Botched Rescue in Boise

[_consiglieri]

I was able to listen to the recording of the Boise Rescue last night.

Here are a few thoughts:

1. I don't want to repeat everything Kish has said, which is sound and insightful, but I agree the main theme was that the current prophet is in a direct line of succession from Joseph Smith and has all the keys. Nobody else has the keys. Nobody else has been called by somebody with the keys; and nobody else has been sustained by the membership of the Church. Hence, it can be nobody else.

2. Brigham Young is the lynchpin in the argument. They focused a lot of attention on the legitimacy of his succession, comparing him to James Strange who (horror of horrors) actually replicated a lot of the things Joseph Smith did, including producing a book of scripture and having witnesses testify to its authenticity. But he was obviously a fraud, because the letter of appointment he produced at the time has been examined since and the signature purporting to be that of Joseph Smith is considered a fraud.

Noticeable by its absence was any mention of the transfiguration of Brigham Young's face and voice to that of Joseph Smith.

Oh, yes, and what was Elder Oaks' weighty answer to the question of whether Brigham Young was the proper successor with the keys of the priesthood? If I heard him correctly, his answer was, "Who else could it be?" I'm sure that wowed the yokels in Boise.

But as I think about this, it may be that Strang is given as a counterexample to the true priesthood succession precisely because he was so much like Joseph Smith. It is almost as if the argument is crafted as a reason why current leadership does not replicate any of Joseph's charismatic gifts. So in spite of the fact the Book of Mormon pronounces woe on any people that does not have the faith to produce spiritual gifts (because the same faith is required for salvation), the very fact that the current leadership does not manifest such gifts is actually a good thing because . . . well . . . they would be like that nut job Strang.

3. And here Oaks got into sticky stuff with his answer to the question of why it is that modern apostles haven't seen Jesus. Here he is playing right into Denver Snuffer's hands, and it is obviously his argument to which Oaks is responding.

Oaks starts by saying that seeing Jesus in this lifetime is a good goal, but apostles don't have to see him because they are not testifying they have seen him, but are only to testify of his "name." (Here Oliver Cowdery's 1835 exhortation to the original apostles was noticeably absent.) But then Oaks pulls a total Boyd K. Packer and says that maybe we have seen Jesus, but we can't go talking about it because in today's society, mention of such a thing would be carried far and wide in the blink of an eye.

It is funny that Elder Oaks sees this as a bad thing. One might think that an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ would be pleased to have his witness of the Savior be heard by as many people as possible.

But no, that would be "casting pearls before swine." So once again, we have an apostle suggesting to the masses that the apostles have, in fact, seen Jesus, but they aren't going to tell because it is just too sacred to share. (Another contrast with Joseph Smith.)

4. Elder Turley spent so much time talking about nothing it was clear he was eating up the clock. Then he went way out of his way to talk about how busy he was in law school, what with being the editor of the law journal, and being an elders' quorum president, and being a father with four children who read the scriptures every day and blah, blah, freaking blah.

But he nevertheless found time to take a New Testament Greek course. And he uses all of this as a long wind-up not only to show how fantastic he is, but in order to introduce a long-standing criticism of the Book of Mormon.

It is, of course, the old chestnut, that the Book of Mormon mentions Jesus bleeding from every pore in Gethsemane, but the one passage that says a similar thing in the New Testament (Luke) was almost certainly a late addition.

So it isn't difficult enough to explain how it is the Book of Mormon is referring to Luke before Luke was written, now it turns out that the reference in Luke was likely not there in the original manuscript.

This does tend to make Joseph Smith look like he was cribbing from his KJV.

But instead of going there, Elder Turley says that what "really" happened was this important fact was almost lost from Luke, but thank goodness for the Book of Mormon that preserved this plain and precious truth.

This was so backward and counterintuitive, it was difficult for me to believe he was actually making that argument.

