- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Orson wrote:
I really like Fiona Givens’ take that Joseph Smith was chosen as a prophet not to demonstrate that righteous men can be called of God — but to show that God can work through the weak, mortal, and imperfect, …even as imperfect as a young Joseph Smith. The early members understood this in the beginning (the Whitmer’s etc.) but there has always been a tendency to elevate the man. When the Whitmers & assoc. left the church in the late 1830’s they didn’t “realize they had been wrong”; they still believed in the original founding and the BoM. They only felt that Joseph was leading the church astray, and that they could no longer follow his leadership.
In the 1840’s there is evidence of new converts coming into Nauvoo and exercising the tendency to “elevate the man.” I read in some early letters of members praising Joseph’s character, it is apparent they connect a noble character to someone authentically being called of God. Yet in other places people were saying things like: “a drunk prophet is better than no prophet.” (Just to clarify that last statement did not come from a direct observation of Joseph being drunk – but may have been a response to outside accusations.)
Over my lifetime there’s been a steady erosion of how JS and other presidents and GA’s are seen as regards their connection with God and as His mouthpieces. It makes me wonder how it will end especially when pronouncements like the Proclamation on the Family are found to be collaborative efforts of the church legal department as noted above. I expect those who stay will see the church as being led by people no more inspired than anyone else that are just trying to do their best and a history or leaders that weren’t even close to what they and we thought they were.
Curtis wrote:Limited geography is the only model that makes sense
I agree it makes sense, but I wouldn’t say it is the ONLY model that makes sense. I believe Spiritual Fiction also makes sense.OON, I meant that the limited geography “model” is the only population “model” that makes sense, given what the book actually says. I didn’t mean to address origin at all in saying that. Everyone, I have really enjoyed the comments about prophets and Joseph. I want to share an experience that is a bit tangential, but it relates to what has been said about prophets.
When I served for the first time on a High Council, I was the advisor to a ward with a Bishopric made up of men in their 50’s – and the Bishop and his counselors had nearly 40 years of combined experience in bishoprics. Two of them had served as Bishop previously. The ward had a serious problem with adult factions, and it needed leadership who could go in with a bit of age, seriousness and stern conviction in order to straighten out the problem. By and large, the Bishopric was able to do that – but the youth suffered somewhat as a result, since the Bishopric didn’t relate very well to them.
When it came time to call a new bishopric, the new Bishop was in his mid-30’s, with young children and teenagers still at home. One counselor was that same age, and the other was 29. They had less than 3 years combined experience in bishoprics, and not one of them had been a Bishop previously. They were exactly what the youth needed, and I saw those program begin to thrive under their leadership.
The first Bishop was the exact right person for the situation into which he was called, while the second Bishop was the exact right person for the situation into which he was called – even though I know each man had weaknesses that contributed to other problems during his tenure in that position.
I’m not saying that happens every time with leaders, either local or global. I’m not saying each person always is the exact right person for the calling s/he receives. I am saying, however, that, sometimes, there is an issue that is SO FREAKING HUGE that it requires a particular person to be the leader – even though that person brings other issues that cause other problems that have to be addressed and fixed after that person is gone.
I see both Joseph and Brigham in that light: deeply flawed in serious ways but perhaps the only people at the time who could handle the most pressing issue of their days. For Joseph, that was the flood of innovation and restoration that had to be unleashed; for Brigham, that was keeping a people together during an absolutely hellish time period and beginning the “kingdom building” that would last long enough for the Church to mature into an established, large denomination.
How does that relate to the topic of this post?
For me, it means that I don’t sweat previous leaders’ and members’ (even prophets’) lack of understanding about the demographic and genealogical background of the people in the Book of Mormon – or even its origin, if it turns out to be inspired fiction written by someone who believed he was translating from ancient plates. Now, we have enough space from the issues of previous times to deal with the issues of our own time – and, given those issues, what I want now is analytical accuracy, to the highest standard we can achieve. To phrase it differently, the “ONE HUGE ISSUE” facing the Church now is moving out of the incorrect assumptions of the past (the incorrect traditions of our fathers) and dealing with the better understanding available to us now.
