posted
I think the biggest problem isn't whether or not his writing was intended to be taken as doctrine. The problem is that he was publishing books that contradicted church doctrine with a list of his credentials as a CES educator on the back. People would pick up a book like that, see that it came from someone with authority, and assume that its contents were sanctioned by the church. They were not.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not drafting; we do the ordinances in their stead and then they have a chance to accept or reject it. Cute, though.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, you must have missed the ten-page proxy baptism thread. Your characterization is incorrect. -------
The guy was using his church membership to bolster his credentials for an argument that tears down the church. What they did was take away the assumed authority that he was speaking for the church. There's no censorship or shunning; it's more like a giagantic "We don't agree."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think Tres made a functionally empty argument with no other point than to say that he didn't agree with these religions.
This is not correct though. My point was not just that I disagreed with it, but that I disagreed with it for a specific reason - namely that the given practice is inconsistent with a certain interpretation of Christ. These are not functionally equivalent because, although I suspect noone would reject these churches' actions just because I say I disagree with them, I suspect many might reject those actions if they were in conflict with the teachings of Christ.
quote:Sounds like what he suggests in the book is not provable or disprovable, but it could be refuted, point for point if you were willing to do so. Though I have no problem with the church deciding to restrict his fellowship, I wonder if any good will really come of it. Not my business, really, but it seems sad all the way around.
I agree with that question... Historically, has any good ever came of that sort of thing? Generally, I think that in the long run being banned or censored in any way tends to actually lend legitimacy to what is being restricted.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I missed the thread on baptizing dead people. So if I'm burning in hell or wandering around in the ether, an angel is going to track me down in the ever after and ask me to accept? It sounds like a good deal, but how do the people on earth know whether I accepted?
posted
Yep - I like the "angel tracks you down and asks if you accept" explanation. The people on earth don't know - that doesn't matter. You don't go on membership roles or anything.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, I thought it was funny when someone stated here that they thought a major chunk of LDS membership was comprised of dead people who had had the ordinance done for them.
Talk about padding the numbers!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dr. Blue, who I will remember to the day I die as a righteous and fiercely intelligent man, calmly replied that if the student's faith was so weak that he could not bear to hear an opposing viewpoint and address it in the light of reason, then perhaps he should not be in a pre-ministry program.
C.S. Lewis said essentially the same thing - that God gave us reason as a tool to discover Him, and that embracing logic would not separate us from Him because he is not irrational.
Ah, thanks for posting this Olivia. It sums up how I feel.
When quoting Matthew 22:37, it pays to look at the final word:
quote:Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
We're supposed to love God with our minds - we are supposed to be thinking, intelligent beings. Our faith should not be considered a blind one, but rather one that can be questioned - should be questioned! Only by asking questions can one learn more. I read all viewpoints, I've read many a book that had some pretty heretical stuff in it - if my faith was so weak that it affected me it would be sad thing for me.
I can understand the mormon church not wanting to bless the efforts of someone that is saying their religion is, ultimately, a fraud. And if this guy believes that, truly believes Joseph Smith made everything up, then why would he want to remain a mormon anyway? Doesnt' really make sense.
However, I think people of any faith should never be afraid to hold their beliefs up to the light and see if they pass muster. If you are afraid to do that, it says something about what you call faith.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dr. Blue, who I will remember to the day I die as a righteous and fiercely intelligent man, calmly replied that if the student's faith was so weak that he could not bear to hear an opposing viewpoint and address it in the light of reason, then perhaps he should not be in a pre-ministry program.
C.S. Lewis said essentially the same thing - that God gave us reason as a tool to discover Him, and that embracing logic would not separate us from Him because he is not irrational.
Olivia has also summed up how I feel. Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Disfellowshipping this guy takes away his ability to claim that what he is saying is in accordance with the church. NO ONE IS SILENCING HIM or advocating that.
posted
Okay, so...the bit about his book eroding other people's faith...was that happening because those people assumed that what he wrote was in accordance with the church because he was still a full member?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Letting him continue to use his church membership as part of his claim to authority would be tantamount to the church supporting false doctrine.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there's any doubt his own involvement in LDS has been used to promote the book. Here's a blurb about him from an Amazon link:
quote:About the Author Grant H. Palmer (M.A., American history, Brigham Young University) is a three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah, a former instructor at the Church College of New Zealand, and an LDS seminary teacher at two Utah locations. He has been active in the Mormon History Association and on the board of directors of the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association. Now retired, his principle hobby is pigeon fancying. He has four children and eight grandchildren; he and his wife live in Sandy, Utah.
