MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_beastie]

Now that's an unsubstantiated dodge worthy of Fox News.

Oh, please. You really expect us to believe that Packer and Oaks would be ok with faith-destroying truths printed in a book the church funded, written by church employees, reviewed by apostles???

That is a load of baloney.

For one thing, neither of their talks specified that their comments only addressed church manuals or CES materials.

Packer said:

Those of us who are extensively engaged in researching the wisdom of man, including those who write and those who teach Church history, are not immune from these dangers. I have walked that road of scholarly research and study and know something of the dangers. If anything, we are more vulnerable than those in some of the other disciplines. Church history can he so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.

Note what I bolded. He was talking about two groups of people - those who write history, and those who teach history.

And here:

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith--A destroyer of faith--particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith--places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history," is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood.

he is clearly talking about historians, not solely those who teach church classes or write church manuals.

See what I mean about believers refusing to admit the obvious? That's why critics have to practically pound it out of them.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I don't think any of the three authors delight "in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith" nor were they "employed specifically to build faith" by writing the MMM book. It wasn't the most faith-promoting thing I've ever read. But hey, I've read.

[_beastie]

I don't think any of the three authors delight "in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith" nor were they "employed specifically to build faith" by writing the MMM book. It wasn't the most faith-promoting thing I've ever read. But hey, I've read.

You are so determined to find a way out of this that you blatantly ignore what he says.

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history," is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood.

It's not necessarily "delighting" that is the sin - it is choosing to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how it may injure the church or destroy faith.

[_Daniel Peterson]

20 by 20!

[_beastie]

Yeah, we can definitely make it to 20 if I ask you another direct question.

So, Dr. Peterson, Esteemed and Respected Islamic Scholar of solid repute, (see, that's my Mother May I speech), how do you reconcile the statements of Packer and Oaks with your belief that the church would have allowed information proving BY directly ordered the massacre to be published?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You are so determined to find a way out of this that you blatantly ignore what he says.

Actually, my take accounts for everything he is saying. Yours doesn't. Allow me to change some bold here and see what we get:

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history," is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood.

Do you think Pres. Packer thinks anyone is "ready" for advanced history? Could it be that Pres. Packer is also concerned with people who take a cavalier attitude towards talking about difficult historical issues? Could it be that Pres. Packer is well aware of the limitations of historical inquiry? Could it be that Pres. Packer is addressing an audience of CES instructors? Could it be that the quoted portion you repeated has direct bearing on the previous paragraph, "That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith--A destroyer of faith--particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith--"

By the way, have you listened to the podcast from RadioWest with the authors, by the way? Within the first 8 minutes or so you'll hear what they say about their relation to Church leaders in this project; that they would only write it if they maintained full editorial control, that the leaders expected them to find whatever they could and make it know, regardless, that they have done the absolute best they could to present the facts as far as the historical method will allow, etc.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kuer/ ... ID=1331264

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yeah, we can definitely make it to 20 if I ask you another direct question.

So, Dr. Peterson, Esteemed and Respected Islamic Scholar of solid repute, (see, that's my Mother May I speech), how do you reconcile the statements of Packer and Oaks with your belief that the church would have allowed information proving BY directly ordered the massacre to be published?

By listening to and taking at face value the clear and oft-repeated statements of the three authors (and others involved in the project), whom I have every reason to trust and no reason to distrust.

In a contest between inferences drawn from previous statements by leaders about related but distinct subjects, and direct statements by those directly concerned with the project itself, I don't find it difficult to choose.

[_beastie]

LoaP -

To be brutally frank, I think your assertion that Packer and Oaks meant their comments ONLY for CES instructors, and would have no problem with any other LDS historian (particularly those employed by the church) publishing a book that contained material that could destroy faith to be ridiculous and unworthy of serious conversation. In addition, Oaks' comments were not directed to CES instructors.

Elder Oaks' 1985 talk also contained the caution that "criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward church authorities, general or local."

"Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."

http://mormontimes.com/WC_headquarters.php?id=1663


As far as the podcast, yes, I listened to it and commented on it earlier. I understand that the authors insist that they had full control of their material. I just don't understand how to reconcile this with Packer and Oak's earlier statements, and since Packer and Oaks are the ones with power in the LDS church - you know, the organization that funded the project - I think their statements are more telling.

Of course it's quite possible that church leaders did, in fact, assure the authors that they had full control of the material, and, in fact, I trust that the authors are being truthful when they assert as much. But would church leaders have adhered to this if the author's final work including clear proof BY ordered the attack? Why did the author submit the work to be reviewed by two apostles prior to publication?

by the way, one of the things I found most striking about the podcast was that the interviewer, who read the book and was probably a believer - came away with the impression that the Fanchers DID do something to provoke the attack. The authors tried to correct this impression, but I think this indicates that, for some reason, the way the authors constructed the work is leading some people to believe that the Fanchers DID do something provocative (and some remarks on the MAD thread demonstrate that, too). This leads me to suspect that James' reaction to at least that portion of the book may be sound. I will pay particularly attention to that portion of the book, to try and figure out why, if the authors clearly absolved the Fanchers of provocative behavior that could have instigated the attack, are faithful readers still coming away with that impression?

[_TAK]

DCP

In a contest between inferences drawn from previous statements by leaders about related but distinct subjects, and direct statements by those directly concerned with the project itself, I don't find it difficult to choose.

Considering those same leaders have the last say in this LDS sponsored publication - its not difficult; the LDS Mission will supersede truth.

[_beastie]

In a contest between inferences drawn from previous statements by leaders about related but distinct subjects, and direct statements by those directly concerned with the project itself, I don't find it difficult to choose.

You stated yourself that if proof were demonstrated that BY ordered the attack, it would cast his calling as prophet into serious doubt. Church leaders must be aware of that, as well. So what you are saying is that church leaders would be OK with historians (being funded by the church, and as church employees) publishing material that would cast doubt on BY's calling as a prophet. I find this completely contradictory to Packer and Oaks' earlier statements. Do you agree that it is completely contradictory to Packer and Oaks' earlier statements?