Fund is a recent example of this.
You say that you would rather stand before the Lord and tell Him you did the best you could given your resources as though this was in conflict with following the prophets.
In the end I think the Lord said it best when he said:”By Mine Own Voice or by the Voice of My Servants it is the Same”
Is there ambiguity in that statement that I am missing
As Joseph Smith put it: “Some revelation are from God, some from man, and some from the Devil.” The line between when the servant is speaking with the voice of the Lord or his/her own voice is often an ambiguous line. Most missionaries can verify this from experiences of a zone leader or district leader thinking he is speaking by the spirit when in fact he was speaking out of his butt.
I feel like I’m repeating myself without any responses to the content of what I am saying.
Comment # 33 left by the narrator on August 29th, 2006
Narrator:
I’m not going to sit here and pretend that Apostles and General Authorities have never disagreed. Indeed, as I said before, it is interesting to note some of their disagreements; and I don’t think there is any harm in this. But I take issue with your defamatory remarks about Joseph Fielding Smith.
I will answer truthfully to your question about the two books/articles you cite to: I have never read either of them. However, I have read numerous reviews of them and I have read other books which discuss, in detail, the disagreements between JSF and BH Roberts, Talmage, and Widtsoe. I have read David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism in which the issue of JSF’s book is discussed. Greg Prince’s sources point to no substantiated record of JSF being deceitful or insubordinate.
I know who the authors of the books you cite to are: they are all university professors. So what? Many university professors are eccentric freaks vying for tenure positions and will publish anything to get there. I’m in my 7th year of personal experience with this.
I’m interested in any substantiated source showing JSF’s purported deceit or insubordination. Don’t cite other people who have made the same claim. Cite to a direct source! I assume you have read these books you cite to; if so, then give me the source showing JSF’s deceit and insubordination. Please don’t come back with second hand statements about alleged comments from an authority to a relative etc. That is unsubstantiated hearsay.
Also, please address the First Presidency’s authorization of the Quorum of the Twelve’s tribute to JSF in 1956. You will need to read the tribute and address the question of why so many members of the quorum would implicitly acknowledge and support JSF’s book if they disagreed with him/it?
As for you questions about my allegations of your claims being false and defamatory, I am saying that your claim that JSF was deceitful and insubordinate are exactly that: defamatory and false. False means untruthful; defamatory means any false statement about a person communicated to a third party in an effort to besmirch the person’s reputation.
Your statements are false because they are part of a made-up story and there is no evidence to prove them. It is true that JSF had fundamental disagreements with his colleagues; and it may even be true that some of his brethren resented him for disagreeing. But again, I’m concerned about you calling JSF deceitful and insubordinate. Incidentally, if he was so decietful and insubordinate, why/how did he maintain his position in the quorum?
It should be clear that popularity of a thought is largely dependant on it’s dissemination.
You’re wrong. Popularity of thought has to do with the reaction of those who receive it. True, the people have to first receive it, but whether something is popular or not depends on acceptence and receptiveness, not dissemination. If a free copy of Mein Kampf was issued to every living Jew, I can assure you the book would not be more popular as a result. To the contrary, the book would likely be held in greater derision!
Comment # 34 left by Wade on August 29th, 2006
As Joseph Smith put it: “Some revelation are from God, some from man, and some from the Devil.”
Did Joseph say; “therefore you should have known for yourselves that my revelation was false and not have gone to the wrong town”
Consider the words of Heber J. Grant (as quoted by Ezra Taft Benson)
“My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”
Consider D&C 124:
“And with my servant Almon Babbitt, there are many things with which I am not pleased; behold, he aspireth to establish his counsel instead of the counsel which I have ordained, even that of the Presidency of my Church.”
It looks to me like the Lord is displeased with those who would opt to follow their own counsel over that of the Prophets.. whether it is right or wrong, whether it be from God or the Devil.
Comment # 35 left by Ryan on August 29th, 2006
I’m interested in any substantiated source showing JSF’s purported deceit or insubordination. Don’t cite other people who have made the same claim. Cite to a direct source! I assume you have read these books you cite to; if so, then give me the source showing JSF’s deceit and insubordination. Please don’t come back with second hand statements about alleged comments from an authority to a relative etc. That is unsubstantiated hearsay.