I believe this statement is the closest we have had in the history of the Church concerning this topic. Therefore, I celebrate it – essentially unreservedly. We might get more in the future (like, imo, a better understanding of the time frame and scope of the Jaredite migration and how that impacts the issue of DNA), but I’m willing to accept what we have now as the new standard.
Daeruin wrote:The limited geography model is inferred by those statements. If the people described by the B of M were not the only people living there, then they must necessarily have lived in a limited geographic area. Unless they were completely integrated with those other people—which they were not, as described in the B of M, until much later.
mackay11 wrote:I think it mainly addresses the theories of an empty continent populated by Lehites (and Mulekites, why are they so rarely mentioned, especially when there is more evidence they mingled with the local population, given their language corrupted so quickly).
If the Lehites were the originators of the American population then eventually there would have been a hemespheric population. By making references to the cataclysmic event that killed off the DNA it has to be a limited region in order to contain it all.
But it makes no reference to how limited it was nor where it was.
Peoples of the Book of Mormon could have had communities of various sizes scattered around the Americas regardless of how much they integrated with others. I’m not pushing this theory, I’m just saying it’s a possibility. Yeah, a limited geography model is inferred insomepoints posited as possible explanations for the DNA issue, but I don’t think the essay is really pushing it. Whether the church does or does not push such a model doesn’t matter a lot to me. Much of the discussion here is based on the assumption that the essay does push for it, so I’m saying that’s not necessarily the case. Maybe I’m wrong.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:It tells me that the phrase “a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such” is incomplete. It should have “…and sometimes the prophet is not acting as a prophet, even when he thinks he is acting as such.” I liked this talk, though there was still a reluctance in it to just come out and say “sometimes we call it wrong, even when we’re teaching it as doctrine.”
This is an excellent point. By omitting that phrase, it still implies that prophets
knowwhen they are just acting as men, but of course, the thing is that NOBODY knows when they are personally wrong about something. The best they could do is admit they are speculating absent spiritual inspiration, but it’s troubling that they don’t seem to know the difference in some cases. We never have the sensation of being wrong because as soon as we do, we are right again (about having been wrong). One troubling example was when BKP called the Proclamation on the Family “revelation” in his General Conference talk (which was later corrected – his published talk omits the word “revelation.” He also has said in other talks that it was written by a team of lawyers to oppose the legalization of same sex marriage in Hawaii (the church needed a written stance so that we could claim that law discriminated against our beliefs, which Hawaii then laughed off the table anyway). BKP knows how it was written; he has described the process. How can it meet his standard for “revelation”? So for him to claim that it’s revelation indicates to me that he doesn’t define revelation in a way I recognize, not the way that E. Scott has meticulously described revelation. E. Scott’s depiction makes sense to me.
Very interesting. Do you have some references for the points mentioned above (the BKP “written by lawyers” and E. Scott definition).
E. Scott’s talk.. http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng&query=jalapeno Read the comments in the below link for several links about the history. Additionally, from the FMH FB discussion group, BKP gave some names of the lawyers who wrote the Proc (in an address in CA as I recall – believe it or not, at least two of the lawyers were women, but all were very politically conservative) and also mentioned the purpose of the document (to block SSM in Hawaii). Additionally, it was presented in the General RS meeting, much to the shock and dismay of the RS presidency, none of whom were consulted. Chieko Okazaki in particular felt they were blind-sided and would have recommended changes.
http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2013/02/19/who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/ Curtis wrote:
For me, it means that I don’t sweat previous leaders’ and members’ (even prophets’) lack of understanding about the demographic and genealogical background of the people in the Book of Mormon – or even its origin, if it turns out to be inspired fiction written by someone who believed he was translating from ancient plates. Now, we have enough space from the issues of previous times to deal with the issues of our own time – and, given those issues, what I want now is analytical accuracy, to the highest standard we can achieve. To phrase it differently, the “ONE HUGE ISSUE” facing the Church now is moving out of the incorrect assumptions of the past (the incorrect traditions of our fathers) and dealing with the better understanding available to us now.
I’m also glad that they are addressing erroneous assumptions of the past. There are still, even today, people making stupid statements about mark of cain etc. To stop this the church has to be more forthright, hold up their hands and say “sometimes we call it wrong.”
Elder Uchtdorf and Elder Holland before him has got that ball rolling. These articles are, tacitly, making the same point.
