How to Study Prophetic Counsel from the 20th Century (And Not Go Crazy)


Recommended Posts

A few years ago, I became a little obsessive about answering odd-end gospel-related questions. Some of them were things like, "How long does it take to get to Kolob?" while others were more personal yet extremely specific. To find answers to these questions I did some innocent seeking into past conference talks, CES devotionals and BYU speeches, mostly. I like to think of myself as a pretty devout Latter-Day Saint, so I wanted information from sources that would provide prophetic counsel. Honestly speaking, I didn't expect to be turned upside down so fast or to become as wildly confused as I did. I mean I was sincerely seeking answers and knocking on all the doors I thought were right, and that's the equation for spiritual revelation, right? But instead of having the mysteries of God unfolded before me, my vision of the gospel was getting cloudier with each talk that I read. I didn't understand why this was happening until I gained some insight into what it means to have...

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where she’s going, and respect it.    Whether the type of people she’s aiming her article towards, are going to be inclined to give her a fair hearing and be persuaded by her very solid points; is another question.  It would be interested to see this and some of 3H’s other recent articles posted on forums that are geared towards ex-, inactive, “intellectual”, progressive, or non-Mormons; and see what kind of headway they make.  I suspect the answer would be:  not much.  

But, we’ve had this discussion several times over lately.  MGF has apparently decided that it can best fulfill its mission by offering validation to the DAMU set.  I won’t play that game, and I suppose all that’s left is to try to keep offering a logical and well-informed counterpoint.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How to Study Prophetic Counsel from the 20th Century (And Not Go Crazy)

Answer: The same way Nephi received the words of his father. The manner for studying and learning from prophetic counsel in the 20th century was the same manner for those who heard Adam's counsel -- God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I can see where she’s going, and respect it.    Whether the type of people she’s aiming her article towards, are going to be inclined to give her a fair hearing and be persuaded by her very solid points; is another question.  It would be interested to see this and some of 3H’s other recent articles posted on forums that are geared towards ex-, inactive, “intellectual”, progressive, or non-Mormons; and see what kind of headway they make.  I suspect the answer would be:  not much.  

But, we’ve had this discussion several times over lately.  MGF has apparently decided that it can best fulfill its mission by offering validation to the DAMU set.  I won’t play that game, and I suppose all that’s left is to try to keep offering a logical and well-informed counterpoint.  

Well said. The problem is (often, not always) not with the ideas, but with the presentation. I actually mostly agreed with Heather's infamous article a couple of months back, but her "not a member of Elder Oaks' fan club" presentation doused any enthusiasm that the column might otherwise have generated in me.

Sister Mangum's implied approach seems to be: The gospel message is offensive on first hearing, and the gospel as preached by our fathers and grandfathers triply so. Therefore, we must overlook our initial impression and instead listen more carefully to tease out the eternal truths that are there.

I suppose this is solid advice in any generation and at any age, but the implication rubs me wrong. Instead of saying, "I approached a certain gospel topic wrong, and it took a while until I could see the truths being presented," the article seems to say, "Those old generations said things funny, in a way that decent people today can't grasp immediately, but we have to be patient with our forebears and tease out the truths they articulated." Again, this is not incorrect, but it seems to suffer from massive implicit presentism. If Sister Mangum's article were the only example of this, I would chalk it up to a mere immature worldview by a specific writer, or perhaps just an unconscious slip. But it seems like this is the default attitude of the article authors for ThirdHour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I can see where she’s going, and respect it.

It strikes me that if someone is reading the words of prophets and apostles, past or present, and getting a "sour taste" in their mouth from it, there is something fundamentally wrong in said person's view and understanding of God's gospel. The entire premise just stinks of a sort of arrogant self-centered blindness.

Of course she doesn't bother to say what the actual examples are that are leaving a sour taste in her mouth. Just alludes to them. Something about homosexuality and women in the workplace.

What comment by prophets, past or present, should be leaving sour tastes in any faithful member's mouths over these issues? Homosexuality is a grievous sin? A women's role is in the home?

Which idea, exactly, taught by previous prophets or apostles is now to be disregarded as "not for our time"?

Sure...I get the idea she's basing her ideas on. And if one were, for example, speaking of specific ways to handle finances in the 19th century as compared to today -- sure. Obviously. It's a different world. Core principles may remain the same, but the minutia differs. I don't give 1 of my 10 chickens to the bishop for his literal storehouse any longer.

But it seems to me that she is taking a common sense principle and using it to justify things than are not justifiable.

The problem with this approach, of course, is that even if one were able to reach disaffected souls with this sort of approach, lies cannot be conquered with lies. You cannot justify the unjustifiable with things that do not correlate.

Am I reading between the lines a bit?

Maybe. As she wasn't explicit, it's hard to say.

Will said disaffected souls also read between the lines, pending their actually ever seeing these sorts of articles?

You betchya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an example:

I was listening to some Millennials discuss political topics the other day. At first, I was appalled by their utter lack of understanding of anything having to do with the US form of government. Don't they teach basic civics in schools any more? Or is the rising generation simply beset by terminal stupidity? But as the fog of their confused, seemingly irrational speech slowly lifted, I began to see that, deep down, there was actually some foundation for what they were struggling to say...

Sounds like a great start for an essay, doesn't it? It's an example of what Alexander Pope called "[to] damn with faint praise".

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Here's an example:

I was listening to some Millennials discuss political topics the other day. At first, I was appalled by their utter lack of understanding of anything having to do with the US form of government. Don't they teach basic civics in schools any more? Or is the rising generation simply beset by terminal stupidity? But as the fog of their confused, seemingly irrational speech slowly lifted, I began to see that, deep down, there was actually some foundation for what they were struggling to say...

Sounds like a great start for an essay, doesn't it? It's an example of what Alexander Pope called "[to] damn with faint praise".

Taking a shot at application:

I was listening to [previous prophets] discuss [the gospel] the other day. At first, I was appalled by their utter lack of understanding of anything having to do with [God and religion]. [Didn't] they [learn] basic [religion] in [the church back then]? Or [was] the [previous] generation simply beset by terminal stupidity? But as the fog of their confused, seemingly irrational speech slowly lifted, I began to see that, deep down, there was actually some foundation for what they were struggling to say...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It strikes me that if someone is reading the words of prophets and apostles, past or present, and getting a "sour taste" in their mouth from it, there is something fundamentally wrong in said person's view and understanding of God's gospel. The entire premise just stinks of a sort of arrogant self-centered blindness.

Of course she doesn't bother to say what the actual examples are that are leaving a sour taste in her mouth. Just alludes to them. Something about homosexuality and women in the workplace.

What comment by prophets, past or present, should be leaving sour tastes in any faithful member's mouths over these issues? Homosexuality is a grievous sin? A women's role is in the home?

Which idea, exactly, taught by previous prophets or apostles is now to be disregarded as "not for our time"?

Sure...I get the idea she's basing her ideas on. And if one were, for example, speaking of specific ways to handle finances in the 19th century as compared to today -- sure. Obviously. It's a different world. Core principles may remain the same, but the minutia differs. I don't give 1 of my 10 chickens to the bishop for his literal storehouse any longer.

But it seems to me that she is taking a common sense principle and using it to justify things than are not justifiable.

The problem with this approach, of course, is that even if one were able to reach disaffected souls with this sort of approach, lies cannot be conquered with lies. You cannot justify the unjustifiable with things that do not correlate.

Am I reading between the lines a bit?

Maybe. As she wasn't explicit, it's hard to say.

Will said disaffected souls also read between the lines, pending their actually ever seeing these sorts of articles?

You betchya.

