Botched Rescue in Boise

[_I have a question]

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. But again, I think that was the wise course of action for them to take.

Regards,
MG

What they were doing was asking members to leave the thinking to them and to just follow their guidance because their interpretation of scriptures is the right one.

How long does it take to open a bloomin' briefcase?

[_Tom]

I encourage each of you anonymous internet cowards to withstand the logic, evidence, and testimony of Richard Turley, John Dehlin and Elder Oaks, John Dehlin, as they lay waste to your flimsy objections to the truth.

I am curious about Richard Turley's employment history. In his address in Boise, Turley states:

Twenty-nine years ago, when I was 29 years old [laughter], I received a call at my law office from Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He invited me to lunch and that interview led to others, at the end of which I was invited to give up my law practice and devote my full time to the history of the Church. By that time I had already spent about half my life immersed in the Church's history, and so as you might imagine, I was quite intrigued when offered the keys and combinations to the Church's historical treasures and told that I was responsible for them. It was a rare privilege to be able to access all those treasures whenever I wished and to be able to hold them, read them, and study them to my heart's content.

Online sources (here and here) indicate that Turley received a B.A. in English from BYU, where he was a Kimball Scholar. For his senior honors project, he edited Theodore Turley's mission journal. Turley received a law degree from BYU Law School, where he served as executive editor of the law review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. He received the Hugh B. Brown Barrister’s Award for classroom performance. Turley took the Utah bar in the summer of 1985 and was sworn in as an attorney in September 1985. He practiced law that fall. Sometime that same fall, he received the above-mentioned call from Oaks. In January 1986, Turley became assistant managing director of the Church Historical Department.

Recall that this was the same time period as the arrest of Mark Hofmann for murder, forgery, and fraud connected to the sale of early Mormon history documents. Why was Turley, a brand-new attorney, hired to fill a supervisory position in the Church Historical Department at this time?

[_Maksutov]

I encourage each of you anonymous internet cowards to withstand the logic, evidence, and testimony of Richard Turley, John Dehlin and Elder Oaks, John Dehlin, as they lay waste to your flimsy objections to the truth.

I am curious about Richard Turley's employment history. In his address in Boise, Turley states:

Twenty-nine years ago, when I was 29 years old [laughter], I received a call at my law office from Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He invited me to lunch and that interview led to others, at the end of which I was invited to give up my law practice and devote my full time to the history of the Church. By that time I had already spent about half my life immersed in the Church's history, and so as you might imagine, I was quite intrigued when offered the keys and combinations to the Church's historical treasures and told that I was responsible for them. It was a rare privilege to be able to access all those treasures whenever I wished and to be able to hold them, read them, and study them to my heart's content.

Online sources (here and here) indicate that Turley received a B.A. in English from BYU, where he was a Kimball Scholar. For his senior honors project, he edited Theodore Turley's mission journal. Turley received a law degree from BYU Law School, where he served as executive editor of the law review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. He received the Hugh B. Brown Barrister’s Award for classroom performance. Turley took the Utah bar in the summer of 1985 and was sworn in as an attorney in September 1985. He practiced law that fall. Sometime that same fall, he received the above-mentioned call from Oaks. In January 1986, Turley became assistant managing director of the Church Historical Department.

Recall that this was the same time period as the arrest of Mark Hofmann for murder, forgery, and fraud connected to the sale of early Mormon history documents. Why was Turley, a brand-new attorney, hired to fill a supervisory position in the Church Historical Department at this time?

That's a fascinating question. It's past time to reopen and re-examine everything related to Hofmann, while so many of the participants are still alive. The soft underbelly of the church was clearly revealed, and Oaks and Packer could see that the vulnerability was horrendous. When CBS later sought to produce a miniseries on the murders, GBH himself called CBS management personally and played the religious persecution card, comparing the proposed series to an anti-Semitic attack on the Jews. I guess reality has an anti-Mormon bias?

[_Flaming Meaux]

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. 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.

The meat of the gospel that mentalgymnast advocates consistently is the full surrender of your critical faculties. Once you just turn off your brain and don't worry whether or not any doctrinal position, answer, or belief makes sense, it is a lot easier to just accept what someone else tells you as revelation from on high.

That's why the minute you take the very reasonable step of asking a follow-up question, mentalgymnast will quickly revert to a response along the line of, "Aw shucks, I guess I'm just not that sophisticated--this is all so simple when you don't have to worry about nuance." I think mentalgymnast means well, but he legitimately doesn't understand that people actually exist that, when someone asks them to effectively just turn off their brain and let baseless assertions wash over them like the cable TV, are more inclined to say, "Excuse me??" rather than say, "Yep, I'm good with that."

I think that mentalgymnast, based on things he's said elsewhere, even realizes that his advocated approach is a recipe for being taken advantage of and exploited. It's just that he believes he is better off being exploited on the minimal chance that whomever he's surrendered his thinking to just happens to be correct.

[_Kishkumen]

Online sources (here and here) indicate that Turley received a B.A. in English from BYU, where he was a Kimball Scholar. For his senior honors project, he edited Theodore Turley's mission journal. Turley received a law degree from BYU Law School, where he served as executive editor of the law review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. He received the Hugh B. Brown Barrister’s Award for classroom performance. Turley took the Utah bar in the summer of 1985 and was sworn in as an attorney in September 1985. He practiced law that fall. Sometime that same fall, he received the above-mentioned call from Oaks. In January 1986, Turley became assistant managing director of the Church Historical Department.

Recall that this was the same time period as the arrest of Mark Hofmann for murder, forgery, and fraud connected to the sale of early Mormon history documents. Why was Turley, a brand-new attorney, hired to fill a supervisory position in the Church Historical Department at this time?

