Botched Rescue in Boise

[_mentalgymnast]

...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.

I don't know that it's as much whether or not 'Snufferite' members are seeking after "the heavenly gift" and the second comforter, etc., as it is that they are also being taught/encouraged to invalidate/criticize the current church leadership and teach that they are 'out of the way'.

There does seem to be an underlying practice/teaching in the post restoration times we live in of not tooting one's own horn in regards to spiritual manifestations. I'm not sure where the Snufferites stand in their views on horn tooting. The two fellows I referred to in a recent post didn't seem to be horn tooters in the sense that they were going into detail regarding spiritual experiences. But they both had strong feelings for the Book of Mormon prophets and teachings found in the Book of Mormon. Two very interesting fellows. One of them has now been excommunicated. Nice guy, I consider him to be a friend.

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Sounds about right.

[_Kishkumen]

The two fellows I referred to in a recent post didn't seem to be horn tooters in the sense that they were going into detail regarding spiritual experiences. But they both had strong feelings for the Book of Mormon prophets and teachings found in the Book of Mormon.

[_honorentheos]

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 would you personally interpret the scriptures they used during their presentation? How would you interpretation conflict with theirs? I think the possible interpretations of the scriptures that Elder Oaks and Turley used are rather limited in scope. I'd like to know how you would look at them differently and how you would then know that your interpretation is correct.

Regards,
MG

Starting with Elder Oak's first quote, 1 Timothy 4:1

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

I think the point Kishkumen made about the value of the historical context applies. Consider, for example, this scripture from the New Testament:

1 John 2:18
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

This raises quite a number of questions. Is the author here speaking to you as a 21st Century Mormon? Or to those in their own time? I suspect most Mormon's would agree there is an immediate audience intended here, but then tend to "liken the scriptures" to suggest there is applications for modern Bible readers.

Thus the historical question: Has there ever been a time when established religion did not harbor the same feelings towards the inevitable cultural evolution and change at work in any social order? And wouldn't the same scriptures quoted by Oaks have application in a multitude of settings throughout history? Could they be stripped of their Christian color and repainted with Islamic tones and be used within that culture just as legitimately? Or by GE to complain about Google?

What exactly is it that was said that isn't best seen as the eternal tug-of-war that takes place in human cultures?

Moving to a more specific point the authorship of 1 Timothy is questioned in biblical scholarship, as I understand it because 1 Timothy and Titus bear vocabulary markers of later documents that deal with church governance, and that have a different voice from 2 Timothy which is considered to have at least some material authentic to Paul if perhaps restructured from multiple sources into one epistle.

In light of the latter, you have a 21st C. person citing a pseudepigraphic text (attributed thus to give it authority the actual author did not possess?) in order to contest challengers to the establishment that was written perhaps with intent to address similar issues in the early centuries of the Christian era.

What it says to me is there is nothing new under the sun. Especially when it comes to established bodies resisting change agents.

[_I have a question]

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.

Cue:
When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.
When the Prophet speaks the debate is over.
Follow the Prophet even when he's wrong.
Some things that are true aren't useful.
The truth doesn't uplift, it destroys.

Etc, etc, etc.

The reality is that only one thing is paramount. Disbelief in Joseph doesn't result in excommunication, disbelief in the Book of Mormon doesn't result in excommunication. Disobeying the current leadership, excommunication.

These kinds of 'rescue' meetings are happening all over the place.
Holland held one in Scotland recently.

At some point it may dawn on them that answering member questions with glib statements that go nowhere near answering them is having precisely no positive effect. Mind you, they are in a difficult position. The last attempt at answering those questions, The Essays, did more harm than good in that it not only didn't arrest the tide of inactivity, it made it worse.

These rescue sessions only succeed with the members who aren't in need of rescue.
Preaching to the choir.

[_Kishkumen]

Starting with Elder Oak's first quote, 1 Timothy 4:1

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

I think the point Kishkumen made about the value of the historical context applies. Consider, for example, this scripture from the New Testament:

1 John 2:18
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

This raises quite a number of questions. Is the author here speaking to you as a 21st Century Mormon? Or to those in their own time? I suspect most Mormon's would agree there is an immediate audience intended here, but then tend to "liken the scriptures" to suggest there is applications for modern Bible readers.

Thus the historical question: Has there ever been a time when established religion did not harbor the same feelings towards the inevitable cultural evolution and change at work in any social order? And wouldn't the same scriptures quoted by Oaks have application in a multitude of settings throughout history? Could they be stripped of their Christian color and repainted with Islamic tones and be used within that culture just as legitimately? Or by GE to complain about Google?

What exactly is it that was said that isn't best seen as the eternal tug-of-war that takes place in human cultures?

Moving to a more specific point the authorship of 1 Timothy is questioned in biblical scholarship, as I understand it because 1 Timothy and Titus bear vocabulary markers of later documents that deal with church governance, and that have a different voice from 2 Timothy which is considered to have at least some material authentic to Paul if perhaps restructured from multiple sources into one epistle.

In light of the latter, you have a 21st C. person citing a pseudepigraphic text (attributed thus to give it authority the actual author did not possess?) in order to contest challengers to the establishment that was written perhaps with intent to address similar issues in the early centuries of the Christian era.

What it says to me is there is nothing new under the sun. Especially when it comes to established bodies resisting change agents.

Well done, honorentheos. One can bring countless examples to the table. Each shows that the alleged certainties upheld, the faith defended, and the claims forwarded all rely upon highly contestable or dubious views. A smattering of learning and information is used to mollify nervous members whose friends went to that Denver Snuffer fireside, and all the while the real issues are avoided. And what are the real issues?

Is the real issue the fact that religion is not fact based?

Hello duh!

That can't be the real issue. There will always be a fresh supply of decent folk who don't know enough to catch the many errors in religious claims. If acquiring a little learning should teach anyone anything, it is that the depths of our human ignorance are terrifying. But too many people lack even that perspective, so when their friendly neighbors or the 19 year old optimists come around to tell you about Jesus in America, they say, "why not?" And before they know it they are committing to hand over 10% of their income to a corporation with vast real estate holdings including vacation homes for its leaders.

No, the real questions are these: Why care? Why sacrifice? The LDS Church offers less compelling reasons all the time. Many people figure this out right after baptism. The wonderful picture the missionaries presented (including lots of attention from fresh-faced teenage kids) evaporates when the reality of a dreary ward routine sinks in. The teachings are dry and repetitive. The aesthetic is soul destroying outside of a few old-timey hymns. There are lots of pointless, time-wasting meetings. Ideally you are culturally illiterate, white, conservative, and cisgender (or at least a preponderance of the aforementioned). Otherwise, chances are you will eventually either quit or embrace the religion as a Zen exercise of some kind.

I can't shake the hugely insightful post Symmachus published in December of 2014. It was so spot on. My wife and I have said it to each other repeatedly: It is one thing for the Church not to be true; what is truly damning is that it is miserable.

[_Tom]

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?

Because it could only be an attorney—especially one who is academically gifted, steeped in Mormon history, deeply loyal to the institution, and a member of the clique of families that still dominate the LDS hierarchy—who could write a book like this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=IqrDD ... &q&f=false

It helps too that, with barely any experience, he was probably not commanding the sort of salary that would make it hard to lure him away from law.

Yes. I just came across some news articles about Turley's labors as a hired gun. Some excerpts from a 1989 article in the Deseret News:

Turley began working at the historical department in January 1986 in the midst of the Hofmann investigation. Police had targeted Hofmann as their prime suspect in the Oct. 15, 1985, bombing deaths of Steve Christensen and Kathleen Sheets. Investigators were focusing on an elaborate forgery scheme involving church and historical documents as the motive behind the murders.

The historian found the case intriguing. In his role with the church historical department, he began documenting the Hofmann saga. However, after reading the three Hofmann books - "Salamander," "The Mormon Murders" and "A Gathering of Saints," - Turley concluded the truth had not been told. The authors had "overstepped their bounds" in speculating on the motives of church officials, he argues.

LDS officials did not commission the book, but they endorse his efforts, he said. They have signed affidavits granting permission for transcripts of interviews with investigators, police memos and research to be released. Additionally, Turley has access to personal calendars, office memos, all public relations correspondence and press conference transcripts.

During his business hours with the historical department, Turley researches the book but also devotes many hours outside his job to the project.

A publication date has not been set and he has not contracted with a publisher. This is his first book.