5. Maybe this is why Elder Oaks said it took the two of them a number of weeks to come up with the material they presented. Weeks? Really? That alone says something. I know it was intended to give the impression that this was material dug up deep from the doctrinal well, but there is more insightful stuff said on this board any given day of the week than what Elders Oaks and Turley came up with.


6. Unlike the Swedish Rescue Mission, there was no Q&A session. I guess Turley learned his lesson after getting his butt kicked all over the place the last time.

7. Okay, I think I am getting to the end. The final story that Elder Oaks told amazed me. He spoke of how he and President (of the 12) Benson were invited to a cow-milking contest, and how there ended up being only one cow. Elder Oaks (President of BYU at the time?) deferred to President Benson, allowing him to be on the right side of the cow, which is apparently well-known to all farm boys as being the safe and proper side from which to milk.

Elder Oaks got on the left side and started milking.

The cow kicked Elder Oaks and he went for a somersault.

Elder Oaks concluded with the moral: "Stay on the right side."

I thought it was good that Elder Oaks told a self-deprecating story, but of course, he told it in order to enforce the idea that everybody should do exactly what he is telling them to do, so there was a bit of an ulterior motive.

The moral I took away from the story was somewhat different.

Elder Oaks deferred to a church leader.

Because Elder Oaks deferred to a church leader, Elder Oaks got kicked on his ass.

The moral of the story?

Always defer to church leaders.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

Oh, one other thing.

I kept thinking how the exact line of reasoning about priesthood succession being propounded in Boise would work just as well in the Vatican.

And every time Elder Oaks talked about "false prophets," I couldn't help thinking how many in his audience were looking at him wondering whether they were being addressed by one.

Okay, that was two other things.

[_consiglieri]

And another thing I forgot.

And this one may be important.

In his introductory remarks, Elder Oaks mentions belief in three things as being paramount.

Belief in Joseph Smith, belief in the Book of Mormon, and belief in the current leadership.

(I found Elder Oaks' forthrightness in omitting Jesus Christ from the triumvirate of core beliefs refreshing.)

But it is what he said after that which caught my attention.

He said that when a member's beliefs start straying too far from any of those three core beliefs, that member is going into the realm of apostasy.

Nothing about blogging. Nothing about gaining a following. Nothing about trying to convert others.

Just belief.

I think Elder Oaks finally put on record how he really feels.

Apostasy is a state of believing the wrong thing.

Pure and simple.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Cue Tom Cruise and the little metal spiders.

[_Symmachus]

It is, of course, the old chestnut, that the Book of Mormon mentions Jesus bleeding from every pore in Gethsemane, but the one passage that says a similar thing in the New Testament (Luke) was almost certainly a late addition.

So it isn't difficult enough to explain how it is the Book of Mormon is referring to Luke before Luke was written, now it turns out that the reference in Luke was likely not there in the original manuscript.

This does tend to make Joseph Smith look like he was cribbing from his KJV.

But instead of going there, Elder Turley says that what "really" happened was this important fact was almost lost from Luke, but thank goodness for the Book of Mormon that preserved this plain and precious truth.

This was so backward and counterintuitive, it was difficult for me to believe he was actually making that argument.

That's as far as I've got in listening to this. I guess it's no accident that Turly was an academically gifted lawyer, because the Church needs a lawyer to make their case seem, no matter how weak and flimsy, as solid as Oaks imagines it to be, and Turley does it well for those searching for arguments to preserve their belief. For those just looking for good arguments, it's less effective.

I am amazed that the apostolic administrators even took time from their busy schedule to come tell the saints of Boise to get in line, but from what I have heard so far and what I have read here, their primary audience for this roadshow was not the liberal Dehlinites. Liberalism in religion can easily be placated because most of the hangups are about policy, and that is something religious institutions can control. If they don't want to change the policy, liberal members are easier to cow into submission and don't usually go starting their own sects. The real threat to religious institutions is usually not the liberal agitators but those in search of exuberant religious charisma, something that administrators of religious institutions usually don't have and can't fake, and something they can't create just by changing policy. It's also much harder to wrench submission from someone who thinks s/he has seen Jesus, as Mormons should know by looking at their own holy story.