I think Vort hit the nail on the head with his talk of presentism.  The very young will always be particularly vulnerable to this attitude, MGF seems to recruit primarily young college students/interns for its articles, and modern higher educational institutions (lamentably including BYU, to a greater or lesser degree) tend to reinforce presentism rather than checking it.  I don’t know that this is a case of the author setting out to justify the unjustifiable; I think it’s more a case of a sincerely curious and promising but hitherto unseasoned mind genuinely wondering why everyone else doesn’t speak her own language. I think most of us do move past that paradigm with time, and it’s not worthy of any unique opprobrium; I’m just not sure it’s particularly helpful, either.  

So, this is me, not yet forty and already harrumphing about “kids these days”.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think Vort hit the nail on the head with his talk of presentism.

I think that is a possibility some of the times. (In the case of Heather's, I think so, for example).

I think it's more likely that there's something rancid festering in the culture that's bled into the mindsets of many within the church.

Of course the presentism problem is, itself, perhaps as much a symptom of this rancidity as anything.

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t know that this is a case of the author setting out to justify the unjustifiable;

Depends on whether she's trying to say that women being homemakers instead of having careers is "outdated" thinking or not. Like I said, I am reading between the lines a bit.

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

opprobrium

Dang it! Pulling out my pocket dictionary....again.....

harsh criticism or censure.

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think most of us do move past that paradigm with time, and it’s not worthy of any unique opprobrium; I’m just not sure it’s particularly helpful, either.  

Do you mean the opprobrium isn't helpful? Or do you mean the failed presentism?

26 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So, this is me, not yet forty and already harrumphing about “kids these days”.

A "kid" who takes a role as a published writer must, by rights of that role, take upon themselves a higher standard.

However -- As has also been suggested before: I hold the writers less accountable in my "harrumphing" than I do the publishers and editors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Yeah, I had to dig around a bit to find DisAffected Mormon Underground (not to be confused with the Sumerian god).

Sheesh.

I had to think and think and think to figure out what on earth you were talking about. I thought "mordorbund has lost it" for a bit...but then it hit me.

JaG's reference to DAMU.

On a side (but very related) note:

I HATE ACRONYMS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think Vort hit the nail on the head with his talk of presentism.  The very young will always be particularly vulnerable to this attitude, MGF seems to recruit primarily young college students/interns for its articles, and modern higher educational institutions (lamentably including BYU, to a greater or lesser degree) tend to reinforce presentism rather than checking it.  I don’t know that this is a case of the author setting out to justify the unjustifiable; I think it’s more a case of a sincerely curious and promising but hitherto unseasoned mind genuinely wondering why everyone else doesn’t speak her own language. I think most of us do move past that paradigm with time, and it’s not worthy of any unique opprobrium; I’m just not sure it’s particularly helpful, either.  

So, this is me, not yet forty and already harrumphing about “kids these days”.

That's because you're talking about these authors as if they were 13.  If you've reached the age where you can sign for your own legal contracts, you should also be at the age where you can write mature articles.  To expect them to "mature into it" at that age is committing the crime of low expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's because you're talking about these authors as if they were 13.  If you've reached the age where you can sign for your own legal contracts, you should also be at the age where you can write mature articles.  To expect them to "mature into it" at that age is committing the crime of low expectations.

“Should”.

Many of our youth are being poorly served by their culture and their educational institutions; and this has consequences well into adulthood.  :( 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

However -- As has also been suggested before: I hold the writers less accountable in my "harrumphing" than I do the publishers and editors.

Nobody reads through these in MGF before they get published.  Change my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

“Should”.

I would like to think that MGF is not that desperate for writers that they can't apply a modicum of discrimination.

 

Quote

Many of our youth are being poorly served by their culture and their educational institutions; and this has consequences well into adulthood.  :( 

And that is a direct byproduct of the modern woman who thinks staying at home to raise the kids belongs in the past.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Nobody reads through these in MGF before they get published.  Change my mind.

I don't disagree. Doesn't change my view. Editors and publishers not doing their job is just as problematic as doing their job badly. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share