"It's really not important to me whether the book sells well or not. I view it more as a scholarly, historical endeavor," he said.

Wilford Kirton, attorney for the LDS Church, recently sent a letter to the Salt Lake City Police Department and the Salt Lake County attorney's office requesting access to law enforcement records "in order to present to the public an accurate record of the church's involvement." The request serves a dual purpose: It benefits the historical department's effort to compile a history of the Hofmann case and Turley's research for his book, Turley said.

Kirton's letter states that the three Hofmann books "contain inaccuracies and misinformation that distort the church's role in the case and portray the church in a negative light."

Excerpts from another article:

Until now, the truth about the infamous Mark Hofmann forgeries and bombings has been distorted, sensationalized and exaggerated to the point of becoming myth, contends author Richard E. Turley Jr.

The media frenzy surrounding the events of October 1985 - when two people were killed by pipe bombs - has ignored the victimization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Turley said in a press conference Friday.To provide "thoughtful, corrective" insight from the perspective of the LDS Church as another Hofmann victim, Turley has published his book "Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case." It is the fourth book written on the intriguing murder-forgery case that altered Mormon and American history.

Seven years ago, handmade pipe bombs killed Steven F. Chris-tensen, a historical documents collector, and Kathleen Sheets, wife of Christensen's business partner. The investigation and the longest preliminary hearing in Utah history exposed Hofmann as a master manipulator and forger of documents who murdered in an attempt to divert attention from his plot to defraud collectors.

The controversy that characterizes the Hofmann case continues with the publication of Turley's book.

Reporters questioned Turley's objectivity Friday because he is an employee of the LDS Church.

An attorney who left his practice to become a historian, Turley is currently the managing director of the LDS Church Historical Department. The aspect that sets "Victims" apart from the other books, he contends, is his unprecedented access to church officials - through exclusive interviews, use of their diaries and previously unavailable church documents.

For example, readers get a personal glimpse into the anguish Elder Dallin H. Oaks, member of the Quorum of the Twelve, experienced during the days following the bombings.

Turley quotes Oaks' journal: "The papers and TV are portraying me (by innuendo) as a sinister directing force because of the admission that I had met with Hofmann on the day of the first two bombings. I have remained silent, cheerfully, under the strategy that we would not give all the facts until charges were filed. But it is a little disquieting to think about what my friends and just casual observers are suspecting or concluding from this one-sided, leering or sneering publicity."

The book documents the LDS Church's frustrating efforts to authenticate Hofmann's brilliant forgeries and portrays, often poignantly, the emotional pain Hofmann inflicted on church officials and their families. Turley provides, as he puts it, "a richness and depth" to the tragedy through his more personal access.

But it's that exclusive access that has raised suspicion.

Turley indicated that "a substantial amount of writing was done on church time." He considered his position similar to a professor doing research and publishing at a university. He also devoted most of his free time to the book.

But he insists the book is his own work - not a "cover-up" by LDS officials. Proceeds from the book will go to him and his publisher - not the LDS Church.

"Even though church officials read the manuscript, all honored my desire to retain editorial control over its contents," Turley said.

"In no case did (review by others) lead to the omission of any material information about church officials' roles in the story."

Speaking for LDS Church officials, Don LeFevre, media relations director, told the Deseret News: "The church cooperated with Mr. Turley in his preparation of the book, but he and his publisher are responsible for its contents."

Allen Roberts, who co-authored the book "Salamander" with Linda Sillitoe, said Turley's interest seems to be to put the church in the most favorable light rather than give equal and fair treatment to all sides of the story.

[_consiglieri]

I have long found it a stretch to consider the LDS Church a "victim" in the Hofmann affair.

[_Tobin]

I have long found it a stretch to consider the LDS Church a "victim" in the Hofmann affair.

Really?!? That seems like a rather unreasonable position to take. Isn't it a well-known fact that at least some of Hofmann's forgeries targeted the LDS Church?

[_Kishkumen]

I have long found it a stretch to consider the LDS Church a "victim" in the Hofmann affair.

Indeed.

It is interesting that Turley was hired within a few months after the bombings. The Church had a public relations and legal nightmare on its hands, so it conveniently employed an amateur historian and professional lawyer as Assistant Managing Director of the Historical Department of the Church. Hmmm...