This is a comment on a blog, not a scholarly paper. I’m not going to drag out my books, dig through the footnotes, and find indivual sources. If you want to do that, have fun.
You will need to read the tribute and address the question of why so many members of the quorum would implicitly acknowledge and support JSF’s book if they disagreed with him/it?
Read the first chapter of Quinn’s Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power (I know he’s been excommunicated). In this chapter Quinn details the inner workings of the Twelve as they seek out to have (or at least appear to have) a certain level of unity and conformity. This often results in Apostles silencing their own view, or even voicing the opposite view to maintain this appearance of unity. Again, I’m not going to dig through the chapter to give you specific sources.
Your statements are false because they are part of a made-up story and there is no evidence to prove them.
Umm. There is evidence.
Incidentally, if he was so decietful and insubordinate, why/how did he maintain his position in the quorum?
I am not saying that he was so deceitful (whatever that means), just that he sometimes used deceitful measures to get his viewpoint out. Benson was very much the same. This does not mean that they were evil. I have used deceit at times. So have you (I presume). That doesn’t make us evil. It just means we are human with human failings. The reason why these Apostles stayed in (and even became president of the church) is that they excelled despite their weaknesses. The reason why they did the things they did is because they strongly believed in certain things and fought for them. That can be a very admirable things. I’ll admit thought that there is often a level of appearance that the twelve try to maintain, and kicking out one of them would not help… and could be devistating to many LDS.
You’re wrong. Popularity of thought has to do with the reaction of those who receive it. True, the people have to first receive it, but whether something is popular or not depends on acceptence and receptiveness, not dissemination.
How one recieves it is heavily influenced by how the message was disseminated and everything going on in the background. Nobody receives a message with a clear state.
Comment # 36 left by the narrator on August 29th, 2006
ryan:
what if Grant was wrong?
Comment # 37 left by the narrator on August 29th, 2006
Well according to the Lord, it wouldn’t matter. But between the three witnesses of Benson, Grant and the Lord, there’s a pretty strong case for following the prophets regardless of whether they were right or wrong.
Comment # 38 left by Ryan on August 29th, 2006
ryan:
Well, Benson and Grant. You need to go through someone to get the Lord’s words (unless you want to count personal revelation. In that case, the Lord said that sometimes you need to do what you feel is right if you are morally against the teaching of a President). Of course, I’m sure you could pool together a large group of GA’s who teach blind obedience, just as I could pool together others who teach against it.
Comment # 39 left by the narrator on August 29th, 2006
There’s also a pretty strong case for thinking hard about commandments from the Lord, and trying to justify and explain your position to others. The Lord doesn’t want servants - he wants sons.
Blind faith and blind obedience was Satan’s idea, remember?
The glory of God is intelligence, not submission. If we are to make it to be like Him, we’ll need to be able to think on our feet.
I think you’re always going okay spiritually speaking if you follow the prophet, but you really need to keep your mind thinking, and you need to be building a personal testimony of the “odd” things that we are sometimes commanded to do.
First off, if you’re only duty bound, you won’t be able to go through the hard times. For those who’ve been on missions, you’ve seen this a hundred times.
Secondly, there are so many other tools God has provided us for gathering truth, it would be ungrateful if we never used them in combination. The spirit, the words of past prophets can always help us better understand the words of modern ones.
Thirdly, if we offer gifts with no real intent, Moroni tells us that it profits us *nothing*.
There have been many splinter groups off the church (the FLDS leader was arrested today, matter of fact) that have gained power as original church members because people leaned too much on the leaders, and not enough on the big picture. You can break down the metaphor here pretty easily, but the basic idea is there. I’m sure the same sorts of things happened when Oliver Cowdery and others left the church.
Sidenote observation: There are hints of truth in what The Narrator is saying. Don’t get defensive at the get go and try to understand where people are coming from before you jump on them and corner them. That said, I think both sides have been a little antagonistic. The “coversation” at this point has basically decayed into “oh yeah, prove it” which probably means any spirit of understanding is lost on both sides.
Maybe everyone can take a step back and try to see it from both sides?
