In fairness to BRM, it may come as no surprise that he could produce some outlandish

[Archaea]

stuff.

If you are a GA, who will give you legitimate feedback?

His father-in-law appeared to be more of a fundamentalist, than an empiricist, so if he consulted his FiL, he would be directed in a more stringent mode.

All thinkers, writers, scientists and other scholars need feedback. How does a GA receive true feedback?

In our LDS culture, they probably receive very filtered, most complimentary feedback. So if they happen upon scholarly or other noncomplimentary work, they automatically believe it is, or could tend to believe it is wrong or badly motivated.

So if you're lauded as some hero, being told you are a great man and that nothing you do stinks, aren't we setting our leaders up for pride and lack of legitimate feedback?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

stuff.

If you are a GA, who will give you legitimate feedback?

His father-in-law appeared to be more of a fundamentalist, than an empiricist, so if he consulted his FiL, he would be directed in a more stringent mode.

All thinkers, writers, scientists and other scholars need feedback. How does a GA receive true feedback?

In our LDS culture, they probably receive very filtered, most complimentary feedback. So if they happen upon scholarly or other noncomplimentary work, they automatically believe it is, or could tend to believe it is wrong or badly motivated.

So if you're lauded as some hero, being told you are a great man and that nothing you do stinks, aren't we setting our leaders up for pride and lack of legitimate feedback?

This is my point: You're deluded thinking what he wrote was "outlandish" in his age. You aren't in the mainstream now Archea, and you're clueless about what the Church believed and stood for when he published the book. It's like calling emperor deification outlandish because it doesn't comport with your current sensitivities. Mormon Doctrine is outlandish from our current perspective, yes, but to think that he went on some wild enterprise unchecked and made a bunch of stuff up, well, most active Mormons don't believe that today. This was "Mormon doctrine" when he wrote it. Not any more, it appears, at least to some such as yourself.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is my point: You're deluded thinking what he wrote was "outlandish" in his age. You aren't in the mainstream now Archea, and you're clueless about what the Church believed and stood for when he published the book. It's like calling emperor deification outlandish because it doesn't comport with your current sensitivities. Mormon Doctrine is outlandish from our current perspective, yes, but to think that he went on some wild enterprise unchecked and made a bunch of stuff up, well, most active Mormons don't believe that today. This was "Mormon doctrine" when he wrote it. Not any more, it appears, at least to some such as yourself.

You are correct in one point, I don't know what LDS culture in Utah was during the early seventies and before. I entered the culture in the late seventies, entered through BYU, the mission and thereafter outside Utah. So if that provided me with a distorted view, then so be it. However, I have been involved since my joining, have held numerous callings of differing significance, and have spent a fair amount of time studying, reading and pondering. Whether I'm mainstream or not, remains to be seen. I suppose it turns on the issue.

We can look through various historical documents to show that BRM's opinion on many things were not the only opinion, so for you to opine as to what was the holistic opinion of the Church and its culture can still be limited to your own anecdotal experience. And based on your expressions here, you are fairly well out of touch with current thought and culture of Mormondom. If it was as you describe it, you have no feeling for what it is today. You sound like a boxer from Jake Lamotta's era claiming that nobody figiht like Sugar Ray Robinson, when in fact boxing has advanced, changed and morphed since that person last watched a fight. We are not the same little isolate church of 1975.

We have many shortcomings, but the culture is much more diverse, with many, many more changes to come.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is my point: You're deluded thinking what he wrote was "outlandish" in his age. You aren't in the mainstream now Archea, and you're clueless about what the Church believed and stood for when he published the book. It's like calling emperor deification outlandish because it doesn't comport with your current sensitivities. Mormon Doctrine is outlandish from our current perspective, yes, but to think that he went on some wild enterprise unchecked and made a bunch of stuff up, well, most active Mormons don't believe that today. This was "Mormon doctrine" when he wrote it. Not any more, it appears, at least to some such as yourself.

This whole Mormon Doctrine thing is out of control here, IMO. It's not like the hwole book is one big lie. Most of it, indeed the vast majority, is corrrect, accurate and not offesnive ot anyone. Last night I went home and looked at the copy I own (I can't recall where I got it). It is the second edition and I couldn't find any of the 'offensive' stuff in it. So when SU says "it represents mormon beliefs at the time" he is corect, although it also represents momron beliefs at this time, at least to large degree.

Now there were several areas in the original book that may or may not have been doctrine, and I think these were taken out, and there were several things in the original that were wrong and have been changed or were specualtion (and here I am thinking about balcks and the priesthood primarlily) and were also removed. SU wants us to see this as some sort of sea change in 'mormon' thinking, but its not, really. It's just a book that was publkished which included some doctrines and some specualtion and some of that was wroing and needed some corrections.