I suppose I need to remind myself of the ‘by degrees’ ocean liner principle I’ve mentioned so many times in the past. Imagine if Pres. Monson stood up in April and said: “Sorry, most of your assumptions about how we receive revelation are incorrect. Not everything we say or do is done by a divine voice telling us to. We try things out and share our opinion. Sometimes they’re positive and uplifting and sometimes they’re not. Bear with us. We’re doing the best we can.” It would cause a huge “capsising” because that’s too extreme a turn.
They can only do this slowly and by degrees. They probably recognise that change will be too slow for some people and they’ll jump ship. But I suppose they’re looking at damage limitations and the best way to achieve the fewest losses.
It’s hard not to be impatient. I’m feeling quite impatient these days.
I’m interested in the process of the writing of the family proclamation. I checked out the Zelophehad’s Daughters page and found this:
Quote:John Wayne, on March 21st, 2013 at 1:33 pm said:
…I tend to think (and have good reason to believe) that the original document was written by an outside source (i.e. lawyer) and then the 15 Brethren revised it to their standards. I also tend to think that the impetus behind the document did indeed stem from the political machinations being carried out under the table in Hawaii. But then, these thoughts are nothing new, as both have already been stated in other comments. If this theory is correct (a Word Print would likely show it to be so) then what needs to be done is identify the “outside source.”
Perhaps one should look to contemporary faculty members of the J. Reuben Clark School. There are a few who, when you look at their resumes, jump out as strong candidates. I’ll abstain from naming names, as I cannot independently confirm, but from what I can tell (and what I’ve heard through certain channels) that is the likely origin of the primary author(s).
I looked at other pages that people linked to, as well. I didn’t find any more specific information. I also didn’t see anything indicating the Relief Society Presidency experienced “shock and dismay” at not being consulted about the proclamation. Here is what Chieko Okazaki said:
Quote:Greg Prince: Should the Relief Society president sit in on bishopric meetings?
Chieko Okazaki: It would be a great idea. They are in the council meetings, but in many council meetings the person who is in
charge is the only one who is talking. I’m on several community
boards, and sometimes I’m the only woman there or one of two or
three women. I’m on the YWCA advisory board; I’m on the advisory
board for the University of Utah Graduate School of Social
Work; and I’m on the Belle Spafford Chair board. If I got the message
that I was supposed to just sit there and listen to the men, I’d
quit that board. I’d say, “What am I here for?” I speak up a lot in
all of these board meetings.
In contrast, in 1995 when “The Family: A Proclamation to the
World” was written, the Relief Society presidency was asked to
come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It
was all finished. The only question was whether they should present
it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting.
It didn’t matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to
know was, “How come we weren’t consulted?”
Greg Prince: You didn’t even know it was in the works? Chieko Okazaki: No. They just asked us which meeting to present it in, and we said, “Whatever President Hinckley decides is fine with
us.” He decided to do it at the Relief Society meeting. The apostle
who was our liaison said, “Isn’t it wonderful that he made the
choice to present it at the Relief Society meeting?” Well, that was
fine, but as I read it I thought that we could have made a few
changes in it.
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf
I sense disappointment, but not shock and dismay. Maybe it would help to hear it instead of reading it, though.Back to the issue at hand, recognizing that there is more to the issue than just DNA, I’m wondering if there will be an essay on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. I’d like to hear how they will choose to represent those issues, in the light of the other recent entries.
While I have issues with modern Mormonism ,the BOM DNA issue has never really been one since it looks like the DNA was miraculously changed if God put a “curse of blackness” on the Lamanites. And this supposedly followed them if they mixed with the “white and delightsome” Nephites. so the Creator changing a few sequences of Dna doesn’t require a hugh leap of faith, just a hop. I mean we can mix goat DNA with spiders to make their hair have spider silk properties, or glow in the dark puppies by combining bioluminescent jellyfish with canine DNA. I even have a college biology text book that depicts a rat with a human ear growing on its back. Creepy stuff. But trying to validate or refute the Bom on DNA just doesn’t really make a difference to me. I give more credence to legends of of a “white bearded god” among various native tribes or the Lakota saying they had pre-columbian horses than mapping the human genome and cagtigorizing it in boxes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.