Comment # 40 left by John on August 29th, 2006
I’m not going to drag out my books, dig through the footnotes, and find indivual sources.
I would venture to say that is because either you have never read/owned the books, or you realize the citations are to unsubstantiated sources that any story could be made from. Come on, how long does it take to find a citation in a book you have read and which you claim supports your dafamatory statements? It’s unfortunate that you have retreated so soon; I was interested to get to the bottom of this.
This often results in Apostles silencing their own view, or even voicing the opposite view to maintain this appearance of unity.
Quinn never fails to reveal his arrogance! I had to stop reading The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power because his love of self made me nauseous (it’s the same reason I can’t stand listening to Rush Limbaugh). His pompous approach is particularly revealed in what you cite to in the second volume of “The Mormon Hierarchy”. What a fool! I guess he thinks people will buy into what he says about meetings of the quorum. Earth to Mr. Quinn, the quorum’s meetings are held in private. I’m sure he would love to be there and lobby the brethren to accept homosexuality, but the privacy and secrecy of the meetings and their minutes are not revealed. So, any reference to Mr. Quinn’s so called understanding of how the quorum suppresses its member’s views is laughable. Sure, he cites to diaries etc. But he draws inferences from material that he will never understand!
This does not mean that they were evil. I have used deceit at times. So have you (I presume). That doesn’t make us evil. It just means we are human with human failings.
Yes, you’re right. But the way you word it here is much different than what you conveyed before. Indeed, one could argue that a person who is, as you say, deceitful, disobedient, and insubordinate actually is evil. These three characteristics combined in the same individual connote evil to me. For example, I don’t assume you would teach your children that the authorities of the church are deceitful and disobedient would you?
Every honest member of the Church must acknowledge that all general authroties are fallible! I’m not aware of any of them claiming they were perfect. But fallibility is different than calling JSF deceitful, disobedient, and insubordinate!
The reason I bring all this up actually is related to something you and I agree on (I know, it’s crazy). You said:
How one recieves [a message] is heavily influenced by how the message was disseminated. . . .
The context of your statement and the “how you deliver your message” by way of your word choice concerning JSF being deceitful, disobedient, and insubordinate appears to me to be a clear attempt at persuading people to believe he was anything but a good person!
Comment # 41 left by Wade on August 29th, 2006
I have just a few comments:
Much of the contents of The Search for Harmony are available online. I collected them here.
I think it is fair to say that JSF seemed to have a deep distrust of science, particularly when it clashed with his understanding of scripture or received statements from church authorities, and that his collegues sometimes disagreed with him (although some cheered him on). I don’t think it is necessary to cast aspersions on his character. I’ve never seen the claim that Pres. McKay denied him permission to publish MHOD, and I would be interested in a source for that claim. To the contrary, what I have seen is that Pres. McKay did not try to silence JSF, but did quietly disavow Church endorsement.
It’s also worth remembering that John Widtsoe’s Evidences and Reconcilliations was published in the post-Grant era, which contains discussion of evolution.
Viewed through the lens of science, JSF does not fare well. Viewed through other lenses, he looks better. For example, he was one among several members of the Quorum of the Twelve (and also as Church president) who helped to counter Benson’s political exuberance. In short, I don’t think his character needs to be undermined to make the case that he was wrong on certain issues.
Comment # 42 left by Jared on August 29th, 2006
That said, I think both sides have been a little antagonistic.
I agree it seems that way and I thought it was time to abandon the discussion awhile ago, however, taking Narrator at his word, I’ve decided that I do not think he is riled up, nor am I (and knowing Wade, I don’t think he is either) Diplomatic delivery has just been put to the side and the conversation has become very direct and blunt. It’s somewhat refreshing (to me anyway) as long as it does not devolve into name-calling.
Maybe I am wrong.. Narrator, do you feel attacked and/or belittled?
Comment # 43 left by Ryan on August 29th, 2006
ryan :
The “coversation” at this point has basically decayed into “oh yeah, prove it” which probably means any spirit of understanding is lost on both sides.
Maybe everyone can take a step back and try to see it from both sides?
Thanks. I know I have really only been pushing one side of the issue, but that is because the other side has been heavily represented already.