Much has been made about the reported errors and the circumstances of its publication. SU is correct that we have no idea what errors were idenitfied. Many of htese could have been typos or tone or phrasing. I have no idea (and neither does nayone here, as far as I know). The porblem with the book and its publicaiton was more HOW he did it and the tone the book takes as oppsoed to WHAT he did. The DOMcKay bio certainly implies that the second edition was sort of pushed onto DOMcKay, but I thought the evidence of that was not completely compelling.

So, the bottom line is that the book is just not that big of a deal. It is not some sort of touchstone for Mromonism, reagrdless of how many times SU claims it is. IN fact, I would like someone to tell me what in the second edition is so outlandish? What is so bizarre?

BRM was a hard-nose, no doubt, but he was an apostle and a seventy and I think he deserves more respect from believieng members than he is receving here. He was not some renegade trying to subvert the gospel, he was trying, perhaps imperfectly but no doubt fervently, to spread and support the gospel. His significant errors or specualtions were not that many and most of his errors and speculations were not very significant.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

This whole Mormon Doctrine thing is out of control here, IMO.

Excellent. This may submarine your reputation on Cougarguard, creekster, but I whole-heartedly agree with you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

This whole Mormon Doctrine thing is out of control here, IMO. It's not like the hwole book is one big lie. Most of it, indeed the vast majority, is corrrect, accurate and not offesnive ot anyone. Last night I went home and looked at the copy I own (I can't recall where I got it). It is the second edition and I couldn't find any of the 'offensive' stuff in it. So when SU says "it represents mormon beliefs at the time" he is corect, although it also represents momron beliefs at this time, at least to large degree.

Now there were several areas in the original book that may or may not have been doctrine, and I think these were taken out, and there were several things in the original that were wrong and have been changed or were specualtion (and here I am thinking about balcks and the priesthood primarlily) and were also removed. SU wants us to see this as some sort of sea change in 'mormon' thinking, but its not, really. It's just a book that was publkished which included some doctrines and some specualtion and some of that was wroing and needed some corrections.

Much has been made about the reported errors and the circumstances of its publication. SU is correct that we have no idea what errors were idenitfied. Many of htese could have been typos or tone or phrasing. I have no idea (and neither does nayone here, as far as I know). The porblem with the book and its publicaiton was more HOW he did it and the tone the book takes as oppsoed to WHAT he did. The DOMcKay bio certainly implies that the second edition was sort of pushed onto DOMcKay, but I thought the evidence of that was not completely compelling.

So, the bottom line is that the book is just not that big of a deal. It is not some sort of touchstone for Mromonism, reagrdless of how many times SU claims it is. IN fact, I would like someone to tell me what in the second edition is so outlandish? What is so bizarre?

BRM was a hard-nose, no doubt, but he was an apostle and a seventy and I think he deserves more respect from believieng members than he is receving here. He was not some renegade trying to subvert the gospel, he was trying, perhaps imperfectly but no doubt fervently, to spread and support the gospel. His significant errors or specualtions were not that many and most of his errors and speculations were not very significant.

What about the key point here that GAs, unlike scholars and the like, do not receive meaningful feedback, especially in light of your even advocated view that the leaders not be critisized?

Are we not setting them up to fall hard, because feedback is not encouraged?

It has been quite some time since I looked at whatever version I had. Please note, we are critiquing his doctrinal approach, not his character vis-a-vis his wife or children. I have no idea about his fiscal acumen, or in his dealings with others.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Excellent. This may submarine your reputation on Cougarguard, creekster, but I whole-heartedly agree with you.

He'll survive even this black mark against his internet character.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Please note, we are critiquing his doctrinal approach, not his character vis-a-vis his wife or children. I have no idea about his fiscal acumen, or in his dealings with others.

Originally Posted by Archaea

McConkie selfishlessly misused a man in failing health, then used legal language to achieve his own personal aims.

Every time I study how this came to be, it paints a very dark and selfish picture of BRM.

Yeah, no critique of his character there.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yeah, no critique of his character there.

In how he got it published. Yes, because that's about his public work. If the worst one had said about them is that they maneuvered to get something published, we'd all be saints.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by creekster

BRM was a hard-nose, no doubt, but he was an apostle and a seventy and I think he deserves more respect from believieng members than he is receving here. He was not some renegade trying to subvert the gospel, he was trying, perhaps imperfectly but no doubt fervently, to spread and support the gospel. His significant errors or specualtions were not that many and most of his errors and speculations were not very significant.

Amen