David Snell article: Why, David?


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

 
 
 
1
11 hours ago, estradling75 said:

People seem to confuse the truth that everyone has flaws... with the idea that it is wise to repeatedly, publicly air those flaws..

It might be a generational thing where one generation gets sick of hearing all the flaws and makes a point to focus only on the good, the next generation feels lied to because they grew up only hearing the good and thought (insert prophets name) was perfect, and the pattern continues. I see nothing wrong with the article in fact it contains both the flaws and greatness of BY, something future generations need to know.

 
 
 
 
2
11 hours ago, estradling75 said:

So whenever you hear or read someone airing the flaws of someone they say they honor, respect, etc... change the target of their criticism to their spouse... and see if you still think they are being faithful and respectful.  In this case if we change the subject of Snell's article from Brigham Young to Snell's spouse (assuming he has one which I really do not know)... we would have reason to be concerned about their relationship..  Even though Snell is claiming everything is fine.

If snell was bashing then yes, totally inappropriate but he is not, just simply stating that BY had flaws. I appreciate couples who tread lightly talking about the flaws in their relationship/family/homes. Bashing, nope! Letting others know you have flaws and are human, fine with me. Also there is a difference between your average person and a leader or someone that everyone holds in high regard. The leaders greatness is repeated through-out history and so should his flaws.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

It might be a generational thing where one generation gets sick of hearing all the flaws and makes a point to focus only on the good, the next generation feels lied to because they grew up only hearing the good and thought (insert prophets name) was perfect, and the pattern continues. I see nothing wrong with the article in fact it contains both the flaws and greatness of BY, something future generations need to know.

I grow tied of people who hear what the church instructs them to do... and ignore it... then complain that the church did not instruct them.   Forever the church has been instructing it members to read the scriptures and words of the Prophets.  Not just read... but study, ponder, feast upon the words.  Anyone who does that will learn that Only Christ was Perfect, and everyone else is flawed.  And many of the great prophets in the scripture have flaws shown.  Want to know that Joseph Smith was flawed and made mistakes?  Read the Doctrine and Covenants it will show some big mistakes Joseph Smith made.  If a person is following the current church suggestions of the Come Follow Me program they can ponder on the idea that the Great Prophet Lehi apparently got a little hangery(which I can so empathize with) ..  which lead to his murmuring.

If a person wants to know what Brigham Young said... they should go read it...  He is a prophet, do as the church instruct and ponder his words.  But if that person choose to ignore his words then they have only themselves to blame for ignoring the church's instructions.  Now some people might say they do not have time to read everything Brigham Young has read... OK... but to then turn it around somehow and basically declare that they would have the time if the church spoon fed it to them... I think not.

If a person hears something about a prophet that they did not know they have two options.   They can judge it to be not important to them... Or they can think it is important enough to follow the instructions to study it, ponder it, and pray about it. That is what the church teaches us to do.  Some one that refuses to follow this council, is refusing the Milk of the Gospel... and should not be surprised if they choke when they find a bit of meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the obsession there has been for a while now with seeking the faults of past leaders (or the present for that matter), even if the intent is good. It takes away the focus of what really matters, the plan of salvation, when we just put our focus on man's mistakes.

On the other hand there's another extreme: the obsession of making the prophets stand on pedestals like Greek gods, making them seem as perfect as possible and wipe away the dirt. It's a dangerous tendency as well. You can't argue against a perfect being so the Adam-God theory has to be true, right? If not, the so-called perfect prophet has to be a false prophet. I can go on with this, but get the point.

 

You are supposed to take the whole package of a prophet, not just what you like or what you dislike... It ruins what a prophet really is: an ordained MAN of GOD. I have no problem with talking about a prophet's faults if it's relevant for the occasion, but I would never dare to focus on it. At the same time I won't tolerate that people I know think we're supposed to be gods on earth.

Sometimes a sinner but always a saint

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Nordic saint said:

At the same time I won't tolerate that people I know think we're supposed to be gods on earth.