This probably accounts for the response - it's an "insider" book - and now he's not as "inside" as he once was.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is all a little strange from someone brought up in a Congregationalist church, where varying interpretations are welcomed... I'd like to see if what he was writing was simply a refutation of the Book of Mormon (in which case I think the church's response is well within their right, even if it's not the way I'd go about it), or rather an opinion that the Book, while written by J. Smith, was still inspired. Even if he thinks it's fabricated, he might think that it's still the best book on morals, and would want to remain Mormon because of what the church is and does in this lifetime.
Of course, now I'm being apolegetic for an incident I have no real basis for.
posted
Well, people's credentials are often used to sell their books....I don't see a problem with that.
I've seen many a book full of what I call heretical ideas published by people who say they're members of a protestant church and teach seminary or have theology degrees.
No where does it say the Mormon church endorsed his book.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the primary reasons given not to trust outsiders' views (at least, that I've seen) is that they do not now nor have they ever loved the Church. How would they know what it was really like? And given the particular nature of faith in the LDS Church, how would one know if this person ever gave the Scriptures a chance?
So I can see why the author's having been a faithful member and having received training at BYU, e.g., might be relevant to publicizing a controversial book about the LDS. However, I see no problem with the disfellowshipment. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, people's credentials are often used to sell their books....I don't see a problem with that.
I've seen many a book full of what I call heretical ideas published by people who say they're members of a protestant church and teach seminary or have theology degrees.
No where does it say the Mormon church endorsed his book.
Right. Which is why they're not suing to get him to be honest about his relationship. Instead, they're publicizing that he is not an insider.
posted
Like someone said upstream, almost all male members are clergy in the church. Since it's all lay ministry, speaking as an insider does imply that the church accepts what is being said.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle- What if it was an assistant pastor of your church who wrote a book, to use someone else's example, stating that the Gospels were made up by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as a moral lesson, but Jesus didn't really exist. And what if right on the front cover it stated that he was an assistant pastor at your church. Wouldn't the church be justified in letting him go? I can think of very few churches that would keep him on in such circumstances. That's what's happening here. He's no longer allowed to give talks in service, or to pray publically for the congregation. He's still allowed to come to church, sure, but he's no longer in a position of authority.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Instead, they're publicizing that he is not an insider."
But he was an insider until he went public with his inside knowledge, right? The fact that he was disfellowshipped doesn't invalidate his previous experience as a respected Mormon; it merely indicates that his historical claims are inconsistent with the image the LDS church wishes to present.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
About what you said about reason and faith -- word.
----
RE this:
quote:Keep in mind that pretty much all male members of the LDS church are considered clergy, which makes the situation a little different than it would be for a Protestant or Catholic church.
And this:
quote: No where does it say the Mormon church endorsed his book.
Both good points. However, because of that, LDS often (wrongly, imo) give greater credence to those who seem to have a certain church impramateur *even though* church authorities have been pretty clear about the fact that although they may say/write good things, their words aren't canonical or even official.
Those who have been or are BYU professors or LDS insitute directors (they teach religion classes to college students) have a certain credibility within the Mormon community. That's a big part of the problem with this case, imo.
And while I think that on a personal level, it's important that Palmer go through this process. On another level, I'd like to see church officials actually back off of some of the semi-official (but not really official) stuff that gets people confused and instead encourage rigorous study and prayer. I think, for instance, that it might be better in the long run if the LDS Church give up it's ownership of Deseret Book. Granted, they are somewhat careful to not make it look like the church endorses all of DB's products, but because there is a relationship there, some members think that everything that is published is the gospel truth (and conversely if something is published by another company it must be, you know, dubious).
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
And the doctrine it teaches, and the foundation of the church. Come on, Tom.
quote:On another level, I'd like to see church officials actually back off of some of the semi-official (but not really official) stuff that gets people confused and instead encourage rigorous study and prayer.