Wow. Yes. Very interesting indeed. Thanks for bringing in this perspective. I suppose he had to get up to speed on forgeries early on in his tenure as Church historian. LOL.

[_suniluni2]

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. But again, I think that was the wise course of action for them to take.

Yes, yes. Take upon you the armor of God - the shield of faith, the sword of confirmation bias ....

[_Flaming Meaux]

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.

Fortunately, the vast majority of the active membership has no interest in reading*, understanding**, or internalizing*** the Book or Mormon.

*Evidenced by the ubiquitous challenges to read the Book of Mormon with the promise that it will be life changing; the challenges wouldn't be so ubiquitous if the membership was actually just reading it without having to be challenged to do so.

**Evidenced by correlated lessons and apologists proof texting the Book of Mormon passages in the very same way they do Biblical passages to support whatever the current pet theory or doctrine is, and much of the active membership not being sophisticated enough to spot the problems.

***Evidenced by holding membership in a real estate management corporation that is masquerading as a religion while hardly have a second thought about it. It always makes me pause when someone tells me the Book of Mormon is their favorite book and has totally changed their life, while in the next breath they tell me all the reasons why it is a good thing that their church is building shopping malls.

Granted, I don't view the Book of Mormon as much more than 19th-century religious fan fiction, but if I started with the premise that the book describes God's one true religion, there is no way that I'd think that religion is the brand of Mormonism advocated by the CoJCoLDS today.

[_Maksutov]

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.

Fortunately, the vast majority of the active membership has no interest in reading*, understanding**, or internalizing*** the Book or Mormon.

*Evidenced by the ubiquitous challenges to read the Book of Mormon with the promise that it will be life changing; the challenges wouldn't be so ubiquitous if the membership was actually just reading it without having to be challenged to do so.

**Evidenced by correlated lessons and apologists proof texting the Book of Mormon passages in the very same way they do Biblical passages to support whatever the current pet theory or doctrine is, and much of the active membership not being sophisticated enough to spot the problems.

***Evidenced by holding membership in a real estate management corporation that is masquerading as a religion while hardly have a second thought about it. It always makes me pause when someone tells me the Book of Mormon is their favorite book and has totally changed their life, while in the next breath they tell me all the reasons why it is a good thing that their church is building shopping malls.

Granted, I don't view the Book of Mormon as much more than 19th-century religious fan fiction, but if I started with the premise that the book describes God's one true religion, there is no way that I'd think that religion is the brand of Mormonism advocated by the CoJCoLDS today.

Interesting. I wonder if there are any studies out there as to how the 'typical' LDS member views the Book of Mormon historicity and if/how that has changed over, say, the last few generations. It would also be interesting to look at in the context of education, major of emphasis, profession, region, gender, temple attendance, etc.

Beyond that, how do they compare with similar surveys of "Bible-believing" Christians?

[_I have a question]

When members stand once a month and declare they know the Book of Mormon is true, I wonder if they actually understand what it is they think is true. I know some believe the statement means they take it at face value. The events happened, its historic, there really were Nephites and Lamanites and plates.

These same members also believe that Joseph translated the book by staring at actual gold plates through magic spectacles. When these members are shown the Church essay on the subject, they tend to disbelieve the essay rather than what they have been led to believe over generations.

They are utterly entrenched and new information, whatever the source, is discounted out of hand.

[_mentalgymnast]

The meat of the gospel that mentalgymnast advocates consistently is the full surrender of your critical faculties.

Not true.

Once you just turn off your brain and don't worry whether or not any doctrinal position, answer, or belief makes sense...

Not true. At least for me.

...it is a lot easier to just accept what someone else tells you as revelation from on high.

I would suppose there are many that fall into this categorization.

That's why the minute you take the very reasonable step of asking a follow-up question, mentalgymnast will quickly revert to a response along the line of, "Aw shucks, I guess I'm just not that sophisticated--this is all so simple when you don't have to worry about nuance."

Not true. There are times, however, when the intellect and reasoning can only go so far and one is left to either choose faith or doubt.

I think mentalgymnast means well...

And I would also make the assumption that you do also.

...but he legitimately doesn't understand that people actually exist that, when someone asks them to effectively just turn off their brain and let baseless assertions wash over them like the cable TV, are more inclined to say, "Excuse me??" rather than say, "Yep, I'm good with that."

Not true. Are you throwing the whole LDS/Christian story into the "baseless assertion" category? What are some of the baseless assertions that you would suggest folks like me are simply letting wash over us without giving it a thought?

I think that mentalgymnast, based on things he's said elsewhere, even realizes that his advocated approach is a recipe for being taken advantage of and exploited.

Well, sure it is. How can one prove as a matter of fact that which ultimately is accepted to one degree or another on faith? Those that take the position of faith know that they are going to "be taken advantage of".

It's just that he believes he is better off being exploited on the minimal chance that whomever he's surrendered his thinking to just happens to be correct.

I don't believe that I am being "exploited". I do believe, as I have said many times now in this forum, that there are reasons for plausibility/possibility to believe in the restoration story. I don't think that I and many others like me have surrendered our thinking to others. Although, I must admit, there are many that don't take the time or effort to explore possibilities other than that which they are told over the pulpit, so to speak.

My contention/argument/point on this thread is that Elder Oaks and Turley took the best course of action in response to the problems that are occurring in regards to those that are challenging the leadership of the church. What alternative way of approach would you suggest? They are simply moving forward with the assumption and/or belief that they have been given a mandate through the scriptures, from God, to act rather than be acted upon.

It appears that the time has finally come where the leadership is becoming somewhat more bold/vocal in acting rather than sitting back and being acted upon by those that would usurp their authority. Why would you expect that they would do otherwise?

Regards,
MG