I agree with the rest of your post, but was confused as to what you mean by the above statement.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... that's what you get out of writing late at night 😝

What I meant was that people at the same time need to come out of the illusion that prophets (and us) are supposed to be perfect people who don't make mistakes (in other words, a celestial being). There has only been one person on the earth who have accomplished that 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this topic, of most interest is that one of the BIGGEST critics who point out flaws of Brigham Young today is the Church itself.  The blatantly do it in the Church Essays for anyone who knows the history of many of the topics they are discussing.

In relation to the topic at hand, what does this reflect on the Church itself if one finds this on their own website, and why should we criticize an author who is basically simply pointing out some of the same items the Church itself indirectly is blatantly pointing out?

This is perhaps one of the difficulties I HAVE with the current approach the church has to it's secular branches approach to history today.  It seems far to willing to contradict it's own prophets from yesteryear or to gaslight us pertaining to their statements and directives rather than take the harder path of accepting their prophetic calling in many instances and their own words of what they did and experienced from the prophets themselves.  Instead of finding a way to accept both what they said in their times and the realities of what they stated as well as the modern interpretations of scripture and idealistic moralities we have currently and to meld the two into an acceptable path, they would rather disavow things of the past to bolster the new social issues of today (at least in the secular essays and papers).

I personally believe Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were powerful prophets and instruments of the Lord, but it is an opinion I find not often shared by many Saints today.  Even if many saints say they believe in them, they are more than eager to toss them under the bus when they find things these prophets taught that do not agree with our modern sensibilities and modern western morality.  I find a great delight in reading the words of the Prophets from Joseph Smith through Joseph Fielding (and there is a great deal of agreement between them upon the facets of the gospel which today have been disavowed or buried and hidden by the Saints), but I don't think that there are many that are as equally delighted by what I've seen more commonly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

On this topic, of most interest is that one of the BIGGEST critics who point out flaws of Brigham Young today is the Church itself.  The blatantly do it in the Church Essays for anyone who knows the history of many of the topics they are discussing.

In relation to the topic at hand, what does this reflect on the Church itself if one finds this on their own website, and why should we criticize an author who is basically simply pointing out some of the same items the Church itself indirectly is blatantly pointing out?

This is perhaps one of the difficulties I HAVE with the current approach the church has to it's secular branches approach to history today.  It seems far to willing to contradict it's own prophets from yesteryear or to gaslight us pertaining to their statements and directives rather than take the harder path of accepting their prophetic calling in many instances and their own words of what they did and experienced from the prophets themselves.  Instead of finding a way to accept both what they said in their times and the realities of what they stated as well as the modern interpretations of scripture and idealistic moralities we have currently and to meld the two into an acceptable path, they would rather disavow things of the past to bolster the new social issues of today (at least in the secular essays and papers).

I personally believe Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were powerful prophets and instruments of the Lord, but it is an opinion I find not often shared by many Saints today.  Even if many saints say they believe in them, they are more than eager to toss them under the bus when they find things these prophets taught that do not agree with our modern sensibilities and modern western morality.  I find a great delight in reading the words of the Prophets from Joseph Smith through Joseph Fielding (and there is a great deal of agreement between them upon the facets of the gospel which today have been disavowed or buried and hidden by the Saints), but I don't think that there are many that are as equally delighted by what I've seen more commonly.

Those essays though are not criticizing but are analysis and discussions. It's not that you take up sensitive topics but how you handle them and for what purpose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

.....the current approach the church has to it's secular branches approach to history today.  It seems far to willing to contradict it's own prophets from yesteryear or to gaslight us ...

I'm confused. Who are you suggesting is gaslighting us?  I don't think you meant that the way it sounds (at least the way it sounds to me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm confused. Who are you suggesting is gaslighting us?  I don't think you meant that the way it sounds (at least the way it sounds to me).

It probably does not.  I see the Church education currently split between spiritually uplifting and a more secular side.  The secular side and it's approach these days are not something that really pleases me as I feel they are too critical of the Church itself and it's past.  In many ways they are trying to be so secular that they are disrupting what I see as the spiritual side of things.

However, for a further explanation I'll send you a message instead as I do not see some of the explanation as spiritually uplifting.  It does reflect some of my difficulties in a few callings the Church has had me occupied in doing in regards to students who are inactive and my visits with them.