Don't they now? That's the impression I always got - the final word is the scriptures, and the only books the church endorses are the missionary library. Everything else is personal commentary.
posted
And frankly, using his involvement with the church to sell the book is something he should protest against if he really cares about the church.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right. Which is why they're not suing to get him to be honest about his relationship. Instead, they're publicizing that he is not an insider.
Actually, the church is not publicizing anything at all. As was mentioned earlier, the decisions of church councils of this nature are not spoken of outside of the council. Ever. So the publicizing is being done by the author himself.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But he was an insider until he went public with his inside knowledge, right? The fact that he was disfellowshipped doesn't invalidate his previous experience as a respected Mormon; it merely indicates that his historical claims are inconsistent with the image the LDS church wishes to present.
No. It indicates that he's switched lenses. A valid thing to do. But his previous status doesn't do anything to validate his historical claims -- which should be reviewed on their own merit and not sold as "well, he should know -- he was one of them."
As I understand it, his book doesn't deal with anything that's secret. All that it proves is that a member can lose their faith and as a result buy into the semi-historical, pseudo-scholarly approach that some have used to explain the Book of Mormon and other claims related to early Mormonism.
In other words, his experience only has weight within the context of a believing member -- i.e. in terms of his faith per se. Outside of it, he's just another skeptic and amateur scholar. That doesn't mean one should entirely dismiss the results of his scholarship -- all I'm saying is that his previous position does nothing to add weight or authority to his scholarship.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
But it's real easy to have the personal commentary that some people have when they see the close relationship that certain businesses, authors, venues, etc. have with authorities of the church.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, his experience only has weight within the context of a believing member -- i.e. in terms of his faith per se. Outside of it, he's just another skeptic and amateur scholar. That doesn't mean one should entirely dismiss the results of his scholarship -- all I'm saying is that his previous position does nothing to add weight or authority to his scholarship.
Zal, you don't think the following is true? (*honestly curious)
quote:I think one of the primary reasons given not to trust outsiders' views (at least, that I've seen) is that they do not now nor have they ever loved the Church. How would they know what it was really like? And given the particular nature of faith in the LDS Church, how would one know if this person ever gave the Scriptures a chance?
quote:But he was an insider until he went public with his inside knowledge, right? The fact that he was disfellowshipped doesn't invalidate his previous experience as a respected Mormon; it merely indicates that his historical claims are inconsistent with the image the LDS church wishes to present.
But it does say that this is not a position consistent with that of the church, and that the difference is serious enough that the church as a whole is repudiating it.
I'm not talking some nebulous concept of credibility here - I'm talking agency. The man does not speak for the church, and the church has made this clear.
posted
Hmm...maybe selling Deseret Book would be a good thing then.
I figure they have to have a close relationship with somebody. Everything outside of official doctrine - scriptures, manuals, and General Conference - is by definition culture and I'm not required to believe.
I had a recomend interview when I was 18 where I expressed some severe doubt about my institute teachers, and the bishop said that was totally fine. So, no problem there. I don't read LDS non-fiction, commentary books at all, mostly because it feels like someone is using the church to make a profit and that annoys me.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think that when it comes to the personal and social experiences of being an insider, it's very true -- when it comes to the sharing of personal narratives. That's while I tend not to denigrate the narratives of faithful or lapsed (or even antagonistic) Mormons or outside observers as long as they remain at the level of personal discourse -- "this is how I experienced it."
When it comes to the level of historical or socio-cultural claims, however, I think that things should be approached as one does any academic inquiry -- with skepticism and awareness of the agendas of those who are presenting their theories and supporting evidence whether they be insider, outsider, or former insider.
The genius (however you choose to interpet the source of that term) of the Book of Mormon is that it makes both spiritual and historical claims -- it's a damn document, a textual product. If Joseph Smith had just preached his doctrines and said that God had revealed it to him, then it'd be easy -- either you believe what he said or you don't.
