CES employee resigns

[_Chap]

I listed to all of it today, whilst laying in agony on the couch. I enjoyed it, and I was amused at all the stuff that surprised them (Smith’s polyandry and such) while being active employees for the CES for years, putting the lie to the tired mopologist rant about how apostates never researched their faith.

CES employees teach the "Gospel"..... They don't teach every nuance of history.
It is upon every CES employee to study and prepare their subjects themselves.
Thus, it's not the Churches fault that these particular CES employees didn't know certain things of history, it's their own faults.

I am not sure that such things as the practice of polygamy by the founder of the CoJCoLDS at the scale of 30+ women will be seen by many as mere 'nuances of history'.

It's good, however, to see such a clear statement of the defensive position that goes "If we didn't tell you about it, you should have found out for yourself".

And by the way, surely CES employees with teaching responsibilities are not only not obliged to study any materials other than those provided by church authorities in preparation for their teaching, but are positively discouraged from doing so?

See "Lesson 11: Keeping the Doctrine Pure," Part B: Basic Principles of Gospel Teaching—Teach the Doctrine, where we find:

Use Church-Produced Lesson Materials

To help us teach from the scriptures and the words of latter-day prophets, the Church has produced lesson manuals and other materials. There is little need for commentaries or other reference material. We should study the scriptures, teachings of latter-day prophets, and lesson materials thoroughly to be sure we correctly understand the doctrine before we teach it.

So much for independent study to find out about things the church does not tell you.
and ...

Private Interpretations and Unorthodox Views

President J. Reuben Clark Jr. said, “Only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church” (in Church News, 31 July 1954, 10). We should not teach our private interpretation of gospel principles or the scriptures.

Elder Spencer W. Kimball stated: “There are those today who seem to take pride in disagreeing with the orthodox teachings of the Church and who present their own opinions which are at variance with the revealed truth. Some may be partially innocent in the matter; others are feeding their own egotism; and some seem to be deliberate. Men may think as they please, but they have no right to impose upon others their unorthodox views. Such persons should realize that their own souls are in jeopardy” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1948, 109).

In other words, if you do carry out independent research and come to conclusions at variance with what the manuals say, shut up about it.

[_Buffalo]

I listed to all of it today, whilst laying in agony on the couch. I enjoyed it, and I was amused at all the stuff that surprised them (Smith’s polyandry and such) while being active employees for the CES for years, putting the lie to the tired mopologist rant about how apostates never researched their faith.

CES employees teach the "Gospel"..... They don't teach every nuance of history.
It is upon every CES employee to study and prepare their subjects themselves.
Thus, it's not the Churches fault that these particular CES employees didn't know certain things of history, it's their own faults.

No one expects them to teach every nuance. But what they do teach is propaganda, not history at all.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I finished listening to this today, and I have to say, it was a real tour de force for Dehlin. The episode sums up pretty much everything that is good about individual Mormon people, and everything that is wrong with the LDS Church. The issue seems to be that the stubborness and intransigence of a handful of old men--and their legion of dutiful followers--is causing the Church to implode. Or, at least, it has put everything into a state of flux. Towards the end, one of the poeple--it may have been Mr. McLay--said something about "Big Tent" Mormonism, and if I had to guess, I would say that this is where the Church will ultimately go, but in any case it's clear that the LDS Church cannot go on existing in its present state. After all, if the Church cannot hold on to members like the McLays, who can it keep in the pews?

[_consiglieri]

I finished listening to this today, and I have to say, it was a real tour de force for Dehlin. The episode sums up pretty much everything that is good about individual Mormon people, and everything that is wrong with the LDS Church.

I am almost done as well (into episode 4), and that is exactly the way I felt about it. These two wonderful, articulate, intelligent people were not about trying to scratch the eyes out of the Mormon Church. They encountered some great people who acted well and treated them with respect and dignity. Even an unnamed member of the Q12. And they said so. Others weren't so hot, and they said that, too.

It seems like some on this thread (and in their family) think being a good Mormon means saying only the good things and keeping the bad to yourself. The problem is that's not honesty.

And these two seem honest to a fault.

All the Best to both of them!

--Consiglieri

[_why me]

I am almost done as well (into episode 4), and that is exactly the way I felt about it. These two wonderful, articulate, intelligent people were not about trying to scratch the eyes out of the Mormon Church. They encountered some great people who acted well and treated them with respect and dignity. Even an unnamed member of the Q12. And they said so. Others weren't so hot, and they said that, too.

It seems like some on this thread (and in their family) think being a good Mormon means saying only the good things and keeping the bad to yourself. The problem is that's not honesty.

And these two seem honest to a fault.

All the Best to both of them!

--Consiglieri

And did they make the right decision by discounting their spiritual blessings and experiences?

[_SteelHead]

Did the Martin Willey hand cart companies make the right decisions following the revelations of their leaders? And listening to the spirit, ignoring common sense?

[_Yoda]

Did you make the right decision by choosing to not fully participate in the Church and in the gospel?

I am almost done as well (into episode 4), and that is exactly the way I felt about it. These two wonderful, articulate, intelligent people were not about trying to scratch the eyes out of the Mormon Church. They encountered some great people who acted well and treated them with respect and dignity. Even an unnamed member of the Q12. And they said so. Others weren't so hot, and they said that, too.

It seems like some on this thread (and in their family) think being a good Mormon means saying only the good things and keeping the bad to yourself. The problem is that's not honesty.

And these two seem honest to a fault.

All the Best to both of them!

--Consiglieri

And did they make the right decision by discounting their spiritual blessings and experiences?

[_Joe Geisner]

In part 3 at about the 29 - 30 minute mark, Brooke McLay makes a simple and yet beautiful comment. She says, "When we say we are going to be honest ... to me there's one way to be honest. You mean what you say."

One of my greatest disappointments in both Smith and Mormon apologist is the lack on their part in following this basic rule of honesty. Smith was unable to tell the truth about his multiple wives and apologist are unable to tell the truth about most everything Mormon.

Both Brooke and John are amazing people for their approach to this crisis of faith. I am curious if Lou Midgley or Dan Peterson have come out publicly praising Brooke and John for the way they have handled their crisis of faith? Both apologists biggest gripe with Grant Palmer was their claim that Grant should have left his employment with CES. Have these two apologists gone on record for their support of the McLays?

[_Jason Bourne]

I finished the podcasts. No time to post much about it now. But I will say that what Bot emphasizes seems to take a small portion of the 4 plus hours. Also they said there was no affair. The trip east to see the gay friend was mentioned barely and in passing. I would have thought that topic occupied much of the podcast. Also I did not find John thinly read nor naïve really. Why do defenders always lay this on those who become disillusioned? It seems he had read quite a bit. So what if he could not at the drop of a hat dig up four or five names of JSs young wives. He had the facts of what heppened pretty accurate.

Anyway, interesting podcast and discussion. Personally I don't find them awfully heroic. They made their choice and I honor that. Everyone needs to make their own path and make it work for themselves. They did make some tough choices though and if this is the path they needed to trod I say good for them and wish them much happiness as well as a job soon.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Both Brooke and John are amazing people for their approach to this crisis of faith. I am curious if Lou Midgley or Dan Peterson have come out publicly praising Brooke and John for the way they have handled their crisis of faith? Both apologists biggest gripe with Grant Palmer was their claim that Grant should have left his employment with CES. Have these two apologists gone on record for their support of the McLays?

There is no way that either of those Mopologists will ever say such a thing. They are absolutists on this issue, meaning that, to them, there is no acceptable reason to leave the Church.