- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I need some help quick. The HC is asking me for “proof” that Benson’s 14 fundamental speech was censored by President Kimball and that he was asked to apologize for giving it at the BYU devotional. They don’t believe me. Does anyone have a document or know where I can get it from a “church source.” I will tell you the whole story later when I have time. Needless to say, I did not have a good Sunday, and sometimes I REALLY hate when I’m right — Costa and Oaks talks WILL haunt many members for years to come.
EDIT
Okay, I have a minute.
Once again, I don’t know why I do this to myself. Yesterday was HC day. The first guy talked about JS and the first vision. The second guy talks about ‘folling the prophet.” He started slow on my by saying stuff like how JS or BY never gave a prophecy that didn’t come true. I leaned over to jwald and said, “what about his claim that blacks would never received the priesthood?” Anyway, it went WAY downhill from there. He didn’t only quote Costa’s 14 Fundalmentals of the Prophet, but ADDED his own commentary and interpretation, as well as some Oaks comments about the two lines of communication and if your personal line is not the same as the priesthood line than it is from the wrong source, (I leaned over and asked jwald, “isn’t that exactly what the other guy said about the ministers saying to JS about his first vision, word for word), he also read many of the except from Benson’s
originaltalk, which is much worse than Costas. Besides all the horrible doctrine in the Costa talk (14 fundamentals) and the Oaks reference, here are few of his own comments,
“It doesn’t matter what the prophet tells you to do, even if it’s wrong – you do it anyway, god will count it unto you as righteousness.”
“We don’t need scriptures or any other books or any other sources of wisdom. You can burn all those books and source because we have the prophet to lead us.”
“A prophet council is more important than any of the standard works.”
“President Monson’s word is scripture.”
He then went into an anti-gay tirade for 5 minutes and summed it up with this — “the prophet has spoken, regardless of your political stance, THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS GAYS RIGHTS.”
Anyway folks, I was pretty good. I took it for almost the whole meeting, and didn’t speak out. Finally though, I had to leave. We meet in a small building so it was VERY obvious. I walked out. My only regret is that I waited so long and I didn’t take my family with me.
I pulled my three kids out of SS and primary after SM, and had a VERY frank discussion with them. VERY honest and frank. My primary kid was in tears when we done.
I have since talked to both the BP and my HC. Neither of them think there was anything wrong with the talk or that it goes against the teachings of the church. Neither of them believes me about the history of the Benson’s talk. I told the BP that I was going to write a letter to the SP, and he was okay with that. But, after talking to my HC today, he told me that the message is the assigned message from the stake and he gave a very similar talk and yes, they are suppose to go through Costa’s 14 fundamentals of the prophet talk. So, he told me that SP will not have any empathy or sympathy with me, and I will pretty well just be putting the final nail in my coffin, and asked me not to do that. He has talked to some of his HC buddies, and asked me where I got my information about SWK etc, and told me to cool my jets and let him think about it before I do anything.
Which is okay, because I’m not going to be a matryer. if the church believes this crap, and the stake leadership believes it, and they want the teach it and have others believe, fine by me. It is not my place to tell them how to do their callings. They can make their own choices, and so can I. I told the BP straight up, that this is EXACTLY the kind of thing I was talking about last week where I told him I have no faith in the church, and if this is doctrine of the church, I want no part of it.
The two vital references. There isn’t anything officially published by the Church to the public. I’d be willing to bet there are meetings minutes, letters or memos in the Church archives, but that isn’t available to the public. People might possibly argue against Quinn as a reference, since he was excommunicated. People who know don’t argue that much with his professional history though, even if they disagree with his views or conclusions at times. For sure, he is a respected professional historian. Someone might be tempted to dismiss Quinn’s interview sources because of his status with the Church,
BUTthey match up to the description in the biography written by Pres. Kimball’s son — who is a straight arrow and faithful LDS member. John D. did a Mormon Stories interview with Edward Kimball about the biography. ************************************************
The account can be found in D. Michael Quinn’s “Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power.” on page 111. The reference is found on page 469 which is:
Edward L Kimball to D Michael Quinn, 14 Aug, 20 Aug 1992. In 1980 Kimball’s wife Camilla also described “his displeasure with the speech” to her brother-in-law George T Boyd (Boyd to Quinn, 24 Sept. 1992)
************************************************
“Spencer [Kimball] felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect he Church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking ‘follow the leader’ mentality.” [1]
[1] For a good review of sources relating to the talk, including this quote, refer to Edward Kimball’s draft manuscript of Lengthen Your Stride on the CD which came with the biography, chapter 16, page 13.
from article found on
http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/10/05/conference-quotes-fourteen-fundamentals-part-1/ ************************************************
M&M: Evidence for my statement about SWK and the 14 Fundamentals talk is found in Edward L. Kimball’s biography of his father, entitled “Lengthen Your Stride.” The book comes with a CD ROM which has material that Deseret Book apparently did not want included in the printed version. On page 236 of the version entitled “Working Draft,” Kimball writes of the 14 Fundamentals talk, “Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking ‘follow the leader’ mentality The First Presidency again called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make an explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other General Authorities.”
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/04/arguments-and-authority/ Comment 68 by Costanza
cwald wrote:I need some help quick. The HC/SP is asking me for “proof” that Benson’s 14 fundamental speech was censored by President Kimball and that he was asked to apologize for giving it at the BYU devotional. They don’t believe me. Does anyone have a document or know where I can get it from a “church source.”