As far as I can tell, there's nobody involved in writing about it who is equipped to deal with it. The truth claims it makes requires too much for either academics or apologists or anti-LDS activists. It's beautifully, wonderfully maddening Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the explanation, Zal. I understand your perspective a whole lot better. It did help. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think, for instance, that it might be better in the long run if the LDS Church give up it's ownership of Deseret Book. Granted, they are somewhat careful to not make it look like the church endorses all of DB's products, but because there is a relationship there, some members think that everything that is published is the gospel truth (and conversely if something is published by another company it must be, you know, dubious).
Exactly. I've been irked by semi-official Mormon fiction (like the Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites books) for quite some time. I live in an area where Mormons are the minority, and when we take trips to Utah or Idaho and go to Desert Book, a lot of us (teenage me included) get the mistaken impression that the cultural phenomena of Utah are part of our religion. Things that come from a church-sanctioned book store must be church-sanctioned, right? This is especially dangerous with the new HaleStorm movies and other Mormon cinema - kids who don't live in Utah don't know the difference between Finding Faith in Christ and The Singles' Ward. They end up getting overly concerned with all types of cultural nonsense that have nothing to do with the doctrine of the church.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
May or May not be a relevant analogy, however, Mr. Kevin Smith wrote and directed a film entitled Dogma that called into question many of the beliefs held true and concrete in the Catholic Church. He made the film while constantly reaffirming the fact that he is a proud and firm Catholic meanwhile Questioning much of the church's doctrine. Yes, some of it was satire, some tongue in cheek, but many of the points brought up are believed to be at least POSSIBLE by the Kevin Smith. some members of the church protested, some public statements were made by the church. Do you believe the Catholic church reserves the right to excommunicate Mr. Smith? Should they keep Mr. Smith from receiving the body and blood of Christ?
once again, may be considered irrelevant...
[ December 13, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've been irked by semi-official Mormon fiction (like the Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites books) for quite some time.
How can anybody think that is even slightly official? Have you really talked to anybody that doesn't realize that Single's Ward is not about the LDS Church, but about mormon culture?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the church willed it, sure. This isn't a big deal. The guy can still worship. He can hold on to his faith. He made a decision when he published the book, and I don't see the consequences as being that vicious? Has it cost him his job?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In other words, his experience only has weight within the context of a believing member -- i.e. in terms of his faith per se. Outside of it, he's just another skeptic and amateur scholar."
Except that he's not an amateur scholar, is he? Until he decided that he had been believing a lie, and the facts didn't support his case, he was considered a completely reputable "real" scholar by the church. What makes him more of an amateur than the people at FARMS?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
This is my own personal opinion, and I do know that there have been at least two LDS writers who have been part of a church disciplinary process [Although, again, because the church chooses to keep the details of such things private, how much the actual art had to do with it and whether or not other questions were part of the process is entirely speculative, or if the person chooses to speak out -- one-sided], but I tend to give artistic discourse more leeway than I do other forms of discourse.
Mainly because our society tends to value "fact-centered" (i.e. non-artistic) discourse so much.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
There are no "insiders" in the LDS faith. There are those in leadership positions who direct the church, but there is no inner party that has access to things that others do not.
Palmer's claim that being an institute director made him an insider to suppressed information is silly. I served for two years as the student president of my Institute. In this position, I worked with two counselors and the Institute director in overseeing social events as well as deciding the courses of study to be taught at the institute. I am good friends with my institute director, and know exactly where his curriculum comes from. The courses of study are regulated strictly by the Church Educational System, and those who teach it are not given access to anything that is not available to the general membership of the church. There are no secret doctrines on the life of Joseph Smith that the church doesn't want to get out.
Palmer's research was an independent venture. Others have done similar research on the life of the prophet, others like Dallin H. Oakes, former Utah supreme court justice and currently one of the church's twelve apostles. As a law student at the University of Chicago, he conducted independent research on the legality of claims made against Joseph Smith during the Nauvoo period. His conclusions casted the prophet in a positive light; however, they are not considered church doctrine even though he currently serves as an apostle. He doesn't publish books with blurbs that say, "this research, conducted by an apostle of the church, provides an insider's viewpoint on legal matters from the 1840's that you won't read anywhere else."
