Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
moksha
Posts: 3213
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by moksha » Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:08 am

Found this incredible Dehlin podcast on Mormon Stories about B.H. Roberts. Thought you history buffs would be interested.
https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/b-h-roberts/

This is an interview with a Shannon Caldwell Montez – who recently completed a Master’s Thesis at the University of Nevada – Reno entitled: “The Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922.”
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 4580
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by Hagoth » Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:45 am

This sounds fascinating. Thanks for the heads-up, Moksha.

Some people claim that Roberts was merely playing devil's advocate and speaking from the hypothetical position of a critic of the Book of Mormon, but that's not how I read it. I'm really looking forward to hearing what Montez came away with after really digging into this.

Points that stood out to me in Roberts' Studies of the Book of Mormon (in the Madsen and McMurrin book):

Discussing the similarities of anti-Christs who were separated by centuries:
"...they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that is a young and underdeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are the product of history..."(270).
"For these absurdities in expression; these miraculous incidents in warfare; those almost mock - and certainly extravagant - heroics; these lapses of the main characters about conditions obtaining, are certainly just such absurdities and lapses as would be looked for if a person of such limitations as bounded Joseph Smith undertook to put forth a book dealing with the history and civilization of ancient peoples." (277)
"Is all this sober history inspired written and true, representing things that actually happened? Or is it a wonder-tale of an immature mind, unconscious of what a test he is laying on human credulity when asking men to accept his narrative as solemn history?" (283)
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by deacon blues » Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:20 am

I have been enjoying this also. My undiagnosed ADD allows me to listen to about 30 minutes at a time, so I'm still in the middle of it, but it's great. Hagoth's comments above remind me of an email from my bishop's councilor that was sent out to our ward members. It was probably written with people like me in mind. Here is part of it:

"Are we different today? There are those that have left the church because of doubts raised by the modern day Nehors and Korihors. They have accepted the doubts created by these Anti-Christs as spiritual facts, when they should have looked to our modern prophets for the truths that come from our Heavenly Father. We know that God will not allow our prophet to lead us astray. There are many things that we don’t have answers to that may be troubling, but if we put our trust in the spiritual leaders who have been called and exercise faith, and do as Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, asked us to do, ‘doubt our doubts’, we will have the Holy Ghost testify to us that we are on the right path.
I testify that trusting in our modern-day prophets is the way that will lead us to a life of happiness and peace. In the name of Jesus Christ Amen"

I wrote a repy but I haven't sent it. Here is part of it:

Boyd's thought: Bro. ------- is a kind and wonderful man and a good friend, but I feel he has been mislead by a lack of information and/or misinformation.For me doubts were raised by such people as David Whitmer, Martin Harris, B.H. Roberts, Richard Bushman, Lucy Mack Smith, Willard Richards, Brigham Young, Church Essays, and even Joseph Smith himself. They are not Korihors or anti-Christs. I would submit that unbiased Church history teaches that God has allowed prophets to lead us astray in some very significant ways, and since neither God nor the Church forces prophets to face their mistakes this is at best a gray area. Last I checked all mortal Church prophets and apostles have arms of flesh.
God is Love. God is Truth

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1508
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by jfro18 » Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:26 am

deacon blues wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:20 am
I have been enjoying this also. My undiagnosed ADD allows me to listen to about 30 minutes at a time, so I'm still in the middle of it, but it's great. Hagoth's comments above remind me of an email from my bishop's councilor that was sent out to our ward members. It was probably written with people like me in mind. Here is part of it:

"Are we different today? There are those that have left the church because of doubts raised by the modern day Nehors and Korihors. They have accepted the doubts created by these Anti-Christs as spiritual facts, when they should have looked to our modern prophets for the truths that come from our Heavenly Father. We know that God will not allow our prophet to lead us astray. There are many things that we don’t have answers to that may be troubling, but if we put our trust in the spiritual leaders who have been called and exercise faith, and do as Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, asked us to do, ‘doubt our doubts’, we will have the Holy Ghost testify to us that we are on the right path.
I testify that trusting in our modern-day prophets is the way that will lead us to a life of happiness and peace. In the name of Jesus Christ Amen"
Is this a recent email? It's so offensive.

User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by deacon blues » Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:06 am

Yeah, I got it June 22. :roll:

I liked the B. H. Roberts quotes above that Hagoth listed. They speak so well to the issue of doubts. In fact the whole podcast does. :)

I really don't blame our 1st councilor. He's just repeating stuff he heard in Sunday School and/or general conference.
Remember this quote from Neal Maxwell as repeated by Neal Anderson in the Oct. 2014 general conference?

