Botched Rescue in Boise

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Botched Rescue in Boise

Post by _Kishkumen »

mentalgymnast wrote:What I found interesting in their frequent use of scriptural authority for their statements in regards to apostates is that they were using simple words to explain somewhat...on its face...complex/convoluted patterns of apostate activities in the past and present. It's as if they want others to realize/see that it is something less than rocket science to fully explain what they see going on. Not many words used to state what they see as the facts. What other means would you suggest that they might have used to talk to these saints OTHER THAN using the directness of/in the 'word of God'?

It seems that this would be their modus operandi. I don't think they can really be faulted for that.


The circular reasoning and proof-texting of the scriptures to land on the conclusion that they are in charge and everyone else is not are indeed something to behold. I don't think anyone saw that coming.

But, again, my questions are probably more fundamental than the average person in the congregation that day. I would like to know how it is that we know the priesthood was restored in the way and at the time Joseph Smith said it was. I would like to know whether we can be certain that Brigham Young was actually called by God to be Joseph Smith's successor, or whether he was just the guy who managed to pull it off. I would also like to know why it is that the practice of polygamy is essentially ended in spite of the leaders' best intentions to deceive everyone else while continuing to practice it and yet the eventual real abandonment of the practice without revelation is not a problem. There are so many questions. And, yes, people have thought about them. The thing is, there aren't easy answers to any of them. But they do matter.

So, no, I was not impressed by what they did. I doubt many informed people were. Did they address any of Denver Snuffer's arguments head on? No, they just said that because they do not think he fits the description of a guy with real authority no one should listen to him because, well, Satan.

And that doesn't fly. I doubt many people who have read these guys would think it did.

I actually think I did a much better job of showing why Snuffer et al. don't fit the bill, and you praised me for it. Granted I don't have an apostolic calling, a law degree, and a fancy suit, but I frankly think I did a better job. Of course, I would. In any case, what I still find fascinating is that it was, as others astutely noted, during the Reformation in the 1850s that these guys were really leaning into the whole issue of the unbroken chain of priesthood authority. And that is probably because they felt very insecure about it themselves. They knew they were standing on a sandy foundation, but the intimidation of a captive audience seems to have worked to create the illusion of fully solid authority.

Personally, I don't think Brigham Young had it. I am not saying he was president of the LDS Church, or that he didn't have priesthood keys. I am saying that he was not Joseph Smith's successor, because, well, there is no good reason to think that he was. He was a highly effective usurper. And the apostles seem to intuit it, even today, if they do not consciously acknowledge it. Every time they talk about a guy like James Strang, they are revisiting Brigham's old argument--the one in which he pointed to others and said to his followers, "You wouldn't really follow a loser like that guy, would you?"

My sense is that the big hoax was always the idea of unique divine authority. It is something that the Catholics really, really cared about because the pope wanted to be an authoritarian king of Christianity. The Orthodox, quite tellingly, always relied upon Church Councils for their governance. They represented the norm, not the Catholics. Mormonism essentially reintroduces this monarchical ecclesiastical government because Joseph Smith had goals, and he discovered he needed less questioning from others in order to get things done. So, more priesthood apparatus is built up over time, more secrecy is introduced, more balls in the air to juggle.

In some respects all of this has only gotten worse over time, and the LDS Curia has only become more effective at jealously guarding its power and privileges at the expense of the health of the membership as a whole. The kicker is that I bet much of this is totally well intentioned. I don't belive in a great deal of hypocrisy or in conspiracies. Sometimes people on the inside of something actually aren't going to be able to tell what is going on because they are too close to things. Modern communication has enabled many unhappy members to communicate outside of Church-controlled spaces about their unhappiness and concerns.

If everything were OK, I contend that there would be no John Dehlin, Rock Waterman, Denver Snuffer, or Adrian Larsen. Of course there will always be eccentrics. And, some would argue with me about the state of mind of any one of these gentlemen and their spouses. The thing is: these are reasonably intelligent insiders, some of whom worked really, really hard spiritually to get things right. At some point, they felt spiritually inspired that the problem was not them; it was the Church itself.