I will tell you the whole story later when I have time. Needless to say, I did not have a good Sunday, and sometimes I REALLY hate when I’m right — Costa and Oaks talks WILL haunt many members for years to come.
I spoke up when our PH/RS revisited these talks just after conference. It didn’t go over well.
The cult of personality and doctrine of near-infallibility that we’ve built up around our prophets is exactly what Moses spoke against. But he’s a dead prophet so I guess what he said doesn’t matter anymore…
Ugh.
Faithful members are those who ask questions. Questioning leads to light and knowledge.
[/rant]
Sorry – pet peeve…
Okay, I think I got what I need. I’ll tell my sunday church horror story when I get more time. Brian, I think your summary is excellent. I’m going to just print it out – I’ll delete your name and the Staylds website ect.
Doug, I wasn’t able to open the link because the filter at work kick it back. Is it different than the stuff Brian cited?
mercyngrace wrote:I spoke up when our PH/RS revisited these talks just after conference. It didn’t go over well.
The cult of personality and doctrine of near-infallibility that we’ve built up around our prophets is exactly what Moses spoke against. But he’s a dead prophet so I guess what he said doesn’t matter anymore…
Ugh.
Faithful members are those who ask questions. Questioning leads to light and knowledge.
[/rant]
Sorry – pet peeve…
You have no idea. just wait to you here my new story. I can’t make this kind of stuff up.
Waiting with ears ‘a-sharpened to hear what’s going on Cwald. I put the details in the OP under EDIT I’ve only skimmed the 14 fundamentals talk before this and to hear this HC member go point by point and give his opinion on things made me and DD physically ill by the end of the meeting. The spirit in the room afterwards felt very oppressive. DD thought the talk made us sound like a cult and was very uncomfortable with it. Quote:He then went into an anti-gay tirade for 5 minutes and summed it up with this — “the prophet has spoken, regardless of your political stance, THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS GAYS RIGHTS.”
Actually that’s stupid, gays do have rights as individuals, the question is whether or not they have rights regarding to their sexuality. These are two different questions.
I just read your full account cwald, and I have no words. Is this really the church I belong to? btw… I took the day off from church yesterday, and it was wonderful!
cwald, You have my sympathies.
I see a lot of parallels in how we view our prophets and how the children of Israel saw Moses. Some LDS seem to want them to do all the thinking for us and have created an unhealthy level of dependency. This is clearly recognized by some of our church leaders (See Pres. Uchtdorf’s “don’t inhale” comments in the last PH session of GC).
It’s my opinion, that we get the prophets we are prepared (collectively) to receive. And I’m discouraged by what that says about us…
When I’ve found myself awkwardly sitting through something like this, I
alwaysdiscuss the topic on the ride home from church with the family or over dinner. My children are so used to reexaming what they learn at church and thinking critically, comparing everything to the scriptures, that they sometimes point out the discrepancies to me. I remember the first time I realized they were beginning to understand that a lay ministry often means false doctrines get presented as truth. We were listening to the half hour scripture stories radio program last year and my then 11 year old paused the computer to correct a doctrinal error. It was a proud moment for me
These sound like some really ignorant and mean-spirited leaders in your stake. Even though I don’t agree with the traditional orthodox beliefs of my Bishop, EQP, etc. at least they are nice guys and I can’t imagine them saying anything like this. I would be tempted to go ahead and send someone a letter because it seems like you could make a lot of valid points without really sounding like an apostate but I understand if you don’t want to because some people just don’t get it. DevilsAdvocate wrote:These sound like some really ignorant and mean-spirited leaders in your stake. Even though I don’t agree with the traditional orthodox beliefs of my Bishop, EQP, etc. at least they are nice guys and I can’t imagine them saying anything like this. I would be tempted to go ahead and send someone a letter because it seems like you could make a lot of valid points without really sounding like an apostate but I understand if you don’t want to because some people just don’t get it.
I wouldn’t go that route. Cwald, you said the thing you would like the best would be the status quo (after your meeting with the BP when you shared your true feelings about certain things in the Church). I think that rocking the boat with a letter that will bound to be interpreted as “apostate” (I hate the word) by these Stake members will only lead to an unfavorable outcome.
😯 😯 😯 😯 😯 😯 😯 /palmface x100
Wow Cwald!
:wtf: Quote:It doesn’t matter what the prophet tells you to do, even if it’s wrong – you do it anyway, god will count it unto you as righteousness.
Could there have been a better setup for this reply, quoted from an official church publication?
“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among the intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly.
When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves, and wish to pave the way to accomplish that wrong; or else because they have done wrong, and wish to use the cloak of their authority to cover it with, lest it should be discovered by their superiors, who would require an atonement at their hands.”
-Millennial Star, No. 38, Vol XIV, November 13, 1852. “Priesthood”
I have a scanned copy of the actual newsprint page, if anyone questions this is for real.
So much false doctrine and anti-Gospel. You are a hero Cwald, really. That stuff can not be allowed to go unchallenged. I let a lot of things slide. I can be tolerant of a lot of more orthodox expressions and ideas, but I would have done the same. Voices of reason and pure religion have to take a stand against that stuff.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.