Recent press release from the LDS church.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Lucretia MacEvil wrote:If telling a story about a GA's youthful indiscretion would undermine what that GA is saying and doing today, then that GA can't stand on his own merits.


A GA's youthful indiscretion need not undermine what a GA is saying and doing today.

That DHO would object to learning any "negative" information about George Washington is childish, that he couldn't admire Washington for his accomplishments if he knew Washington had had an affair in his teens, for example ... that he would rather not know anything negative and put Washington on a pedestal like a saint...


Elder Oaks said: In the course of writing history, I said that people ought to be careful in what they publish because not everything that’s true is useful. See a person in context; don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation.

MG: notice he said "useful". If Washington had youthful indiscretions it is not necessary to know about that when reading a book about the founding fathers of the nation and the great works they performed. Interesting, yes. Useful? Not necessarily. Why detract from the positive things Washington and the other founding fathers did? Now after reading a book about Washington and the other founding fathers and the great works they performed as it relates to the founding of our nation, if I was to find out that Washington had youthful indiscretions...then so be it. It is interesting, but not useful inasmuch that knowing that tid bit of information doesn't change the fact that he played an important role at the beginning of our great nation.

Regards,
MG
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

mentalgymnast wrote:MG: notice he said "useful". If Washington had youthful indiscretions it is not necessary to know about that when reading a book about the founding fathers of the nation and the great works they performed. Interesting, yes. Useful? Not necessarily. Why detract from the positive things Washington and the other founding fathers did? Now after reading a book about Washington and the other founding fathers and the great works they performed as it relates to the founding of our nation, if I was to find out that Washington had youthful indiscretions...then so be it. It is interesting, but not useful inasmuch that knowing that tid bit of information doesn't change the fact that he played an important role at the beginning of our great nation.

Regards,
MG


Well, you're making a judgement call on what's considered 'useful'. How do we know whether a 'youthful indescretion' is useful, without examining it? And then you're also making a judgment call on what a 'youthful indescretion' is. You may consider it a mere indescretion, while I may consider it quite important to his development as a person.

I wonder what 'non-useful' indescretion's BKP is referring to? What have GAs, and past prophets been accused of, that isn't 'useful'?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

liz3564 wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
I thought that the "Mormons" PBS documentary was fairly well-balanced, though.



As did I, although I have to wonder how many people had actually noticed that the transcripts for the Elder Oaks and the Elder Packer interviews were nowhere to be found online...until the church posted them. Thirteen interview transcripts posted on the Frontline webpage, and two of them are GA's... Pres. Hinckley and Elder Holland. Eleven other people for one reason or another beat out two of the three apostles that were interviewed for the show.

Regards,
MG


I agree that these other interviews should have been included. If they were edited for time factors, they should have at least been included as "extras" on PBS's website.

I didn't realize this. Maybe Dr. Peterson can give us some insight. He is friends with the director of the show. I wonder if this is something he mentioned to her?


Helen Whitney is going to be at the Sunstone Symposium next week. I hear she's the keynote speaker. She would be a good one to ask. I won't be there because of a family reunion. Doing FAIR instead this week on Thursday.

Regards,
MG
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Who Knows wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:MG: notice he said "useful". If Washington had youthful indiscretions it is not necessary to know about that when reading a book about the founding fathers of the nation and the great works they performed. Interesting, yes. Useful? Not necessarily. Why detract from the positive things Washington and the other founding fathers did? Now after reading a book about Washington and the other founding fathers and the great works they performed as it relates to the founding of our nation, if I was to find out that Washington had youthful indiscretions...then so be it. It is interesting, but not useful inasmuch that knowing that tid bit of information doesn't change the fact that he played an important role at the beginning of our great nation.

Regards,
MG


Well, you're making a judgement call on what's considered 'useful'. How do we know whether a 'youthful indescretion' is useful, without examining it? And then you're also making a judgment call on what a 'youthful indescretion' is. You may consider it a mere indescretion, while I may consider it quite important to his development as a person.


The fact is, George Washington (Joseph Smith) did what he did when he was younger. It's water under the bridge. When he reached manhood he accomplished what he accomplished. Those accomplishments (restoring the gospel) being no small thing. I'm not going to renounce my citizenship (have my name removed) or stop obeying the laws of the land (obey the commandments) at this point in time simply because a less than perfect person or two (Brigham Young) helped create our great nation. Don't know that I'll go inactive (stop going to church) either or take off to Canada. The USA (church) is still a pretty great place.

Just thought I'd throw in those churchy references/parallels in the parentheses for fun. <g>

Regards,
MG
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

mentalgymnast wrote:The fact is, George Washington (Joseph Smith) did what he did when he was younger. It's water under the bridge. When he reached manhood he accomplished what he accomplished.


It's not what he did in his youth that I object to. It's what he did when he was an adult, and knew better.
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

mentalgymnast wrote:The fact is, George Washington (Joseph Smith) did what he did when he was younger. It's water under the bridge. When he reached manhood he accomplished what he accomplished. Those accomplishments (restoring the gospel) being no small thing. I'm not going to renounce my citizenship (have my name removed) or stop obeying the laws of the land (obey the commandments) at this point in time simply because a less than perfect person or two (Brigham Young) helped create our great nation. Don't know that I'll go inactive (stop going to church) either or take off to Canada. The USA (church) is still a pretty great place.

Just thought I'd throw in those churchy references/parallels in the parentheses for fun. <g>

Regards,
MG


So lets hear some examples of 'youthful indiscretions' that critics bring up, that aren't very 'useful'.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

harmony wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:The fact is, George Washington (Joseph Smith) did what he did when he was younger. It's water under the bridge. When he reached manhood he accomplished what he accomplished.


It's not what he did in his youth that I object to. It's what he did when he was an adult, and knew better.


Each person's youth impacts one's adulthood. Joseph Smith was not a perfect youth, neither was he a perfect adult. This fact alone does not dictate one way or the other whether he was capable and willing to carry out a work which God had for him to do. Take a composite group of powerful/influential leaders spread across the historical spectrum. You will find that on average they have their fair share of foibles and strengths. The foibles did not erase their names from history for the great deeds/works which they performed.

Regards,
MG
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Who Knows wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:The fact is, George Washington (Joseph Smith) did what he did when he was younger. It's water under the bridge. When he reached manhood he accomplished what he accomplished. Those accomplishments (restoring the gospel) being no small thing. I'm not going to renounce my citizenship (have my name removed) or stop obeying the laws of the land (obey the commandments) at this point in time simply because a less than perfect person or two (Brigham Young) helped create our great nation. Don't know that I'll go inactive (stop going to church) either or take off to Canada. The USA (church) is still a pretty great place.

Just thought I'd throw in those churchy references/parallels in the parentheses for fun. <g>

Regards,
MG


So lets hear some examples of 'youthful indiscretions' that critics bring up, that aren't very 'useful'.


Care to begin?

Regards,
MG
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Who Knows wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:The fact is, George Washington (Joseph Smith) did what he did when he was younger. It's water under the bridge. When he reached manhood he accomplished what he accomplished. Those accomplishments (restoring the gospel) being no small thing. I'm not going to renounce my citizenship (have my name removed) or stop obeying the laws of the land (obey the commandments) at this point in time simply because a less than perfect person or two (Brigham Young) helped create our great nation. Don't know that I'll go inactive (stop going to church) either or take off to Canada. The USA (church) is still a pretty great place.

Just thought I'd throw in those churchy references/parallels in the parentheses for fun. <g>

Regards,
MG


So lets hear some examples of 'youthful indiscretions' that critics bring up, that aren't very 'useful'.


Care to begin?

Regards,
MG


You're the one defending BKP. So let's hear what BKP is referring to. What are some truths that aren't very useful? Treasure digging?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Who Knows wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
Who Knows wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:The fact is, George Washington (Joseph Smith) did what he did when he was younger. It's water under the bridge. When he reached manhood he accomplished what he accomplished. Those accomplishments (restoring the gospel) being no small thing. I'm not going to renounce my citizenship (have my name removed) or stop obeying the laws of the land (obey the commandments) at this point in time simply because a less than perfect person or two (Brigham Young) helped create our great nation. Don't know that I'll go inactive (stop going to church) either or take off to Canada. The USA (church) is still a pretty great place.

Just thought I'd throw in those churchy references/parallels in the parentheses for fun. <g>

Regards,
MG


So lets hear some examples of 'youthful indiscretions' that critics bring up, that aren't very 'useful'.


Care to begin?

Regards,
MG


You're the one defending BKP. So let's hear what BKP is referring to. What are some truths that aren't very useful? Treasure digging?


BKP wasn't referring to anything. The original quote came from Elder Oaks. Why are you referring to Elder Packer? I know where you're trying to head with this, but you need to start by quoting the right guy. Want to try again?

by the way, BKP did say this in his interview:

Some things that are true aren’t very useful. And there are those in the past who have looked at the leaders of the Church, for instance, and found out that they’re human and want to tell everything. There are steps and missteps that don’t help anything. Some think that to be totally honest they have to tell everything. They don’t. If they’ve got the mindset for that, then they’re always grumbling — they have an appetite for it. They’re free to do that, but it isn’t really productive, it doesn’t really make anybody happy.

Someone you knew, say when you were in college, made a terrible mistake. You knew about it, and it was forgiven and lived beyond. There’s little purpose in going back and digging that out and speaking of it when their children might be present — a lot of things that are true historically aren’t very useful and don’t generate happiness.


My guess is he's not referring to little factories here though.

Regards,
MG
Post Reply