I am not here to pass judgment on these guys one way or the other. You can buy the argument that they are deceived of Satan or you can see them as genuine, individually inspired seekers after truth, or sincere questioners. I don't really follow groups or encourage others to follow me, so I refuse to weigh in on all of that. What I do know is that a healthy Church does not lose people like this in the way they were booted. What this tells me is that something is imbalanced and unhealthy in the Church. You can put aside the issues of who as the authority and the miraculous power, and you are still left scratching your head about the abject failure that is evident in these events.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jun 16, 2015 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Botched Rescue in Boise

Post by _mentalgymnast »

DonBradley wrote:MG,

I've yet to listen to it. What's your overall judgment?

How effective will it be in responding to criticisms from these various directions and keeping those who might otherwise accept the criticisms from actually doing so?

Don


I think the effect of this presentation, at least for me, was to remind/show me that there are scriptures...not a few...that cut to the chase as to what we see going on around us. It is then a matter of whether or not we have any confidence in scriptural authority...ancient and modern...to act as a means of explanatory authority in regards to what current conditions are on the ground. We naturally want to make things complex and convoluted to the point that we then have a difficult time coming to terms with what we see. It's just SO complicated and/or nuanced...many say. If we go with scriptural authority and reason, it is all rather simple...and presciently obvious that God knew what was going to occur in the latter times. Again, that is, if you are willing to give scriptural authority any credence.

When all is said and done, I don't think that any other approach other than the one they took...authority of scripture and keys of the kingdom residing in the prophets and apostles...would have been a wise course to take...even though they probably could have. It's not like both of these guys aren't respected academics. Truth is, however, they would have just gotten themselves into heated arguments within the realms of scholarly debate and historical conundrums that would lead to various rabbit holes that up to this point don't seem to lead to anywhere resulting in final answers.

Regards,
MG
_zeezrom
_Emeritus
Posts: 11938
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:57 pm

Re: Botched Rescue in Boise

Post by _zeezrom »

Wait what's scriptural authority?
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)

The Holy Sacrament.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Botched Rescue in Boise

Post by _mentalgymnast »

zeezrom wrote:Wait what's scriptural authority?


What I said. That the scriptures referenced by Elder Oaks and Bro. Turley had/have explanatory power...or the final say...as to what we see going on around us. It is a given that some will and some won't accept that 'scriptural authority'. Everyone gets that. :smile: But again, I think that was the wise course of action for them to take.

Regards,
MG
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Botched Rescue in Boise

Post by _Kishkumen »

My questions are probably more fundamental than the average person in the congregation that day. I would like to know how it is that we know the priesthood was restored in the way and at the time Joseph Smith said it was. I would like to know whether we can be certain that Brigham Young was actually called by God to be Joseph Smith's successor, or whether he was just the guy who managed to pull it off. I would also like to know why it is that the practice of polygamy is essentially ended in spite of the leaders' best intentions to deceive everyone else while continuing to practice it and yet the eventual real abandonment of the practice without revelation is not a problem. There are so many questions. And, yes, people have thought about them. The thing is, there aren't easy answers to any of them. But they do matter.

So, no, I was not impressed by what they did. I doubt many informed people were. Did they address any of Denver Snuffer's arguments head on? No, they just said that because they do not think he fits the description of a guy with real authority no one should listen to him because, well, Satan.

And that doesn't fly. I doubt many people who have read these guys would think it did.

I actually think I did a much better job of showing why Snuffer et al. don't fit the bill, and you praised me for it. Granted I don't have an apostolic calling, a law degree, and a fancy suit, but I frankly think I did a better job. Of course, I would. In any case, what I still find fascinating is that it was, as others astutely noted, during the Reformation in the 1850s that these guys were really leaning into the whole issue of the unbroken chain of priesthood authority. And that is probably because they felt very insecure about it themselves. They knew they were standing on a sandy foundation, but the intimidation of a captive audience seems to have worked to create the illusion of fully solid authority.

Personally, I don't think Brigham Young had it. I am not saying he wasn't president of the LDS Church, or that he didn't have priesthood keys. I am saying that he was not Joseph Smith's successor, because, well, there is no good reason to think that he was. He was a highly effective usurper. And the apostles seem to intuit it, even today, if they do not consciously acknowledge it. Every time they talk about a guy like James Strang, they are revisiting Brigham's old argument--the one in which he pointed to others and said to his followers, "You wouldn't really follow a loser like that guy, would you?"