The church hasn't said anything to its membership about avoiding the works of Palmer and others who write things counter to accepted doctrine. It does, however, have a right to distinguish the work of "insiders" working in official church capacities from those working outside of what is acceptable and sanctioned.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
I consider all CES employees (CES = Church Educational System i.e. institute and seminary teachers) to be amateur scholars.
And, yes, for the most part the FARMS people are amateurs. But I consider all apologetics to be amateur scholarly work -- which isn't to say it isn't valuable or "true."
Until their work is peer reviewed and they stop with the smarmy sometimes viturpative attacks on anti-LDS activists, FARMS is suspect. But I probably take a more dim view of them than most [while at the same time, I like some of what they've published that I've read].
-----
Of course, many Mormons aren't super concerned with what either FARMS or Palmer is writing.
Most people's faith doesn't rest on whether or not the FARMS folks successfully parry the next attack on Book of Mormon historicity.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can anybody think that is even slightly official? Have you really talked to anybody that doesn't realize that Single's Ward is not about the LDS Church, but about mormon culture?
I'm not familiar with people who would honestly think that Mormon fiction is doctrinal.
I do, however, know far too many people who base their testimonies on things they read in The Work and the Glory and read exerpts from Children of the Promise during Relief Society lessons. Youth outside of Utah often get the mistaken impression that LDS media are part of their religion - they're not familiar enough with the existence of a Mormon culture to know that there's a difference.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"His conclusions casted the prophet in a positive light; however, they are not considered church doctrine even though he currently serves as an apostle."
*polite cough* I'm not going to say what I'm thinking, here. But will you admit that the LDS church has not, as a matter of historical record, been particularly kind to historians within its ranks -- especially ones who've challenged the conventional wisdom? *grin*
-------
"Most people's faith doesn't rest on whether or not the FARMS folks successfully parry the next attack on Book of Mormon historicity."
*nod* But, by the same token, as you've pointed out, the Book of Mormon (like the Bible) makes a number of verifiable historical claims and, unlike the Bible, cannot -- somewhat ironically -- claim mistranslation or a poor signal-to-noise ratio. This does make historical research, particularly in the Americas, more important to Mormons than many other faiths; it's in tacit acknowledgement of this that institutions like FARMS exist in the first place.
quote:What makes him more of an amateur than the people at FARMS?
I'm a little dubious about FARMS. It's helpful for some people, because it gives another perspective that someone may not have thought of, but FARMS is also not officially a branch of the church.
quote:however, they are not considered church doctrine even though he currently serves as an apostle
It's not considered doctrine unless its said in General Conference or labeled as such.
They are still just people, Tom. Even the book Mormon Doctrine, written by a sitting apostle, is not considered actual doctrine.
quote:the conventional wisdom
Saying things like "conventional wisdom" and "the image the church is trying to project" is biased and not what LDS think about themselves. It's transferring your cynicism onto those who don't have it.
quote:Most people's faith doesn't rest on whether or not the FARMS folks successfully parry the next attack on Book of Mormon historicity.
Outside of Utah, I have met very few people who follow or take seriously FARMS research. Most have never heard of it.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Outside of Utah, I have met very few people who follow or take seriously FARMS research."
When debating the historicity -- or lack thereof -- of the Book of Mormon with members of the LDS church, it has been my experience that most members willing to have the conversation (rather than just writing me off as an "anti-" and running away) tend to refer to FARMS research as authoritative. While this is anecdotal, I suspect that most Mormon apologetics are very reliant on FARMS-type studies.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But will you admit that the LDS church has not, as a matter of historical record, been particularly kind to historians within its ranks -- especially ones who've challenged the conventional wisdom?
What do you mean by "been particularly kind?" I don't think they've tarred and feathered any of them. I don't think they've blacklisted them. I don't think they've spoken against anyone specifically from the pulpit. They've disfellowshipped and excommunicated many... but part of a church member's temple worthiness interview is an affirmation that they do not uphold or promote doctrines that are contrary to those of the church. People who do so can not enjoy the benefits of being a member in good standing.
The church is under no obligation to put up with teachings that are contrary to doctrine. Is the Sierra Club required to let George W. Bush write articles for its newsletter?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
It's not drafting; we do the ordinances in their stead and then they have a chance to accept or reject it. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Cute, though.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