I have seen a few references here to the Mormon "reformation" of the 1850s, but keep in mind the means by which that link to priesthood authority was reestablished with the membership: rebaptisms, gifts of tongues, fiery sermons, etc. In a word: charisma. In this case, the problem is that the charisma looks like it is outside the priesthood chain—that's what Oaks is responding to, if I read Consig's summary rightly—and the only argument that they can muster is, well, nothing to see here: "you don't need to see Jesus" (apostle-boss waves hand)..."I don't need to see Jesus," member is supposed to reply.

"...move along, move along."

We'll see if they do. In the meantime, I say good luck to the church bosses, because this is Boise we are talking about right now, and I suspect snuffing out Snufferism there is probably small potatoes compared to the showdown between institution and charisma that will inevitably happen in Latin America and Africa when members there who start manifesting the gifts and seeing Jesus get excommunicated by white-shirted gringos.

[_Maksutov]

[The real threat to religious institutions is usually not the liberal agitators but those in search of exuberant religious charisma, something that administrators of religious institutions usually don't have and can't fake, and something they can't create just by changing policy. It's also much harder to wrench submission from someone who thinks s/he has seen Jesus, as Mormons should know by looking at their own holy story.

...snip...

We'll see if they do. In the meantime, I say good luck to the church bosses, because this is Boise we are talking about right now, and I suspect snuffing out Snufferism there is probably small potatoes compared to the showdown between institution and charisma that will inevitably happen in Latin America and Africa when members there who start manifesting the gifts and seeing Jesus get excommunicated by white-shirted gringos.

Excellent.

[_DonBradley]

Consiglieri:

But as I think about this, it may be that Strang is given as a counterexample to the true priesthood succession precisely because he was so much like Joseph Smith. It is almost as if the argument is crafted as a reason why current leadership does not replicate any of Joseph's charismatic gifts. So in spite of the fact the Book of Mormon pronounces woe on any people that does not have the faith to produce spiritual gifts (because the same faith is required for salvation), the very fact that the current leadership does not manifest such gifts is actually a good thing because . . . well . . . they would be like that nut job Strang.

Hahahahaha!

[_Fence Sitter]

So we have two example of the church trying to conduct some sort of damage control in face to face meetings in the Swedish and Boise recues. I think there are other similar type meeting conducted by the Givens, Bushman and others, also in a face to face setting.

When is the church going to realize that this the age of electronic communication? That for every member sitting in the pew listening to some church authority defending the church, there will be ten times that in front of a computer dissecting the defense? The church is conducting a trench warfare campaign in a computer warfare age.

This will not turn out well for them.

[_DonBradley]

MG,

I've yet to listen to it. What's your overall judgment?

How effective will it be in responding to criticisms from these various directions and keeping those who might otherwise accept the criticisms from actually doing so?

Don

I think the effect of this presentation, at least for me, was to remind/show me that there are scriptures...not a few...that cut to the chase as to what we see going on around us. It is then a matter of whether or not we have any confidence in scriptural authority...ancient and modern...to act as a means of explanatory authority in regards to what current conditions are on the ground. We naturally want to make things complex and convoluted to the point that we then have a difficult time coming to terms with what we see. It's just SO complicated and/or nuanced...many say. If we go with scriptural authority and reason, it is all rather simple...and presciently obvious that God knew what was going to occur in the latter times. Again, that is, if you are willing to give scriptural authority any credence.

When all is said and done, I don't think that any other approach other than the one they took...authority of scripture and keys of the kingdom residing in the prophets and apostles...would have been a wise course to take...even though they probably could have. It's not like both of these guys aren't respected academics. Truth is, however, they would have just gotten themselves into heated arguments within the realms of scholarly debate and historical conundrums that would lead to various rabbit holes that up to this point don't seem to lead to anywhere resulting in final answers.