In some respects all of this has only gotten worse over time, and the LDS Curia has only become more effective at jealously guarding its power and privileges at the expense of the health of the membership as a whole. The kicker is that I bet much of this is totally well intentioned. I don't belive in a great deal of hypocrisy or in conspiracies. Sometimes people on the inside of something actually aren't going to be able to tell what is going on because they are too close to things. Modern communication has enabled many unhappy members to communicate outside of Church-controlled spaces about their unhappiness and concerns. Not being in in the SLC bubble, but experiencing things on the ground, they do see what is going on, and they are sharing what they see.

If everything were OK, I contend that there would be no John Dehlin, Rock Waterman, Denver Snuffer, or Adrian Larsen. Of course there will always be eccentrics. And, some would argue with me about the state of mind of any one of these gentlemen and their spouses. The thing is: these are reasonably intelligent insiders, some of whom worked really, really hard spiritually to get things right. At some point, they felt spiritually inspired that the problem was not them; it was the Church itself.

I am not here to pass judgment on these guys one way or the other. You can buy the argument that they are deceived of Satan or you can see them as genuine, individually inspired seekers after truth, or sincere questioners. I don't really follow groups or encourage others to follow me, so I refuse to weigh in on all of that. What I do know is that a healthy Church does not lose people like this in the way they were booted. What this tells me is that something is unbalanced and unhealthy in the Church. You can put aside the issues of who as the authority and the miraculous power, and you are still left scratching your head about the abject failure that is evident in these events.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Botched Rescue in Boise

Post by _Kishkumen »

mentalgymnast wrote:I think the effect of this presentation, at least for me, was to remind/show me that there are scriptures...not a few...that cut to the chase as to what we see going on around us. It is then a matter of whether or not we have any confidence in scriptural authority...ancient and modern...to act as a means of explanatory authority in regards to what current conditions are on the ground. We naturally want to make things complex and convoluted to the point that we then have a difficult time coming to terms with what we see. It's just SO complicated and/or nuanced...many say. If we go with scriptural authority and reason, it is all rather simple...and presciently obvious that God knew what was going to occur in the latter times. Again, that is, if you are willing to give scriptural authority any credence.

When all is said and done, I don't think that any other approach other than the one they took...authority of scripture and keys of the kingdom residing in the prophets and apostles...would have been a wise course to take...even though they probably could have. It's not like both of these guys aren't respected academics. Truth is, however, they would have just gotten themselves into heated arguments within the realms of scholarly debate and historical conundrums that would lead to various rabbit holes that up to this point don't seem to lead to anywhere resulting in final answers.


I appreciate MG's clarity and honesty here. What he is essentially saying is that rather than engage the issues, they fell back on the argument of authority using the scriptures that are commonly used to create the impression that they have it and others do not. Unfortunately, those who expect more than scriptural proof-texting (and remember, these so-called apostates do know their scriptures pretty well) are looking for different fruits of the Spirit than Elder Oaks focuses on. Elder Oaks points to the temporal success of an institution: "Look at these hundreds of temples we are building!" At the same time, he fails to understand that this is precisely the wrong tactic to take with these people. It is for anyone who has read, understood, and internalized the Book of Mormon.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_cwald
_Emeritus
Posts: 4443
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:53 pm

Re: Botched Rescue in Boise

Post by _cwald »

Kishkumen wrote:Here's one person, named "Jim," who was mightily impressed by the Boise Rescue:

I’m a former apostate and sinner. I once believed in these so called apostates but I have decided to suspend disbelief and turn off my mind to so called history. What is history anyway? It is so distorted and convoluted that we cannot believe it unless those in authority tell us how to describe and define it. Thank you Elder Oakes for setting us straight. I hereby turn over my thinking to the church and you.

Now I know that I must live in the world. So, I will be wise when it comes to the world but I will suspend worldly thinking when I am doing my church callings and attending my required meetings.

P.S. Please tell me how to think at all times. I know I said that I would be wise when I was in the world but its too scary.