Comment # 44 left by the narrator on August 30th, 2006
wade:
I would venture to say that is because either you have never read/owned the books, or you realize the citations are to unsubstantiated sources that any story could be made from
Wrong on both counts, but I’ll give you credit for speculating. I’ve read them both. I used to own both, but I accidently left E&M under my seat in an astronomy class.
Come on, how long does it take to find a citation in a book you have read and which you claim supports your dafamatory statements?
It’s been a few years since I have read these books. I try to read at least one book every couple weeks. I don’t remember where everything is in books I read.
Quinn never fails to reveal his arrogance! I had to stop reading The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power because his love of self made me nauseous (it’s the same reason I can’t stand listening to Rush Limbaugh).
You don’t seem to fail to reveal your ignorance either. Nice ad hominem argument.
His pompous approach is particularly revealed in what you cite to in the second volume of “The Mormon Hierarchy”. What a fool!
Great argument.
I guess he thinks people will buy into what he says about meetings of the quorum. Earth to Mr. Quinn, the quorum’s meetings are held in private.
I’m guessing you haven’t read his books. Minutes are kept for each meeting of the Quorum. Many of these Elders also left their personal thoughts in their journals. Both of these were quite available during the so-called ‘Camelot Years’ of the Church Archives. Read Leonard Arrington’s little autobiography of his years as the Church Historian, Adventures of a Church Historian.
These three characteristics combined in the same individual connote evil to me.
I am guilty of having been all three. I’m pretty sure you have been quilty of all three. I’m pretty sure that most everyone has been guilty of all three. It’s human. Yet we don’t call eachother evil. Why do we suddenly shudder when these characteristics are applied to church leaders? Are they inhuman?
For example, I don’t assume you would teach your children that the authorities of the church are deceitful and disobedient would you?
I would tell them that they have been deceitful and disobedient at times, and then I would teach them it was wrong, just as wrong as if they were to do it.
But fallibility is different than calling JSF deceitful, disobedient, and insubordinate!
You should notice your little rhetoric games. I said JSF and others were guilty of deceit, disobedience, and insubordination. These are actions which JSF and others have done. They are actions which you and I have done. You have turned my referring to actions into adjectives. I am not describing their character. I am describing actions. There is a big difference. They may have been deceitful while using deceit, but that is different than saying they are deceitful. There is a huge rhetorical difference between saying a person has used deceit, and saying that a person is a deceitful person.
by way of your word choice concerning JSF being deceitful, disobedient, and insubordinate appears to me to be a clear attempt at persuading people to believe he was anything but a good person!
As I just mentioned. I never said that they were ‘deceitful, disobedient, and insubordinate.’ I said they had used deceit, disobedience, and insubordination. I have used these at times in my life, just as you have. I still believe that we are both good (even great) persons.
Comment # 45 left by the narrator on August 30th, 2006
In short, I don’t think his character needs to be undermined to make the case that he was wrong on certain issues.
Thanks Jared. I understand that I may come across as a bit harsher than I mean to be. Because of my analytic way of approaching things, I just push my criticisms to the forefront and don’t bother trying to sugar coat it with fluffy pillows and sweet smelling chocolates. It works fine in the academic community, but not so well outside of it. Some of my friends criticize me occasionally for being a little too upfront and critical, without the niceties some expect.
Comment # 46 left by the narrator on August 30th, 2006
Maybe I am wrong.. Narrator, do you feel attacked and/or belittled?
Not until wade accused me of having never read the books I mentioned. That kind of speculation was pretty un-called for (though I’m sure I’m guilty of similar accusations).
Comment # 47 left by the narrator on August 30th, 2006
I think this post might be relevant to this conversation.
Comment # 48 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on August 30th, 2006
M&M,
Agreed. Thanks for the link.
Comment # 49 left by Ryan on August 30th, 2006
Narrator:
You’re right, I crossed the line into “name-calling” and should not have questioned your reading of the books you cite. Yet, I do find it frustrating that you won’t point to substance.
As for the ad hominem argument, I usually shy away from them because they are logical falacies; but Quinn’s book irritated me due to the arrogance (and so you’re right, I never finished reading the first volume). Despite what few facts are known about quorum meetings, I still think it is beyond presumptious to make his claims–or what you have represented as his claims. It reminds me of what many anti-mormons think they know about what happens in the temple. Sure, some of them may know certain details, but NONE of them will ever understand them.