I feel the best path for any of us is to remain strong in our faith by daily reading of the Book of Mormon and praying to remain strong in our faith of the gospel.  There are so many hazards out there today that without a strong personal testimony it is probably far too easy for someone to fall away from the Church.  It is something I see among college students today that they struggle with.  Many utilize the things we teach at the university for them to think with their minds and be critical, but in doing so many forget to read the Book of Mormon and study the scriptures as much, to exercise the spirit and to try to feel it daily, and to pray for strength to endure to the end.

And that's probably enough on that publically. 

Personally I feel that we need to stick with the Church and follow the Prophet.  The Prophet, Seer, and Revelator today is Russell M. Nelson.  We should remember that our leaders are not infallible and not perfect, but are men, however they are also the Chosen of the Lord and hold the only authority on earth today in holding the Keys of the Priesthood.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Fun fact: Just as "flammable" and "inflammable" both mean "capable of getting caught on fire" (or, "flammable"), "infallible" also means "flammable".

Our leaders are flammable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Goodness I'm a bit late to the party here. I wouldn't even have seen the year-old thread if I hadn't stumbled upon it while searching for an article. Vort, your analysis of myself and my approach in this article is probably the most scathing missive I've seen in a long while. Your criticism is duly noted. I also appreciate the feedback of the others in this thread.

I meant no harm to President Young. In fact, the purpose of the article was meant to highlight some of his positive teachings. The link to the video was just meant as an example of the extent to which President Young has been criticized over the years (i.e. "People have literally made movies criticizing him"). I stand by my statement that I agree with some of the criticisms that have been raised about him over the centuries. I think it's no secret that the man had his faults and I have no problem acknowledging them (the Church itself acknowledges some of his faults)--though I had/have no intention of acknowledging them in a demeaning way. This was not an attempt to attack President Young. I simply pointed out that while the man had his faults, there are also plenty of good things we can and should focus on. But I apologize if my approach rubbed many of you the wrong way. It was not my intention. I continue to learn and grow as a writer, and I hope you all can be patient with me as I struggle to be an advocate for our shared faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dsnell said:

Goodness I'm a bit late to the party here. I wouldn't even have seen the year-old thread if I hadn't stumbled upon it while searching for an article. Vort, your analysis of myself and my approach in this article is probably the most scathing missive I've seen in a long while. Your criticism is duly noted. I also appreciate the feedback of the others in this thread.

I meant no harm to President Young. In fact, the purpose of the article was meant to highlight some of his positive teachings. The link to the video was just meant as an example of the extent to which President Young has been criticized over the years (i.e. "People have literally made movies criticizing him"). I stand by my statement that I agree with some of the criticisms that have been raised about him over the centuries. I think it's no secret that the man had his faults and I have no problem acknowledging them (the Church itself acknowledges some of his faults)--though I had/have no intention of acknowledging them in a demeaning way. This was not an attempt to attack President Young. I simply pointed out that while the man had his faults, there are also plenty of good things we can and should focus on. But I apologize if my approach rubbed many of you the wrong way. It was not my intention. I continue to learn and grow as a writer, and I hope you all can be patient with me as I struggle to be an advocate for our shared faith.

Thank you for coming to post.  I personally do not know you but I would not mind getting to know you.  I have written a few books and articles myself - but they are all technical manuals and papers.  Currently I am a retired engineer that worked in the field of automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.   It is my personal opinion that when communicating with others we should understand our own biases and prejudices first - and then try to understand the bias and prejudice of those with whom we wish to communicate.   So if you do not want to talk about Brother Brigham's flaws - don't say he was flawed - speak clearly and to the best of your ability and understanding - why you believe Brigham was or was not flawed.  If there are plenty of good thing - then focus on what and why you think the good things should be understood - especially for his place and time and how that can relate to our place and time.

I agree with @Vort - if you do not know your opinion - then and only then should you pretend that you do not have an opinion.  If you cannot state your purpose and make logical arguments for it - why would you continue to hold that opinion?  I, myself, believe Brigham rose above his place and time and deserves to be understood as one of the great leaders of his time and place along with other great men of history that accomplished unusually great things; despite the challenges he faced not just within himself but even more so from the world. 

 

The Traveler

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