Oh my.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby

Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Botched Rescue in Boise

Post by _Kishkumen »

I listened once again to the Boise Rescue recording this morning. It is fascinating stuff, really. I can't say I am any more persuaded by the argument than I was last time. Much of what they said did not apply very well to Rock Waterman and Denver Snuffer. In Elder Oaks final portion (he and Turley trade off), he gets down to brass tacks: Don't rock the boat. If anyone is criticizing the leaders, they are wrong.

The smoke and mirrors about false christs and false prophets does not work all that well because people like Rock, Adrian, and Denver don't really fit the bill too comfortably. Rock least of all. Denver is a somewhat more ambiguous case. But I don't see these guys claiming to be Christ or claiming to be the prophet. I don't see that they lack proper ordination in the priesthood. What they lack is a commission from the leaders to criticize the leaders. That is what all of this ultimately gets down to. And at that level, the Church's argument is circular.

Where things break down for the LDS Church, in my view, is the attempt to say that the "prophetic leadership" of the present is essentially identical to Joseph Smith's prophetic leadership. Since the Church lacks any kind of sophisticated discussion of these things, they can get away with this where most people are concerned. But to those who know the history fairly well, it does not fly at all. There is no reason simply to assume that nothing important changed in the transition from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young. In looking at the succession crisis, one can't easily apply the rule of the Lord's House being one of order, etc., because if there was ever a time it was not, then that was it.

At one point Turley comments that "apostasy breeds chaos." Well, yes, and what might that tell you? Does it tell you that there was no apostasy in Nauvoo, or lots of it? Does it tell you that there was no apostasy after the assassination of Joseph Smith, or lots of it? And who, after all, was right? Is it simply true that Brigham Young was obviously *the* man the Lord called to succeed Joseph Smith? That is hardly the case at all. And, naturally, this is something that Turley would avoid altogether, since he knows his argument would be highly dubious.

So, all of these revelations in the D&C about "the Lord's mouthpiece," which apply very well to Joseph Smith, do not automatically apply to Brigham Young. I think that was fairly clear to Brigham Young and even his apostolic colleagues. You can see the success of his mantle in his ability to foist the Adam-God doctrine on the Church. Yep, it was a colossal failure. So, what do we say about apostasy where this is concerned? It seems to me that Brigham Young's own record makes for a pretty convincing case of apostasy from Joseph Smith's teachings, which resulted from his illegitimate attempt to be Joseph Smith when he did not have that calling.

Am I claiming that Brigham Young was not the president of the Church or that he did not have keys? No. I am saying that I don't think anyone has successfully demonstrated that Brigham Young was the Lord's mouthpiece in the way Joseph Smith was. Ergo, one cannot assume that language in the D&C about the Lord's mouthpiece applies to Brigham or his successors automatically.

Now, lest you think I am advocating someone's position here, I am not. I am not telling you to stop going to the LDS Church, or to follow Denver Snuffer. All I am doing here is pointing out the deficiencies in the Boise Rescue's abortive attempt at an argument against these guys. It is a combination of partial history, rhetoric, and bullying. It assumes a lot of things that one simply cannot take for granted. It succeeds inasmuch as the audience is ignorant of some salient issues.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_zeezrom
_Emeritus
Posts: 11938
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:57 pm

Re: Botched Rescue in Boise

Post by _zeezrom »

mentalgymnast wrote:
zeezrom wrote:Wait what's scriptural authority?


What I said. That the scriptures referenced by Elder Oaks and Bro. Turley had/have explanatory power...or the final say...as to what we see going on around us. It is a given that some will and some won't accept that 'scriptural authority'. Everyone gets that. :smile: But again, I think that was the wise course of action for them to take.

Regards,
MG
i read your words (twice) an still don't understand. I guess I'm just not ready for the meat of the gospel.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)

The Holy Sacrament.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Botched Rescue in Boise

Post by _Kishkumen »

zeezrom wrote:i read your words (twice) an still don't understand. I guess I'm just not ready for the meat of the gospel.


Were MG to sit back, reflect, and then return with a better considered answer, he might say that those who know to leave the scriptural interpretation to the Elders and those people they tap from the field of law will accept these leaders' historically un-contextualized proof-texting as an effective argument because they really don't know any better.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply