Vort

Neither. This is not the first thing I have read from Quinn, but by the same token, I have not read his books, nor do I consider myself extensively familiar with his work.

The problem is that historical information can rarely or never be presented in an unbiased manner. This is because such information exists in a certain context, and how that context is presented (and manipulated) makes all the difference in how the information is perceived. Quinn may present good information, but if he phrases it in a sinister context, how can any reader not personally familiar with the facts interpret it any way except for how Quinn tells him/her to interpret it? The most effective anti-Mormon propaganda is not the 98% of garbage that tells outright falsehoods or mixes some truth with lies and presents an unsavory and ultimately preposterous story. Most people of good will eventually see through such nonsense, and usually sooner rather than later. The most effective anti-Mormon propaganda is that which bases itself on solid historical evidence, but presents this evidence in a context that questions the motives of the principals at every turn and constantly implies less-than-noble or outright unsavory motives. You don't have to prove motives, you see. That's the part of history that the historian gets to invent; just ask Fawn Brodie. In my view, D. Michael Quinn falls firmly into this camp.

Perhaps, but he just cannot help inserting the digs. Toward the end of this (very interesting) article, he writes: [R]ank-and-file Mormons feel no need for public accountability for general Church funds in view of the motto of the contemporary Church: "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done." This a manifestly unfair statement surpasses churlishness and enters the realm of outright dishonesty. Buried in the footnotes, Quinn admits that Persident George Albert Smith said "the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church," but then claims that since this was said in private correspondence, it doesn't count. Quinn does not bother to mention the perfectly sound interpretation that reads: "Decisions from the Church are not arrived at without a great deal of thought." Instead, he allows the darker inference: "Church decisions end all thought." To substantiate this uncharitable view, he quotes sister Elaine Cannon, Young Women's General President: "When the prophet speaks the debate is over." But while Sister Cannon's words sound similar, they are not at all. They are a statement both of obvious truth and of the need to sustain one's prophet, not an abrogation of the need to use one's mind. This entire paper is riddled with such digs, both subtle and overt. It's a pity, and it's irritating, but it certainly is no secret. And given Quinn's personal struggles and excommunication, it is no surprise, either.

Are you really, Beefche? Congratulations!

Yes, the link you provided. Quinn has a way of phrasing things that casts doubt on the integrity or intentions of the men of whom he speaks. For example (and there are a great many examples, just in the paper you cite): "Almost from the beginning, the business of the LDS church has been business." This section lead-off sentence is manifestly unfair; Quinn himself says a few paragraphs later, "Non-Mormons have almost always overlooked the reality that the LDs church has rarely had financial profit as the motive for starting even the most ambitious business." Other examples abound.

I see why so many people were uncomfortable with Quinn's writings. He challenges Church leadership and makes implicit negative assumptions throughout. Rather unsavory to read, though still very interesting. Closer to seven months, actually.

Fascinating. Thank you for the links. Though I'm no fan either of Sunstone or Michael Quinn, his scholarship is said to be first-rate. My point is: "Tithing" means "tenth", so therefore the meaning of tithing is intrinsic. That the presiding bishopric redefined tithing to mean 2% is interesting and relevant. But the divine law, as contained in the very meaning of the word "tithing", is a tenth of our increase. A 2% "tithing" is a contradiction in terms, as Section 119 established (if not in so many words).

Not so. The very word "tithing" means "tenth". Tithing has always been a tenth of your increase, though the term was used more loosely in the early Church.

You mean, as in The Princess Bride?

I think this points up one of the fallacies in our Western thinking. We are deeply egalitarian, and as such we are impelled to believe that men and women are "equal", where "equal" pretty much means "the same". So if we see a situation where one sex seemingly has a gift that the other lacks, we automatically assume one of two things must be the case: The other sex also actually has that same gift, and we just don't know it (or it isn't currently practiced that way).Example: Men are ordained to the Priesthood, but women are not. Therefore, women actually do hold the Priesthood; they just don't need to be ordained to any office. Or: Women actually should hold the Priesthood just like men, but they don't today because we live in such a sexist society that wouldn't accept it. The other sex is compensated for their lack by being given other gifts or traits that are equal to, or perhaps better than, the topic under discussion.Example: Sticking with the Priesthood example, another explanation is that women don't need the Priesthood, because they are naturally more righteous than men, who need the Priesthood to make their pathetic souls a bit more acceptable to God. Or, in another incarnation, women have motherhood instead of the Priesthood, so it's really six of one and half a dozen of the other. (Or more commonly: Women have motherhood, which is actually better than having the Priesthood.) Note that in each of these examples, the purported explanation is simply a way to equalize the station of men and women, or perhaps even put women in a superior position to men. Each of these assumes that there can be no fundamental difference in authority between men and women, so therefore the difference in Priesthood holding must either be illusory (e.g. women actually do hold the Priesthood) or otherwise compensated (e.g. women are too righteous to need the Priesthood; women have something equal to or greater than Priesthood power). My shocking theory is that men and women are different, with different duties and different realms of responsibility. To say that one is somehow "better than" the other (e.g. motherhood is better than the Priesthood, or women are naturally more righteous than men) is an absurdity. They are not "better than" or "worse than", nor are they "equal" in any sense of sameness. They are complementary. That's kind of you. Thank you. Yes, they are not yet familiar with my sparkling personality and witty conversationalism.

It is possible that women possess certain spiritual "instincts" that are rarer in, or perhaps even foreign to, men. But by the same token, men may possess other such spiritual "instincts" not available to women. Which leads me back to my original response (or an amended version of it): It is irrelevant what I think Elder Hafen meant. He did not claim that men lack spiritual "instincts". I am relieved to hear it. Several recent joinees seem to have concluded that I'm not a nice guy. (Maybe they just think I lack spiritual instincts.)

Let me amend my statement: Elder Hafen did not teach that men do not have spiritual instincts. (PS I like you, Ruthie. I hope you are not offended by me.)

I know that I hate going to Church with all those smelly hypocrites. Thank God that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

Mods!!! MorningStar is abusing her spiritual gifts! Make her stop! Here is your new avatar:

Hey! You knock that off!

What I think is irrelevant. Elder Hafen did not teach that men do not have spiritual gifts.

Even if we accept Elder Hafen's words at face value as if they were doctrine, those words do not say that:

Something like this:

I don't believe that you "know exactly what the Priesthood can do". I doubt that knowledge has been given to men. In the Avatar animated series (cartoon), the first episode introduces amazing powers called "bending", which allow the "benders" who wield those powers to exert amazing control over different things. One point that is stressed in that first episode is that "It isn't magic, it's bending!" And so what is bending? Well...it's magic. Just saying "This here isn't magic" doesn't mean it is not. Now, I happen to agree with you that the Priesthood is not "magic" in any meaningful sense. It is the lawful control over all things that submit to it. But the way you refer to it certainly smacks of magical thinking. To wit: when we die and we become God's I assume you meant "Gods"; hopefully, we are already God's, or are striving so to be. This is folk Mormonism, not LDS doctrine. We don't "die and become Gods", or at least, that is not what the scriptures teach us. We are promised "all that the Father hath", and our entire doctrine leads us to strive to become like the Savior. But exactly what does that mean? We have not been told in detail. You are basing your ideas on a Mormon folk doctrine that is not well-defined and may not even make sense in the way you're using it. to be come God you have to be powerful. God's power is the Priesthood, so since females can't hold it This is the "spandex suit approach": God has power. That power is the Priesthood. Women cannot hold the Priesthood. Therefore, women cannot be like God. Compare: Thor has power. That power is Thor's hammer. Men cannot wield Thor's hammer. Therefore, men cannot be like Thor. The Priesthood is not Thor's hammer or Superman's cape or The Greatest American Hero's spandex suit. Indeed, women do not "hold" the Priesthood as men do, but note that women are a part of the highest order of the Priesthood. This is more than merely enjoying the blessings of the Priesthood; this is a participatory part. What does it mean to "be a part of the highest order of the Priesthood"? What are the implications of that? I don't really know. But it seems obvious to me that it's more than a passive reception of Priesthood blessings. I believe we do not understand the basic order of how the Priesthood operates. We tend to think in terms of "power to command". I think that is not a correct model. That's the spandex suit model, and it fails on every level. Will females be as powerful as males? This, too, seems to betray a "spandex suit" view of reality. I believe that the question itself does not make sense. It depends on a power-structured worldview which I believe to be quite foreign to how God operates. I appreciate the generous assessment. You are mistaken. I make no such assumptions. What do you suppose casting such aspersions shows about your own character? This may indeed be good advice.

Thanks.

"OWL" is an academic term from the Harry Potter series of novels. My son didn't blow off the exam; on the contrary, he aced it. Combined with his preexisting 102%, he will get the highest grade in the class (an A). He told me that he could have skipped the final altogether and still gotten an A. In the Harry Potter series, Ron Weasley is portrayed as a nice, friendly kid, and bright in his own way, but a poor student. My point was that my son's attempt to mimic Ron Weasley was weakened by the fact that he is not a poor student -- more of a Hermione Granger type, actually. (He'll probably be dressing up tomorrow as Hermione...)

Great writeup on HTTP. :) I've fixed the link above.

I agree with your analysis. I want to know what the other posters think that "equality" means, because without knowing that, it becomes impossible to converse intelligently with them on the topic.

You are thinking of God as a superhero and Godhood (or Priesthood) as a magical spandex suit of power. In reality, these models do not apply.