|
12-13-2007, 03:15 PM | #1 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Historians have usurped the prophets
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? |
12-13-2007, 03:19 PM | #2 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
12-13-2007, 03:21 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
How much additional light do you really think GBH would be able to cast on this?
|
12-13-2007, 03:23 PM | #4 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
But given that he was personally acquainted with the players, knew who supported in, and who opposed it over the years, yes I should say a lot would be learned. |
|
12-13-2007, 03:26 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Unless he had information to share regarding the direct contact that DOK, HBL, SWK et al had with God on this topic, I'm not sure anything else would be all that interesting or relevant.
|
12-13-2007, 03:27 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
Even some of the straightest, follow all the rules, members I know don't subscribe to the zealots positions on things. Just like the evangelists. I don't think those that speak out the loudest really represent how most evangelicals feel. AS an example, even on CB. Remember there was a poll that asked if the board agreed with the "only a mormon head coach" at BYU. I think it was 75% disagree with BYU. There is your normal member of the church. |
|
12-13-2007, 03:28 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
It would be nice if he reiterated to the Church intellectuals that revelation is revelation.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
12-13-2007, 03:31 PM | #8 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
This is what you will always have a hard time explaining. Because it introjects an element of human frailty which you are unwilling to consider. |
|
12-13-2007, 03:34 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
I do not know the full details (and neither do you), but I'd wager a year's earnings you're putting more emphasis on the "unanimity requirement" than was really there.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
12-13-2007, 03:37 PM | #10 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
I heard an account of the SWK biography over the pulpit from my Stake President. SWK made a herculean effort to gradually over time draw the FP and Q12 into unanimity over the issue.
|
Bookmarks |
|
|