Regards,
MG

MG,

Interesting! Thank you for sharing your reading of the overall message. It's interesting that they'd be setting these current events within a scriptural frame.

I still need to listen to the recording. How long is it, total?

But one thought that occurred to me as I was reading your summation is that employing the scriptures as the standard of judgment appears to also be exactly what Snuffer and Waterman are attempting. Dissatisfied with using Latter-day Saint tradition, policy, and current leader statements, they've attempted to assess both our behavior as members and the contemporary church's practices using the scriptures, or standard works, as the standard of measurement.

The scriptures tend to present ideal cases, and anti-ideal cases, and thus, as you note, cut through a lot of self-justification, as well as a lot of nuance and complexity--for better or for worse.

Consequently, Snuffer and Waterman reject things like the church's "worldly" economic success, the failure to add new scripture, the absence of visionary experiences--or, in contradistinction to scriptural prophets and apostles, the failure to bear witness to such experiences, and so on.

There is a measure of unrealism, and even anti-realism, in Snuffer's and Waterman's preaching. But the model for this is scripture itself, which, as you observe above, makes things either black or white.

Perhaps this will come clearer to me as I actually listen to Elder Oaks' and Rick's use of scripture, but I wonder if their use of scripture against the assertions of Snuffer and Waterman was not only a way of appealing to authority but also of meeting these critics on their own turf, so to speak--that of using scripture as the basis for their arguments.

The scriptures are, as they themselves say, a double-edged sword. While Elder Oaks and Rick Turley can use the scriptures to dismiss Snuffer and Waterman as false prophets because of their lack of the scriptural criterion of priesthood keys, passages from that same canon of scripture also provide the basis on which Snuffer and Waterman dismiss the church leaders as false prophets, or non-prophets, because the prophets in the scriptures do many things differently, such as adding scripture and bearing witness to present-day theophanies and visions.

The Snuffer and Waterman assessments of the present-day church are, at root, scripturally fundamentalist critiques. It's interesting that the critiques offered of them are in the same vein, and that people on different sides of the same divide can each understand themselves to be weighing the others against the scriptures and finding them wanting.

I'll have more to say about the specifics when I've had time to listen to them.

Don

[_Tobin]

I think the effect of this presentation, at least for me, was to remind/show me that there are scriptures...not a few...that cut to the chase as to what we see going on around us. It is then a matter of whether or not we have any confidence in scriptural authority...ancient and modern...to act as a means of explanatory authority in regards to what current conditions are on the ground. We naturally want to make things complex and convoluted to the point that we then have a difficult time coming to terms with what we see. It's just SO complicated and/or nuanced...many say. If we go with scriptural authority and reason, it is all rather simple...and presciently obvious that God knew what was going to occur in the latter times. Again, that is, if you are willing to give scriptural authority any credence.

When all is said and done, I don't think that any other approach other than the one they took...authority of scripture and keys of the kingdom residing in the prophets and apostles...would have been a wise course to take...even though they probably could have. It's not like both of these guys aren't respected academics. Truth is, however, they would have just gotten themselves into heated arguments within the realms of scholarly debate and historical conundrums that would lead to various rabbit holes that up to this point don't seem to lead to anywhere resulting in final answers.

Regards,
MG

MG,

Interesting! Thank you for sharing your reading of the overall message. It's interesting that they'd be setting these current events within a scriptural frame.

I still need to listen to the recording. How long is it, total?

But one thought that occurred to me as I was reading your summation is that employing the scriptures as the standard of judgment appears to also be exactly what Snuffer and Waterman are attempting. Dissatisfied with using Latter-day Saint tradition, policy, and current leader statements, they've attempted to assess both our behavior as members and the contemporary church's practices using the scriptures, or standard works, as the standard of measurement.

The scriptures tend to present ideal cases, and anti-ideal cases, and thus, as you note, cut through a lot of self-justification, as well as a lot of nuance and complexity--for better or for worse.

