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.