“Studying the Church … through the eyes of its defectors,” Elder Neal A. Maxwell once said, is “like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed.” :shock: :roll:
God is Love. God is Truth

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 4580
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by Hagoth » Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:10 am

deacon blues wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:20 am
Boyd's thought: Bro. ------- is a kind and wonderful man and a good friend, but I feel he has been mislead by a lack of information and/or misinformation.For me doubts were raised by such people as David Whitmer, Martin Harris, B.H. Roberts, Richard Bushman, Lucy Mack Smith, Willard Richards, Brigham Young, Church Essays, and even Joseph Smith himself. They are not Korihors or anti-Christs. I would submit that unbiased Church history teaches that God has allowed prophets to lead us astray in some very significant ways, and since neither God nor the Church forces prophets to face their mistakes this is at best a gray area. Last I checked all mortal Church prophets and apostles have arms of flesh.
What an awesome response.

I would probably have said that most of my concerns come from problems within the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants, and that I would be willing to go into as much detail as they would like to share with the ward mailing list, just so the ward doesn't get the mistaken impression that people with concerns are merely weak, lazy followers of Nehors and Korihors.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
Mormorrisey
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:54 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by Mormorrisey » Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:08 pm

The rest of the family did something I wasn't interested in last night, so not only did I re-listen to RFM's Hauglid interview, I listened to this one as well. It was fascinating. I knew the BH Roberts story, some years ago a friend lent me his BOM book, but it didn't really register with me at the time. And one of the better interviews on Mormon Stories, because they largely stuck to the history. The one thing I found fascinating was the Truman Madsen story - that he was denied permission to write a biography of Roberts in the 1960s. And then, when his papers come to light, they rehabilitate his image as a fearless defender of the truth. I think it's the perfect example of the MO of the church - bury the truth, and only resurrect it when you have to, because others found out what you were trying to hide (1832 first vision story, anyone?) Great episode.

I did have a hard time with John's gaslighting rant at the end, though, that "they know the problems and they're hiding it and gaslighting us," and oh the carnage! Lookit, I think it's much more nuanced than that. If my lovely wife, whose only motive in ignoring church history and the problems that come with it is to "safeguard her testimony," the stakes are that much higher for a GA who becomes aware of these problems. For example, I'm pretty confident that 80 to 90% of the GA's haven't even opened Rough Stone Rolling or have read one page of the JS papers project. They know there's issues, but they don't WANT to find out the full scope of the challenges. To me, it's that simple. Is it pathetic? Sure. Unethical? To some degree, yes. And is it institutionalized? Absolutely it is. And the challenge is that they rant and rave and demonize anybody who digs this stuff up. But I have a hard time believing that GA's know ALL the warts, all the problems, and they just lie about it with Machiavellian glee. Not particularly John's finest moment.
"And I don't need you...or, your homespun philosophies."
"And when you try to break my spirit, it won't work, because there's nothing left to break."

User avatar
Mormorrisey
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:54 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by Mormorrisey » Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:14 pm

deacon blues wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:20 am
I have been enjoying this also. My undiagnosed ADD allows me to listen to about 30 minutes at a time, so I'm still in the middle of it, but it's great. Hagoth's comments above remind me of an email from my bishop's councilor that was sent out to our ward members. It was probably written with people like me in mind. Here is part of it:

"Are we different today? There are those that have left the church because of doubts raised by the modern day Nehors and Korihors. They have accepted the doubts created by these Anti-Christs as spiritual facts, when they should have looked to our modern prophets for the truths that come from our Heavenly Father. We know that God will not allow our prophet to lead us astray. There are many things that we don’t have answers to that may be troubling, but if we put our trust in the spiritual leaders who have been called and exercise faith, and do as Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, asked us to do, ‘doubt our doubts’, we will have the Holy Ghost testify to us that we are on the right path.
I testify that trusting in our modern-day prophets is the way that will lead us to a life of happiness and peace. In the name of Jesus Christ Amen"

I wrote a repy but I haven't sent it. Here is part of it:

Boyd's thought: Bro. ------- is a kind and wonderful man and a good friend, but I feel he has been mislead by a lack of information and/or misinformation.For me doubts were raised by such people as David Whitmer, Martin Harris, B.H. Roberts, Richard Bushman, Lucy Mack Smith, Willard Richards, Brigham Young, Church Essays, and even Joseph Smith himself. They are not Korihors or anti-Christs. I would submit that unbiased Church history teaches that God has allowed prophets to lead us astray in some very significant ways, and since neither God nor the Church forces prophets to face their mistakes this is at best a gray area. Last I checked all mortal Church prophets and apostles have arms of flesh.
Oh, brother. What a horrible email, and your response is spot-on. Your response probably won't convince this guy, it'll just reinforce the nonsense he was spewing. But I would be tempted to send it!
"And I don't need you...or, your homespun philosophies."
"And when you try to break my spirit, it won't work, because there's nothing left to break."