Consequently, Snuffer and Waterman reject things like the church's "worldly" economic success, the failure to add new scripture, the absence of visionary experiences--or, in contradistinction to scriptural prophets and apostles, the failure to bear witness to such experiences, and so on.

There is a measure of unrealism, and even anti-realism, in Snuffer's and Waterman's preaching. But the model for this is scripture itself, which, as you observe above, makes things either black or white.

Perhaps this will come clearer to me as I actually listen to Elder Oaks' and Rick's use of scripture, but I wonder if their use of scripture against the assertions of Snuffer and Waterman was not only a way of appealing to authority but also of meeting these critics on their own turf, so to speak--that of using scripture as the basis for their arguments.

The scriptures are, as they themselves say, a double-edged sword. While Elder Oaks and Rick Turley can use the scriptures to dismiss Snuffer and Waterman as false prophets because of their lack of the scriptural criterion of priesthood keys, passages from that same canon of scripture also provide the basis on which Snuffer and Waterman dismiss the church leaders as false prophets, or non-prophets, because the prophets in the scriptures do many things differently, such as adding scripture and bearing witness to present-day theophanies and visions.

The Snuffer and Waterman assessments of the present-day church are, at root, scripturally fundamentalist critiques. It's interesting that the critiques offered of them are in the same vein, and that people on different sides of the same divide can each understand themselves to be weighing the others against the scriptures and finding them wanting.

I'll have more to say about the specifics when I've had time to listen to them.

Don

I've never been very impressed by people that invoke magic sayings, which in many ways is exactly how the scriptures are used by many religious people, as a meaningful exercise in a debate or a discussion. In fact, when people quote scriptures at me, I tend to call them on it by asking them why I should take what they are saying seriously?

Now, if you believe the stories have a basis in fact (and that the other pieces of advice instill some kind of godly wisdom), then Snuffer and Waterman have a very good point to make. If these stories are about real beings that have appeared, then why exactly haven't any modern LDS leaders seen and relayed their experiences with these beings (and whatever sagely advice they have to give) to the rest of us? I think it is a very good criticism of LDS leaders and a clear indication that they are not people we should be listening to (or at least, they are not the leaders these beings feel are worthy of speaking with).

[_mentalgymnast]

...the scriptures as the standard of judgment appears to also be exactly what Snuffer and Waterman are attempting. Dissatisfied with using Latter-day Saint tradition, policy, and current leader statements, they've attempted to assess both our behavior as members and the contemporary church's practices using the scriptures, or standard works, as the standard of measurement.
Don

Yes, I believe this is where they are coming from.

I have two friends that I came to know, both of them were in my ward. They have both moved on. They were both purveyors of the views of Denver Snuffer. In fact, I borrowed The Heavenly Gift from one of these two persons and read a good portion of it. I've been on day hikes with the fellow that lent me the book and heard him describe in great detail where he is coming from. As it turns out, both of these folks had something in common. They could stand up at the pulpit and bear testimony of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith with great power and emotion. They would receive kudos from fellow ward members for their Spirit filled testimony. With both of these fellows, however, I would talk with them one on one and they would reveal to me that they knew the current leaders of the church were out of harmony with God/Christ/Joseph Smith and were in a state of apostasy. My guess is that these two represent the mindset of many of the Snufferites.

I think that what Elder Oaks and Elder Turley are attempting to say as they use the scriptures as their authoritative source is that once one comes out in open rebellion against the current leadership of the church and teaches that they are out of the way, so to speak, then that defines and/or results in apostasy. By this definition many of the Snufferites may be in a state of apostasy. Thus the visit to Eagle/Boise.

Yes, both sides DO use the scriptures for their prooftexts in their attempts to show that the 'other' is 'out of the way'. I suppose it will all come down to whether people side with those that say the leaders are out of the way or they side with the prophets and apostles.

Pretty much that simple, isn't it?

Regards,
MG