Simon Belmont: This is what "quote mining" means

[_zeezrom]

quote mining is new to me. I think I may have quote mined a few times. Oh well.

[_honorentheos]

quote mining is new to me. I think I may have quote mined a few times. Oh well.

Zeez,

If you've ever prepared a talk for a sacrament meeting, you've probably quote mined.

If you ever taught from the old standard six missionary discussions (and probably Preach My Gospel but I don't know about that for sure) you've certainly quote mined.

If you ever taught from one of the PS/Relief Society manuals from the prophets, you've done nothing but quote mine.

Quote mining is a polemic term without meaning. Every GC talk includes quote mining. Reading scriptures in a talk and skipping over the pieces that don't make sense in the context of the topic is the same, in substance, as the quote mining generally referred to by lay internet "apologists" today. There are legitimate examples of quotes being taken out of context to distort what was being said. But the majority of the time, especially on MADB, most people say this when a quote is given from some source that they can't carry around in a faux-leather bag to and from church each week.

If they'd just get GospelLink (or whatever it's called these days) on their iPhone or Droid, we'd all be good.

[_honorentheos]

Simon,

To raise a related point, why is it you feel that Darth's use of legitimate quotes attributed to the actual authors to make a point is wrong, while excusing behaviors by the church curriculum committee such as editing out the very limited section from the Joseph Smith Manual on the Wentworth Letter?

As you may recall, the entire Wentworth Letter made up the topic of one lesson in the Joseph Smith manual - except a portion of one paragraph.

The missing section, underlined within it's context, says this -

"The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction and much skill in the art of engraving. With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called "Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God. In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. This book also tells us that our Savior made his appearance upon this continent after his resurrection, that he planted the gospel here in all its fulness, and richness, and power, and blessing; that they had apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists; the same order, the same priesthood, the same ordinances, gifts, powers, and blessings, as was enjoyed on the eastern continent, that the people were cut off in consequence of their transgressions, that the last of their prophets who existed among them was commanded to write an abridgment of their prophecies, history, &c., and to hide it up in the earth, and that it should come forth and be united with the Bible for the accomplishment of the purposes of God in the last days. For a more particular account I would refer to the Book of Mormon, which can be purchased at Nauvoo, or from any of our travelling elders.”

Why is this ok, but the opposite wrong?

[_Darth J]

Simon Belmont:

On another thread I have discussed how FAIR has quoted-mined Harold B. Lee to make it appear as if he taught that General Conference talks are not doctrinal.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/W ... ctrine.pdf

Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.” This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.” To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”

This is a textbook example of quote mining. FAIR has cherry picked something that he said and taken it out of context to make it appear that he was affirming FAIR's theories. In fact, Harold B. Lee taught that conference talks by church leaders are doctrine for us today.

Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual - Religion 333
(4-4) The Most Vital Scripture Is Current Scripture

President Harold B. Lee gave the following explanation of the relationship between the written scriptures of the past and the words of living prophets:

“Sometimes we get the notion that if it is written in a book, it makes it more true than if it is spoken in the last General Conference. Just because it is written in a book does not make it more of an authority to guide us. President Taylor goes on with this same idea and explains why the scriptures of the past are not sufficient for us today:

“‘The Bible is good; and Paul told Timothy to study it, that he might be a workman that need not be ashamed, and that he might be able to conduct himself aright before the living church [there is that word living again], the pillar and ground of truth. The church-mark, with Paul, was the foundation, the pillar, the ground of truth, the living church, not the dead letter. The Book of Mormon is good and the Doctrine and Covenants, as landmarks. But a mariner who launches into the ocean requires a more certain criterion. He must be acquainted with heavenly bodies, and take his observations from them, in order to steer his barque aright. Those books are good for example, precedent, and investigation, and for developing certain laws and principles. But they do not, they cannot, touch every case required to be adjudicated and set in order.

“‘We require a living tree—a living fountain—living intelligence, proceeding from the living priesthood in heaven, through the living priesthood on earth. . . . And from the time that Adam first received a communication from God, to the time that John, on the Isle of Patmos, received his communication, or Joseph Smith had the heavens opened to him, it always required new revelations, adapted to the peculiar circumstances in which the churches or individuals were placed. Adam’s revelations did not instruct Noah to build his ark; nor did Noah’s revelation tell Lot to forsake Sodom: nor did either of these speak of the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt. These all have revelations for themselves, and so had Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and Joseph. And so must we, or we shall make a shipwreck.’ ( The Gospel Kingdom, p. 34.)

Lesson 37: “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet”, Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual

President Harold B. Lee taught: “The only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized [see D&C 21:4–5]. … There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you’ [D&C 21:6]” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1970, 152; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1970, 126).

• How can we learn of the prophet’s inspired counsel? (By studying general conference talks, First Presidency Messages, and other articles in the Church magazines and by listening to letters from the First Presidency that are read in Church meetings.)

At the close of a general conference, President Ezra Taft Benson said, “For the next six months, your conference edition of the Ensign should stand next to your standard works and be referred to frequently” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1988, 97; or Ensign, May 1988, 84).

While serving in the Quorum of the Twelve, Elder Harold B. Lee made a similar statement during general conference. He said that the report of the conference should “be the guide to [our] walk and talk during the next six months” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1946, 68).

Since you have time and again proven your integrity and commitment to intellectual honesty, I look forward to you denouncing FAIR's quote mining Harold B. Lee to take his statements out of context to support FAIR's agenda.

[_Kishkumen]

Since you have time and again proven your integrity and commitment to intellectual honesty....

I think the word you were looking for was not "proven" but "vaunted."

[_Darth J]

Because Simon Belmont has recently offered his assertion yet again that I am misrepresenting the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am bumping this thread to remind him of my open invitation for him or anyone else to point to a single example of something I have said on this board that misrepresents the teachings of the LDS Church or takes statements from LDS leaders or curricula out of context.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It is too painful for Simon to confront posts like those, Darth. What we are seeing here with him are all the consequences of his failure to heed the counsel of Church leaders. He thought that his testimony was so iron-clad that he could read anti-Mormon materials without it affecting him. He thought he could go toe-to-toe with the toughest critics, shaking his fist at the sky and screaming, "I will take [them] down!" but it has been an utter failure. Instead, he coughs up rote replies and says the same things over and over again, but this will do nothing to repair the deepening cracks in his testimony. He is headed on a collision course with apostasy, and it terrifies him.

[_Drifting]

Irrelevant. You are resorting to the apologist trope of crying "quote mining" without even using the term correctly. So prove that I am "quote mining."

Because I am not an apologist, I am not bound by the apologist parlance.

In the military this type of behaviour would have earned you a white feather...

[_Yoda]

It is too painful for Simon to confront posts like those, Darth. What we are seeing here with him are all the consequences of his failure to heed the counsel of Church leaders. He thought that his testimony was so iron-clad that he could read anti-Mormon materials without it affecting him. He thought he could go toe-to-toe with the toughest critics, shaking his fist at the sky and screaming, "I will take [them] down!" but it has been an utter failure. Instead, he coughs up rote replies and says the same things over and over again, but this will do nothing to repair the deepening cracks in his testimony. He is headed on a collision course with apostasy, and it terrifies him.

How do you know that Simon is losing his testimony or that "he is on a collision course with apostasy"?

These are all merely plattitudes of yours. You are not a mind reader. You have no idea what Simon or anyone else is thinking or feeling.

[_Chap]

It is too painful for Simon to confront posts like those, Darth. What we are seeing here with him are all the consequences of his failure to heed the counsel of Church leaders. He thought that his testimony was so iron-clad that he could read anti-Mormon materials without it affecting him. He thought he could go toe-to-toe with the toughest critics, shaking his fist at the sky and screaming, "I will take [them] down!" but it has been an utter failure. Instead, he coughs up rote replies and says the same things over and over again, but this will do nothing to repair the deepening cracks in his testimony. He is headed on a collision course with apostasy, and it terrifies him.

How do you know that Simon is losing his testimony or that "he is on a collision course with apostasy"?

These are all merely plattitudes of yours. You are not a mind reader. You have no idea what Simon or anyone else is thinking or feeling.

I don't think 'platitude' is the word you want, but rather 'opinion'.

Based on my reading of this board, I would suggest that some of us usually take care to state our views modestly, by hedging them around with such provisos as 'in my opinion', or 'as far as I understand it'. Others don't, and state their views in a flat-out way, as you do in the underlined section of your post.

Scratch's view is clearly intended to be taken as just that - his view. Personally, having read a lot of Belmont and engaged with him from time to time, I think there is probably a lot of truth in Scratch's post. I don't think that Belmont's appearances on this board suggest that he is quietly confident in the views he seeks to defend. It all looks a bit anxious to me. But I could be wrong.