Finally, I generally agree with your thoughts about fallibilty; and I’ll have to admit my arguments in this thread are represented in the manner they are only because I think I take a fundamentally different position than you in regard to my view of Church authority. From your thoughts about what you think are isolated (as you have recently defined) acts of JSF and others, I gather that you begin with a skeptical view of the Apostles. In fact, this may not even be true; but it is certainly what you conveyed in your initial comments here.
So, in short, the problem here has been our different perspectives on authority. And specifically, I still think you’re wrong in characterizing Smith’s publication of MHOD as deceitful and disobedient. There just really is no good evidence of it–only speculation (similar to my speculation about your reading habits :)).
I stand by my rhetoric too. While you make a good point about your wording making no descriptions of character in general, erroneously calling out an Apostle’s publication of a book as a deceitful and disobedient thing to do is tantamount to describing his character at least during that time. So, your now calling out the narrow usage of the words is a similar form of rhetoric. A person’s actions depict that person’s character during the given period of time–it is disingenuous to argue that anything other than actions is what ultimately defines a person’s character (whether in the short term, or long term). This is precisely why our condition/character is judged by our works and not our intentions.
And as I think about it more, I guess I really don’t even care about disobedience and deceitfulness used as descriptives of JFS’s actions. Indeed, my view of situational ethics provides more than ample leeway for deceitfulness etc. The issue then becomes the context of the deceit or disobedience. Upon even further reflection, I think this may be our fundamental disagreement: you likely perceive JFS’s actions as wrongfully decietful because the publication of his book has been peddled as such by storytellers using hearsay evidence; while I perceive no wrongdoing because there is no dispositive evidence. Rather, the only evidence shows that JFS was a man of impecable moral character at all times; and a man who contributed greatly to correct understanding of doctrine. Thus, it is quite a stretch to claim he was wrongfully disobedient while serving as President of the 12.
Comment # 50 left by Wade on August 30th, 2006
Wade. I was pretty much cool with everything you said up until this:
the only evidence shows that JSF was a man of impecable moral character at all times;
Are you asserting that all available reports of JSF’s actions at all times of his life (or at least as a general authority) describe him as doing absolutely nothing wrong or questionable?
Comment # 51 left by the narrator on August 30th, 2006
Narrator:
No, not exactly; and I see what you’re getting at. I’m only trying to say that from all I’ve read about him (I have read his works, biographies about him, and I’ve recently read some personal letters he wrote–other than the ATGQs), i.e. from the available evidence, one can only conclude that he would not be wrongfully deceptive or disobedient just to publish one of many books he wrote and published throughout his life. It just doesn’t add up at all! Actually, this is why I was curious for you to point me to a substantiated source. In fact, I went home last night and re-read the blurb in Greg Prince’s book about it and it said nothing close to what you allege. It’s obviously true that others, including McKay, highly and fundamentally disagreed with him; but JFS didn’t commit any wrongfully insubordinate acts in regard to publication.
And for the record (because you don’t know me as an individual), I’ve never taken anything you’ve said personally–I highly enjoy healthy debate. It is I who stepped over the line into name calling. I hope you can look beyond that (especially since it was toward Quinn and not you).
Comment # 52 left by Wade on August 30th, 2006
Wade:
I still need to read Prince’s book. It’s still a half-dozen spots back in my reading list, but it’s creeping closer. I’m sure it’ll provide some new insights into the discussion. I’ll also try to dig into my older books as well to see if I can find those sources, though that may have to sit on the back-burner as well for a while.
Believe it or not, I used to be a little Connor-ish and had a fairly conservative view of a lot of these issues. However, I decided to branch out a bit and look into things a little deeper, instead of just taking FARMS word for it; specially their ‘Review’ which after reading many of the books they ‘review,’ I’ve decided that 70% of it is crap or insignificant (Dan Peterson happens to be the high counselor in my ward right now). Also, over the last year my work and school has enabled me to meet a lot of the bigger names in Mormon Studies which has greatly changed my view of many writers/scholars who have been attacked by FARMS folks.