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 4580
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by Hagoth » Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:01 pm

Can someone please clarify something for me? At one point in the discussion there was some mention of (I believe) James H. Moyle visiting David Whitmer and being told that he saw the angel and plates only with his spiritual eyes. I read a couple of accounts of this visit and they make it sound like Whitmer was claiming that he actually saw the angel with his physical eyes. What am I missing?
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1508
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by jfro18 » Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:15 am

Mormorrisey wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:08 pm
I did have a hard time with John's gaslighting rant at the end, though, that "they know the problems and they're hiding it and gaslighting us," and oh the carnage! Lookit, I think it's much more nuanced than that. If my lovely wife, whose only motive in ignoring church history and the problems that come with it is to "safeguard her testimony," the stakes are that much higher for a GA who becomes aware of these problems. For example, I'm pretty confident that 80 to 90% of the GA's haven't even opened Rough Stone Rolling or have read one page of the JS papers project. They know there's issues, but they don't WANT to find out the full scope of the challenges. To me, it's that simple. Is it pathetic? Sure. Unethical? To some degree, yes. And is it institutionalized? Absolutely it is. And the challenge is that they rant and rave and demonize anybody who digs this stuff up. But I have a hard time believing that GA's know ALL the warts, all the problems, and they just lie about it with Machiavellian glee. Not particularly John's finest moment.
I agree with this... I just finished the podcast and I felt a bit the same way. On some level I agree with John that the church can not hide from the evidence in the age of Google, but it's human nature to want to protect the beliefs we were raised on -- and that only gets amplified when we are in a position where our calling is to protect those beliefs.

It also felt like the last 45 minutes or so could've been filled with more info from the thesis instead of constantly going back to how the church suppresses info - we know that already so it felt like a bit of overkill as it went on and on.

But like I said - I agree on some level with where John is coming from because you can see how they dispatch these apologists to do their dirty work and to really use some awful arguments to skirt the issues while also using the "are you really willing to trade your exaltation for a bowl of porridge" nonsense that invokes fear into looking at these issues.

It was a great podcast and I hope there is a follow-up where Shannon gets a chance to really get into the meat of the issues found and how the 'intellectuals' tried to deal with them. I find that fascinating and now I need to get some time where I can read her thesis. :)

User avatar
Yobispo
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:35 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by Yobispo » Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:59 am

Mormorrisey wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:08 pm

I did have a hard time with John's gaslighting rant at the end, though, that "they know the problems and they're hiding it and gaslighting us," and oh the carnage! Lookit, I think it's much more nuanced than that. If my lovely wife, whose only motive in ignoring church history and the problems that come with it is to "safeguard her testimony," the stakes are that much higher for a GA who becomes aware of these problems. For example, I'm pretty confident that 80 to 90% of the GA's haven't even opened Rough Stone Rolling or have read one page of the JS papers project. They know there's issues, but they don't WANT to find out the full scope of the challenges. To me, it's that simple. Is it pathetic? Sure. Unethical? To some degree, yes. And is it institutionalized? Absolutely it is. And the challenge is that they rant and rave and demonize anybody who digs this stuff up. But I have a hard time believing that GA's know ALL the warts, all the problems, and they just lie about it with Machiavellian glee. Not particularly John's finest moment.
I'm 120 pages into the thesis, and there is plenty more in there that makes me think John wasn't too far off base, but the truth is somewhere in the middle as always. I agree with you that a large % of the GA's are ignorant, or at lest they were 5 years ago. At the 70-level, I think I could give most of them a pass until the last 5 years or so. This month's En-sun reveals that there is broad concern for "faith crisis", which means they have heard at least the faithful side of the current crisis of members leaving - do any of them have a shred of curiosity? If they choose to still not crack open Rough Stone, then they may be ignorant of the facts but it's just not good enough. I'm sorry, but these guys are out there laying down the company line of obedience and service to the church, doubts your doubts, etc. The fact that there is a serious problem (the actual history) is not a secret. If they choose to only read Saints, then they're cowards.

As for the Q15 - I would bet the farm that they all know everything and they also know they've painted themselves into a prophet-worshiping corner. Ballard & Oaks with their "we never hid anything!" routine, Holland getting caught in his fibs, Hinck was utterly dishonest on camera, Packer's "not all truths..." talk, JFS literally hiding evidence... they fricking know. At the apostle level, from BH Robert's meeting with the Q15 to today - they all know.

And one last little thought about the moral dilemma of whether or not the 70s should look under the bed for monsters (church history). A lot of things have been written about how hard it would be to be a 70/apostle and learn the troubled history because you're such a high-level person and how it could really hurt you and your family. Who could even begin to understand that pressure? Right? No. Totally wrong. You know who knows what that feels like? Me. You. Your friends and family who have faced down the actual history, had it rip your heart out and then you faced your spouse/kids/family/clients/non-mormon friends/etc. So they have a big calling, who cares. Many of us have had to wonder if our marriage will survive or if we'd lose face in our community. The difference is that we had the integrity to do it and they don't. I'm done giving them excuses.

User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by deacon blues » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:27 am

Hagoth wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:01 pm
Can someone please clarify something for me? At one point in the discussion there was some mention of (I believe) James H. Moyle visiting David Whitmer and being told that he saw the angel and plates only with his spiritual eyes. I read a couple of accounts of this visit and they make it sound like Whitmer was claiming that he actually saw the angel with his physical eyes. What am I missing?
Read the James Henry Moyle" section of Shannon's dissertation, p. 72-83. I was able to download it. My take was that after visiting with David Whitmer, Moyle was ambivalent about the visit, but felt it was ultimately faith-affirming.
God is Love. God is Truth

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1508
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by jfro18 » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:45 am

Yobispo wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:59 am
And one last little thought about the moral dilemma of whether or not the 70s should look under the bed for monsters (church history). A lot of things have been written about how hard it would be to be a 70/apostle and learn the troubled history because you're such a high-level person and how it could really hurt you and your family. Who could even begin to understand that pressure? Right? No. Totally wrong. You know who knows what that feels like? Me. You. Your friends and family who have faced down the actual history, had it rip your heart out and then you faced your spouse/kids/family/clients/non-mormon friends/etc. So they have a big calling, who cares. Many of us have had to wonder if our marriage will survive or if we'd lose face in our community. The difference is that we had the integrity to do it and they don't. I'm done giving them excuses.
This is perfectly well put - you said it way better than I was trying to!

User avatar
Mormorrisey
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:54 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by Mormorrisey » Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:55 am

jfro18 wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:45 am
Yobispo wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:59 am
And one last little thought about the moral dilemma of whether or not the 70s should look under the bed for monsters (church history). A lot of things have been written about how hard it would be to be a 70/apostle and learn the troubled history because you're such a high-level person and how it could really hurt you and your family. Who could even begin to understand that pressure? Right? No. Totally wrong. You know who knows what that feels like? Me. You. Your friends and family who have faced down the actual history, had it rip your heart out and then you faced your spouse/kids/family/clients/non-mormon friends/etc. So they have a big calling, who cares. Many of us have had to wonder if our marriage will survive or if we'd lose face in our community. The difference is that we had the integrity to do it and they don't. I'm done giving them excuses.
This is perfectly well put - you said it way better than I was trying to!
In many ways, I am with you both on this one, and I have moments of being angry at the lack of integrity shown by those who refuse to acknowledge the problems. My own faith journey has nearly cost me my marriage, it has certainly cost me my relationships I used to have at church, and at one point, nearly my job. So I do get what you are saying here, and because I'm still stuck having to go to church to make my marriage work, I'm continuing to pay a heavy price for staying and listening to stupid s%^t every Sunday, going to useless meetings I absolutely detest, and wasting my GD money on an organization I don't really see the same way I did so many years ago. So I'm certainly not going to be the one making excuses for them at all. And that's not what I really want to say.

I guess really what I object to, is the language that "they know." "They know it's all crap, and they're beating us down with it!" It's almost as if John Dehlin can't let go of his Mormon upbringing and is trying to be so certain of something you really can't be certain about. Now, can some "know" and deliberately hide it to get money and power? Sure, that's possible. And maybe even true for some (here's looking at you, Ballard!) I won't even deny that it's possible, but to me, it's still highly improbable. They have and always will strike me as true believers, and despite how difficult they make life for people like us, and me, I can still understand them.

Maybe to explain it a little better, I'll channel my inner Dan Vogel and call most of the GA's and apostles pious frauds. I think they do know some of the problems, but they don't dig into them; they read what they have to in order to barely understand them, and then proclaim to themselves that they know all the issues, and it doesn't affect their testimony. Or as jfro18 said, farm that job out to the FAIR lunatics so they have plausible deniability. It's that kind of pious "fraudery" that I absolutely believe they are doing, and it justifies them in protecting the institution with their thunder and wrath, all the while demonstrating their lack of knowledge. And that is absolutely a problem, especially when they turn around and demonize people like us, which in turn costs us our relationships. And that deserves some censure and rage, no doubt. But it's not unlike my SP friend, who to my face, told me he read all of the essays after our meetings a couple of years ago to familiarize himself with the issues - but it simply "strengthened his testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet." I just shook my head, realized he didn't really "read" them to critically think about them, but only that he could say he has a strong testimony to me and people like me. So I get it, believe me, that it's frustrating.

But I'm still not convinced, that they ALL know its bullcrap, and they just hide it for the sake of getting more money and power. It's simply more nuanced than that - they do think that the Mormon church is good, that it's true, and that it will save the world; and every action they take is to protect that institution so it can move forward with that mission. However ill-informed and silly that thinking is, I'm fairly sure that's more accurate than what John's saying. Just in my humble, internet nobody opinion.
"And I don't need you...or, your homespun philosophies."
"And when you try to break my spirit, it won't work, because there's nothing left to break."

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1508
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by jfro18 » Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:08 pm

Mormorrisey wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:55 am
Maybe to explain it a little better, I'll channel my inner Dan Vogel and call most of the GA's and apostles pious frauds. I think they do know some of the problems, but they don't dig into them; they read what they have to in order to barely understand them, and then proclaim to themselves that they know all the issues, and it doesn't affect their testimony. Or as jfro18 said, farm that job out to the FAIR lunatics so they have plausible deniability. It's that kind of pious "fraudery" that I absolutely believe they are doing, and it justifies them in protecting the institution with their thunder and wrath, all the while demonstrating their lack of knowledge. And that is absolutely a problem, especially when they turn around and demonize people like us, which in turn costs us our relationships. And that deserves some censure and rage, no doubt. But it's not unlike my SP friend, who to my face, told me he read all of the essays after our meetings a couple of years ago to familiarize himself with the issues - but it simply "strengthened his testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet." I just shook my head, realized he didn't really "read" them to critically think about them, but only that he could say he has a strong testimony to me and people like me. So I get it, believe me, that it's frustrating.
I agree with this, which is why I agree that John's rants near the end were just not necessary or, to your point, possible to confirm. It's like people who say that Emma was a co-conspirator to JS at some point... but if there's no evidence you can't know, so why talk about it?

But I do think that they know there are problems and are either too afraid to look into what they are or they are more concerned with keeping the church's power and influence maintained. So I think you're right in that they are pious frauds to some extent, but I also think they are cowards for refusing to tackle these issues head on for members who are struggling.

Nelson goes up there and gives his Sad Heaven talk where he's literally twisting the knife into every family where a kid leaves or a spouse leaves, and yet he refuses to give interviews or talk to people in an unscripted manner because he KNOWS that he can't answer these questions in a way that makes any sense to someone who isn't going 100% off emotional response.

So to me the leaders are cowards. They get up there at General Conference and tell the members that they'll be without their family for eternity if they leave, and that those who did leave will be empty seats. On top of that, they demonize those who leave as unruly children without giving answers to the reasons people leave and without being willing to admit they got it wrong on so many issues over the years.

I think John is wrong to make assumptions that he can't know for sure, but I still think that the leaders of this church are absolute cowards. I would kill to have a conversation with one of the GAs about these issues because I guarantee they can't answer them in any meanigful way as that one Mormon Stories/Infants on Thrones series with Trevor (I think?) illustrated quite well.

