"Prophets Saw Our Day" a repost from Nevo at MAD

[_cwald]

You guys do know I was being cynical about the Council of fifty minutes being on the LDS.org website? Right?

[_Sammy Jankins]

If "practical knowledge", such as knowledge of history, and particularly what one might call "benighted" or "controversial" or even "covered up" history can shake a person's true belief, then it isn't true belief in the deepest sense of personal conviction "borne by the Holy Ghost" (as Mormons often say).

I'm willing to bet that believers will object to this definition of "true belief." Saying that "true belief" is immune to "practical knowledge" or logic makes true belief sound like a delusion. If I were a believer I would I much rather say that my belief is complimentary to history and knowledge, or at very least that they could be reconciled.
Also you have noted above those experiences have lead people to different conclusions such as believing in the Quran, so putting all our eggs in that basket seems foolhardy.
Also as Runtu has noted, the church has every motivation to put the best answers it has out there, because the very people they are trying to convince are not hardcore skeptics, but people on the fence.

[_Runtu]

You guys do know I was being cynical about the Council of fifty minutes being on the LDS.org website? Right?

Really? I went over there and found them easily with the church's new search engine.

[_son of Ishmael]

If "practical knowledge", such as knowledge of history, and particularly what one might call "benighted" or "controversial" or even "covered up" history can shake a person's true belief, then it isn't true belief in the deepest sense of personal conviction "borne by the Holy Ghost" (as Mormons often say).

I'm willing to bet that believers will object to this definition of "true belief." Saying that "true belief" is immune to "practical knowledge" or logic makes true belief sound like a delusion. If I were a believer I would I much rather say that my belief is complimentary to history and knowledge, or at very least that they could be reconciled.
Also you have noted above those experiences have lead people to different conclusions such as believing in the Quran, so putting all our eggs in that basket seems foolhardy.
Also as Runtu has noted, the church has every motivation to put the best answers it has out there, because the very people they are trying to convince are not hardcore skeptics, but people on the fence.

"Also as Runtu has noted, the church has every motivation to put the best answers it has out there, because the very people they are trying to convince are not hardcore skeptics, but people on the fence."

Exactly. When I was on the fence, I was not looking for a reason to leave, I was looking for reasons to stay and found none.

[_xolotl]

...Elder Packer (!) has directed the Church History department to "put together a committee to create answers to difficult gospel questions."

I've been a bit puzzled about this idea, mentioned several times in slightly different words, that it is necessary to "create" answers to difficult gospel questions, and that it will take a committee to do so.

Is this not squarely within the responsibilities of a GA? Should not any one of the GAs be able to do this on his own?

My Bishop, EQP, Stake Pres, Area 70, my wife, my daughter, the RSP - any of them could explain how to do it!

1. Identify the difficult questions.
2. Come up with the best answer you can, using your own knowledge, the scriptures, and any experts that you need to consult.
3. Pray about it.
4. When you have got the correct answer, you will know for a surety (!).
5. Write it down, and publish it!
6. DONE.

Our very own bcspace assures us that there are answers to all of the questions, and that the answers predated the internet, so that they have been around for decades.

What exactly is the problem?

What good is a seer and revelator that doesn't go to god to get these answers? These guys are either in apostasy or they fear the ways of man more than God. It would be nice to see them actually try to seer and reveal and stand for something instead of remaining silent because they are scared they will be wrong. This one true church thing doesn't exactly hold up if a proclaimed prophet of God doesn't even have the faith to ask God for answers.

[_RayAgostini]

I'm willing to bet that believers will object to this definition of "true belief." Saying that "true belief" is immune to "practical knowledge" or logic makes true belief sound like a delusion.

My wording was: "...true belief in the deepest sense of personal conviction borne by the Holy Ghost...".

That's a metaphysical or mystical experience which brings "personal conviction". I've not at all suggested that true belief is "immune to practical knowledge". I mentioned C.S. Lewis, who is probably a good example of a Christian trying to persuade unbelievers through rational approaches to Christianity (for example, the benefits of being a Christian, but on the other he also produced an "extreme" dichotomy, that Jesus was either the Son of God, or a madman).

If I were a believer I would I much rather say that my belief is complimentary to history and knowledge, or at very least that they could be reconciled.

I think D.Michael Quinn is evidence of that, and the enterprise of apologetics is to do precisely that.

"verbal defence, speech in defence")[1] is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections. (Wiki)

Ultimately, however, the Foundation Stone of Christianity isn't apologetics, which is only a "means", and probably not the most effective one, to "persuade" one of Christ. That persuasion doesn't come entirely through "rational bases". If it did, then no one would have a problem with the Resurrection, or walking on water.

Also you have noted above those experiences have lead people to different conclusions such as believing in the Quran, so putting all our eggs in that basket seems foolhardy.

It's not difficult for me, as I'm an agnostic theist who believes the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired. I've read the Qur'an in English, but I've been told a thousand and one times that one cannot get the "true effect" unless it's read in Arabic. So I grant Muslims the sincerity of their convictions, though I haven't experienced what they have in that sense.

Also as Runtu as noted, the church has every motivation to put the best answers it has out there, because the very people they are trying to convince are not hardcore skeptics, but people on the fence.

That may be true, but ultimately "rational arguments" are not going to provide sufficient motivation to "do the hard yards" and live all the commandments. It may be a first "baby step", but it's the "spiritual witness" (a la Greg Smith) that's of prime importance to the "true believer", not "where exactly is Kolob?"

[_Kishkumen]

As far as I am aware, there are no plans to publish the Council of the Fifty's minutes.

[_Themis]

Excellent post from Nevo. I've been told for a long time that the church doesn't hide anything and hasn't sugarcoated or Disneyfied its presentation of history. That's not in dispute anymore. The remaining question is how the church can get out of the corner into which it has painted itself. How do you open up the unsanitized history without causing a huge disconnect with what the church has previously given its members?

As cinepro said, it's clear to me that they are totally unprepared to make this transition. And they have only themselves to blame. The truth eventually comes out, and those who try to hide it make things worse in the end.

The church could never get out of the corner it has painted for itself. They controlled the message, especially in the early days of BY. The RLDS did not have this, and more influence from the non-LDS society around them has changed them over time to a religion many LDS would not recognize as Mormon. Being open and honest about the issues is a good idea, but it will hurt the church with losing members and missionary efforts drying up. These issues will eventually move the church in similar directions the RLDS have taken or it will die a long slow death.

The information age just wont let them control the message anymore or the glacial pace of change they have been used to in the past. I suspect the church will look a lot different in a 100 years. I doubt the Book of Abraham will be canonized, and maybe not even the Book of Mormon. Not sure about the Bible as Christianity is also under tremendous influence to change. Damn scientists. Stop getting it right so often.

[_Megacles]

Awesome! I had no idea! Where can I go to read the Nauvoo Council of Fifty minutes?

I have not been able to find the actual minutes, and as others have noted, they are probably still in the vault. However, there is some good information floating about in publications like BYU Studies (I was linked to these documents by the footnotes in this BCC article.

• Quinn, D. M. (1980) The Council of Fifty and Its Members, 1844 to 1945. BYU Studies vol. 20 no. 2 pg. 163.
  
• Ehat, A. F. (1980) “It Seems Like Heaven Began on Earth”: Joseph Smith and the Constitution of the Kingdom of God. BYU Studies vol. 20 no. 3 pg. 253.
  
• Ehat, A. F. (1982) Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Succession Question. Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University.
  
• Quinn, D. M. (1994) The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates. Salt Lake City.

There is a lot of information out there on almost any Mormon topic. It is fascinating, really.

[_malkie]

My Bishop, EQP, Stake Pres, Area 70, my wife, my daughter, the RSP - any of them could explain how to do it!

1. Identify the difficult questions.
2. Come up with the best answer you can, using your own knowledge, the scriptures, and any experts that you need to consult.
3. Pray about it.
4. When you have got the correct answer, you will know for a surety (!).
5. Write it down, and publish it!
6. DONE.

Our very own bcspace assures us that there are answers to all of the questions, and that the answers predated the internet, so that they have been around for decades.

What exactly is the problem?

And if they came up with the "best answers" they could find, would that change anything?
...
So back to the endless fight, round 1,534,000.

Ray, while your post is interesting, I think you completely missed the point of the post of mine that you seemed to be responding to.

I am not the person who is reported to have directed the Church History department to "put together a committee to create answers to difficult gospel questions."

The leaders of the church seem to think that that is a worthwhile thing to do. They seem to think that a committee is needed, and that the answers need to be "create[d]".

With admitted cynicism (I assume that you would expect it of me), I outlined the steps that church leaders have given to members to help them solve problems.

Given that a GA has, by definition, an authoritative role with respect to church doctrine, procedures etc., why would it be beyond his capabilities to provide answers where needed, and if properly so directed?

So, to take it a bit further, if this creation of answers to difficult gospel questions is something important and worthwhile, why not:

a) spring a GA free from the administration of something or another

b) spread the load over the others (or call assistants - this is not hard from an organizational PoV - these guys know how to do it, right?)

c) give him a couple of days per question

It's not rocket surgery!