Anyways, I’d really like to get your thoughts on different things I have written on my blog. Most of the criticisms I get come in the form of anonymous personal attacks. You seem like you could provide some substance.
Comment # 53 left by the narrator on August 31st, 2006
Awesome, I’ve been turned into an adjective!
Comment # 54 left by Connor Boyack on August 31st, 2006
. . .70% of it is crap or insignificant (Dan Peterson happens to be the high counselor in my ward right now).
I get the feeling that there are not many moderates in Utah.
Maybe it’s an unwritten code that you have to take only one side or the other? It’s just my insignificant observation, but those from Utah (who actually do have a view point) are either staunch conservatives–from an authority perspective, not political, although they often coincide–or they are self-proclaimed “free-thinkers”. Your comment about having the opportunity to view Peterson at work interests me. I wonder what your view of Joseph would have been had you the privilege of living in Nauvoo? As you know from reading Bushman’s latest, the vast majority of those who left the church did so because of their distaste for Joseph the man not Joseph the prophet. What I’m trying to say is, it seems to me like Utah members of the Church either are overly trusting of anything a GA or authority figure says (from the pulpit or not), or they point to imperfections and quirks of an individual and then conclude that 70% of what they say is “crap”. 
Perhaps the phenomenon is due to the high exposure of leadership and their detractors in Utah? I have lots of relatives in Utah and they fit the model I’ve set out.
my work and school has enabled me to meet a lot of the bigger names in Mormon Studies which has greatly changed my view of many writers/scholars who have been attacked by FARMS folks.
I’m curious to know what it is you do for work and what/where you’re currently studying. I’m curious to know why you havn’t found the same personal imperfections/quirks in the “mormon studies” folks you’ve found in the folks at FARMS etc.
I’ll make it a point to get over to your blog and snoop around. I’m at the California Court of Appeal three days a week and don’t blog those days, but I’ll try and find the time.
Comment # 55 left by Wade on August 31st, 2006
I think your model is pretty representative of a large percentage of people in Utah, especially happy valley. There is the much discussed great divide where people need to constantly show how Mormon or non-Mormon they are. Leaders of the Church are either divine puppets or crackpots. Last April I got invited to a ‘general conference party’ and a kegger on the same weekend (I passed on both to see Nine Inch Nails in Vegas). There is a growing group of LDS students who find themselves lost in the middle, often feeling like they are drowning in this great divide. My friend Steve has written a couple posts about groupthink. I think this is largely what guides this phenomena.
I’m curious to know what it is you do for work and what/where you’re currently studying.
I’m a philosophy student minoring in religious studies at UVSC. I currently assist with the religious studies and mormon studies programs where I help organize conferences and various other tasks. I also help edit Element: The Journal for the Society of Mormon Philosophy and Theology. I also co-edited a forthcoming volume of essays for the Society. All of this (as well as my participation with Sunstone) has enabled me to rub elbows with a lot names in Mormon studies. I also help teach a pair of intro philosophy courses. I couldn’t ask for anything better.
I’m curious to know why you havn’t found the same personal imperfections/quirks in the “mormon studies” folks you’ve found in the folks at FARMS etc.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. The FARMS folks are doing Mormon Studies. As far as non-FARMS people go, they can be just as stupid. I’ve been wanting to write a critique of Dan Vogel’s Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet for quite some time now. I think is methodology is terribly hollow, making much of his book crap. I was able to talk to him about it a few weeks ago, and he just didn’t get it.
Comment # 56 left by the narrator on August 31st, 2006
Joseph Fielding Smith joined David O. McKay as one of the apostles in 1910. After 56 years of apostolic association, David O. McKay said of Joseph Fielding Smith: “No man has ever been more loyal to the President of the Church.” (Era, July 1966, p. 613.) The publication of Man: His Origin and Destiny was clearly not, in the mind of David O. McKay, a deceitful act of insubordination.
Comment # 57 left by Gary on November 12th, 2006
ah yes. the lord loved the political nonsense ezra benson spewed forth that He gave ezra dementia in his old age. too bad gbh (or anyone else, for that matter) never held forth in general conference about the evils of the civil rights movement.
Comment # 58 left by jacobnagel on March 2nd, 2008