User avatar
Mormorrisey
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:54 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by Mormorrisey » Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:50 pm

jfro18 wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:08 pm
Mormorrisey wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:55 am
Maybe to explain it a little better, I'll channel my inner Dan Vogel and call most of the GA's and apostles pious frauds. I think they do know some of the problems, but they don't dig into them; they read what they have to in order to barely understand them, and then proclaim to themselves that they know all the issues, and it doesn't affect their testimony. Or as jfro18 said, farm that job out to the FAIR lunatics so they have plausible deniability. It's that kind of pious "fraudery" that I absolutely believe they are doing, and it justifies them in protecting the institution with their thunder and wrath, all the while demonstrating their lack of knowledge. And that is absolutely a problem, especially when they turn around and demonize people like us, which in turn costs us our relationships. And that deserves some censure and rage, no doubt. But it's not unlike my SP friend, who to my face, told me he read all of the essays after our meetings a couple of years ago to familiarize himself with the issues - but it simply "strengthened his testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet." I just shook my head, realized he didn't really "read" them to critically think about them, but only that he could say he has a strong testimony to me and people like me. So I get it, believe me, that it's frustrating.
I agree with this, which is why I agree that John's rants near the end were just not necessary or, to your point, possible to confirm. It's like people who say that Emma was a co-conspirator to JS at some point... but if there's no evidence you can't know, so why talk about it?

But I do think that they know there are problems and are either too afraid to look into what they are or they are more concerned with keeping the church's power and influence maintained. So I think you're right in that they are pious frauds to some extent, but I also think they are cowards for refusing to tackle these issues head on for members who are struggling.

Nelson goes up there and gives his Sad Heaven talk where he's literally twisting the knife into every family where a kid leaves or a spouse leaves, and yet he refuses to give interviews or talk to people in an unscripted manner because he KNOWS that he can't answer these questions in a way that makes any sense to someone who isn't going 100% off emotional response.

So to me the leaders are cowards. They get up there at General Conference and tell the members that they'll be without their family for eternity if they leave, and that those who did leave will be empty seats. On top of that, they demonize those who leave as unruly children without giving answers to the reasons people leave and without being willing to admit they got it wrong on so many issues over the years.

I think John is wrong to make assumptions that he can't know for sure, but I still think that the leaders of this church are absolute cowards. I would kill to have a conversation with one of the GAs about these issues because I guarantee they can't answer them in any meanigful way as that one Mormon Stories/Infants on Thrones series with Trevor (I think?) illustrated quite well.

On that note, I think we can absolutely agree. They don't want to give us heretics any ammo, so they demonize us and cause heartache and damage relationships (ours included, buddy!!) because they DON'T have any answers, other than the feels and the "Spurit." It is harmful, it is moral cowardice, it lacks empathy and understanding and the whole shebang. No question. And they will keep doing it, because they think it's the right thing to do.

If it only were this easy to arrive at some consensus with the church and it's apologists. :roll:
"And I don't need you...or, your homespun philosophies."
"And when you try to break my spirit, it won't work, because there's nothing left to break."

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 4580
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by Hagoth » Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:43 pm

Mormorrisey wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:08 pm
I did have a hard time with John's gaslighting rant at the end...
I had a harder time with John asking a question, then cutting her off in mid-sentence to either ask the same question in slightly different form or to finish her sentence for her. But then, that's what he does.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 4580
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by Hagoth » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:05 pm

If they don't know about the problems then all I can say is shame on them!

They are willfully ignorant and they are not doing their job! Anybody on the planet can find the CES letter and Mormonthink with a few seconds effort and read and understand all of the major issues in a single day of study. Is that beyond the capability of the men who run the organization? What are they good for if they're too timid or ignorant to even make that effort?

We're told they can't do that because they're just too busy. Bullshit. It's what Jfro said, they're cowards.

If what Elder Holland called the"best and brightest" are leaving their church in droves because of specific doctrinal and historical issues while the leaders choose to sit around with their fingers in their noses blinking like deer in the headlights, who is to blame? What do you call a theological institution with no theologians? A multi-level marketing scheme. I mean, this really is a put-up or shut-up situation. Either they're prophets, seers, and revelators who can answer questions or they are cowering phonies, either intentionally or out of ignorance (in the end it doesn't really matter which).

They are bad leaders and useless guides who deserve to have the entire membership get up and walk out on them and take their money, time and talents with them to someplace where they will be respected, because they ain't getting it here.

Whew.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 1508
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by jfro18 » Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:30 pm

Well I for one am enjoying this thread. :lol:

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 3213
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922

Post by moksha » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:32 am

I have a thought for the presented argument that facts are not needed, and all that is needed is for apologists to say anything and that will keep members in tow:
"When tapirs are horses, apologists may ride."
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests