Historians have usurped the prophets

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yeah, but keep in mind that many of the quorum have a wealth of leadership experience in executive positions, academic institutions, and on boards of companies. This is not a bunch of timid rum-of-the-mill saints trying to stay awake at a boring Sunday morning meeting.

Could it be possible not all of them agree on the honor code and how it is handled at BYU. Could there be 1 or even two BYU71's in the meeting.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Could it be possible not all of them agree on the honor code and how it is handled at BYU. Could there be 1 or even two BYU71's in the meeting.

Do you have problems with the honor code as applied at Brigham Young University? I had no idea...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

With the DoM and Kimball biographies, we see an interesting phenomenon--historians giving guidance and information to church members over the most controversial aspect of Mormonism in our generation.

Why are the actual people who lived through this and made the decisions, like Gordon B. Hinckley, not willing to provide us with a similar account?

I recognize that perhaps they privately approve of these biographies, and may have even facilitated these biographies (doubtful on the latter but who knows). But why not put their own personal stamp on it?

Would the church crumple? Would testimonies be lost?

The more transparent the workings of the church and the better we know the general authorities, the more convinced we are the church is true.

Is there anyone who disagrees?

What is implied, if you don't agree?

I do wish the church would be more honest about things in the church's past history. Anytime they try to "cover something up," I think it just makes them look worse than they otherwise would have, and generally they are "covering up" things that aren't really a big deal anyways.

A great example of this is the addition to the Joseph Smith History of the passage about how he shouldn't be condemned for the mistakes of his youth, and that he was not a perfect man and made many errors. That entire passage was added after Smith's death by somebody else purporting to be Smith. It didn't add much, and it sets the church up for needless embarrassment.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I have never seen a spirited debate in any church meeting that I have been a part of, which includes bishopric meetings, PEC, Ward Council under two different bishops.

Once again, I don't know what church you're a member of.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well said, Dan. I completely agree. I don't recall much shock or surprise when reading the DOM book regarding dissent within the church leadership. Perhaps I have seen enough of the church bureaucracy that I never believed in the "unanimity" model that Mike alludes to. I find it quite comforting that they have vigorous, spirited debates with lots of give and take. It means that they are likely to have a good balance of inspiration and rational thought in their decisions.

For me personally, disagreement in the leadership is not what caused me "shock or surprise." It was coming here and finding some had concluded that because of the disagreement, God was less a factor in any given decision.

I repeat, leaving that impression is the biggest failing of the DOM book.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

Once again, I don't know what church you're a member of.



For me personally, disagreement in the leadership is not what caused me "shock or surprise." It was coming here and finding some had concluded that because of the disagreement, God was less a factor in any given decision.

I repeat, leaving that impression is the biggest failing of the DOM book.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. God was inspiring one of the brethern one way and others the other way so they could learn how to have a good discussion?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Let me see if I understand you correctly. God was inspiring one of the brethern one way and others the other way so they could learn how to have a good discussion?

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You have never been in any church position where you've had differing opinions among the principals, and still felt God's hand in directing the final decision?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You have never been in any church position where you've had differing opinions among the principals, and still felt God's hand in directing the final decision?

Nope, especially not the contentious ones. I will give you this. The person who made the final decision I believe had Gods authority to make the final decision and therefor unless it was contrary to something I believed strongly, I followed what they said. So in that case Gods hand directed the final decision, but it was long before the discussion was had.

I don't begrudge anyone wanting to feel that everything done is as God would have it. If that gives one comfort, so be it.

[SoCalCoug]

I get the sense that some people in this debate are disagreeing simply on the principle that they don't want to agree. I also can't really get my head around what the opposing sides are really saying.

Can I try to reframe the disagreement here to make sure I understand?

Mike, Utah Dan, etc. are on one side, saying this: The DOM and SWK biographies reveal that the revelation process, using the revelation on blacks and the priesthood as an example, is often a process of disagreement and consensus-building, that can be lengthy, and that the "revelation" - actually confirmation of the decision reached - often comes at the end of what can be an arduous process. God, through revelation, is involved at the end of the process, but not necessarily at all points along the way.

Tex, Indy, TooBlue are on the other side, with this position: The parties involved in the revelation process are inspired by God all along the way, and that the alleged disagreements between the church leaders are necessarily disagreements, but are methods of exploring the various sides of the issue, so that the leaders are equipped to address outside questions and arguments. That the prophet receives the revelation at the outset of the process, and is thereby led intimately by God in the leadership of the church.

Have I restated the two sides fairly? It's hard to join the discussion without really understanding what the positions are.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

For me personally, disagreement in the leadership is not what caused me "shock or surprise." It was coming here and finding some had concluded that because of the disagreement, God was less a factor in any given decision.

I repeat, leaving that impression is the biggest failing of the DOM book.

I plan to re-read the book so I'll try to see what lead you to feel that way. I have to tell you that I don't think the book leaves that impression at all. If you are reacting to how some here interpret it, or how you perceive them to be interpreting it, then that makes more sense.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Mike, Utah Dan, etc. are on one side, saying this: The DOM and SWK biographies reveal that the revelation process, using the revelation on blacks and the priesthood as an example, is often a process of disagreement and consensus-building, that can be lengthy, and that the "revelation" - actually confirmation of the decision reached - often comes at the end of what can be an arduous process. God, through revelation, is involved at the end of the process, but not necessarily at all points along the way.

That is probably more what Waters has said than I have but I essentially agree. I think the only additional point I was trying to make was that I don't think anyone ought to be threatened by that. I think that there are some who consciously or unconsciously read the phrase "and therefore the church isn't true" at the end of a lot of posts and it causes them to get their hackles up for no good reason. It is part and parcel of our collective psyche being that of embattlement and persecution, I understand where it comes from.