Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[tooblue]

So after deconstructing your built-in bias, looks like its a 2nd round knockout win for Solon.

There is nothing worse than when a comedian has to explain a joke. It's not much different when Solon, who was obviously trolling with his purchased birthright line, has to clarify and defend his comments.

[Applejack]

Wait, there are intelligent people willing to defend the church's $35 million purchase of a stack of paper?

[myboynoah]

Wait, there are intelligent people willing to defend the church's $35 million purchase of a stack of paper?

Many people here don't even care.

[Uncle Ted]

Obviously, the LDS leadership felt that buying this manuscript was an important and worthwhile endeavor. However inspired they may feel their decision to be, my unwillingness to entertain possibilities of actual inspiration is hardly “biased” in a derogatory sense. I am equally unwilling to investigate whether the LDS leaders were ordered at gunpoint to buy this manuscript, or else the Ensign Swimsuit Issue would be leaked a month early.

I have to wonder why the LDS leadership thought spending a cool $35m on a stack of papers was so damn important. Sure it is an important stack of papers but there are lots of copies available. Of course, many of the articles about this record breaking purchase (, Bill Gates) are quick to point out that the purchase of the manuscript was funded wholly by donors. The Huff Post, however, was apparently slower about this than the rest:

CLARIFICATION: This article has been amended to clarify that the purchase of the printer’s manuscript was funded wholly by donors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b06ddf45f6b427

OK, so I guess we all can feel better that the window's mite was not used on this record breaking purchase. Of course, the church could have refused this donation and told the donors that they should help get BYU into a P5 conference instead. Now that (or helping the poor folks down in Puerto Rico get back on their feet) would have been a better use of the money, IMHO. So as we all sit in the LES and watch BYU play the Portland and San Jose States with all the two star players we can recruit we can smile while thinking that we at least have a $35m stack of papers sitting somewhere up in the Church History Library.

[creekster]

There is nothing worse than when a comedian has to explain a joke. It's not much different when Solon, who was obviously trolling with his purchased birthright line, has to clarify and defend his comments.

Apparently you didnt read Solon's follow up post where he made it abundantly clear his birthright post was neither a joke nor was he trolling.

[creekster]

First off, while I agree that I "never allow that the LDS [faith] may be true", I am going to dismiss this as a non-starter. I am fundamentally uninterested in discussing the "truth" of a religion. I do agree that the actions of those who do consider the LDS faith "true" (and, by true, I am assuming the typical definition of divinely inspired and directed, etc. etc.) are fundamentally interesting and this should inform any investigation into a person’s or group’s motivations. You didn't get an "oh brother" from me.

I didn't expect you to discuss the fact of truthfulness from your POV, but you pay mere lip service to the POV of church leadership. You say you consider it but neither your analysis nor your conclusion offers evidence of such consideration. It still doesn't. Nothing wrong wiht that. But it does mean your analysis is, at best, incomplete.

In addition, on this point, your criticism of my apparently anti-LDS bias in not acknowledging that the LDS leadership may indeed have spiritual motivations in buying this manuscript is a weak (almost ad hominem) argument to begin with. Obviously, the LDS leadership felt that buying this manuscript was an important and worthwhile endeavor. However inspired they may feel their decision to be, my unwillingness to entertain possibilities of actual inspiration is hardly “biased” in a derogatory sense. I am equally unwilling to investigate whether the LDS leaders were ordered at gunpoint to buy this manuscript, or else the Ensign Swimsuit Issue would be leaked a month early.

It is not an ad hominem. I don't care if you believe or not. But bias is bias. Everyone has some bias and here yours is both apparent and relevant to your conclusion. You simply cannot fairly evaluate whether the LDS church acted appropriately in this instance without considering the purchase form their POV. I never said your bias was derogatory. If you hear it that way, well, the wicked take the truth to be hard, I suppose. (For Tooblue's sake let me point out that was a joke)

Secondly, I must reiterate that I do not care how the LDS church spends its money. My observations about "Mammon" are just that - observations. I pass no moral or authoritative judgment on the church's decisions to buy a $35 million manuscript. Your insistence that I condemn this activity by equating it with Mammon probaby says more about you than about me, or at least about how much of a Mormon (or non-Mormon) you think I am. I see this purchase as being part of the same equation of the LDS church situating itself like any other large organization with an eye towards its history, its reputation, and its legacy. So, again, I do not care about this purchase in anything more than an academic sense (in fact, I am a dedicated supporter of preserving important historical documents). I see the LDS church’s activity in these regards as a version of other organizations doing the exact same thing.
So, with those disagreements out of the way, I may now engage in a defense of my analogy.

Here you are simply being disingenuous and you know it. Mammon, by its very definition, means wealth that constitutes an evil influence. There is no such thing as neutral or positive Mammon. Moreover, your audience here is almost certainly familiar with the term in a single context: Jesus telling his disciples that you cannot serve both God and Mammon. Choose this day who you will serve and all that. So, when you first used the term Mammon to describe the Church's use of money, and then when you double down on it here, you are not being neutral. You are not being academic. You are directly condemning the church as having fallen prey to the evils of wealth and serving it, not God. So not only do you not include even the possibility of a spiritual motivation, you implicitly judge and condemn the action as influenced by evil. That I even have to explain this to you, with your background, and who is a better writer and more intelligent than me, just proves that you are being disingenuous. The irony, to me, is that you claim not to care what the church does, and to recognize that the church is only doing what any organization might do, and to not be interested in the actual spiritual truth issues, but then you make a normative evaluation of those actions by referring to the means they use as mammon, which is itself a type of spiritual assessment.

I contend that the RLDS (or Community of Christ) has a better historical claim to LDS authoritative succession than the LDS church. While the LDS claim to legitimate authority rests in the Brigham-Young-Transfiguration story, historians have cast considerable doubt on the authenticity of this account. (see, for instance, the very good Van Wagoner article in a 1995 issue of Dialogue. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-c...4N0102_171.pdf). Historically speaking, Sidney Rigdon had the strongest claim to be the successor to Joseph Smith, or Joseph Smith III, if we believe the rumors of the Blessing (which I mentioned earlier). Brigham Young’s authority was, perhaps, indicated by his success in leading the people west, but this is hardly definitive. Indeed, in many ways, the accession of Brigham Young represents the closing of the LDS canon (for the most part), and a fundamental reshuffling of LDS doctrines. But that’s a discussion for a different day.

Thus, to me, the LDS church has the weakest claim to successional authority in this matter, in relation to the Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith III adherents. It is for this at I contend that the RLDS church had the “birthright”. Like Esau, perhaps the LDS were privileged of God and favored to “buy” this birthright, as the Genesis account indicates for the twins of Rebekah. As I conceded before, I don’t really have much evidence for the RLDS church willingly “selling” this birthright, other than this instance of selling the manuscript.

I am not equipped to argue this point with you. For purposes of our discussion, however, I am willing to concede your conclusion that, from an academic perspective, and making the assumptions you described, the RLDS have the better claim to succession. I will also point out, however, that the manuscript has nothing whatsoever to do with either the claim to succession or the legitimacy of the leader for either church. Moreover, it having now switched hands, no one, afaik, has switched sides on the succession debate as a result. In other words, apart from you, it seems like no one else finds an association with the analogy to the Esau/Jacob birthright. Thus, as I posted earlier, it seems to me the analogy is not apt and breaks down very quickly.

So, what of this manuscript? Why is it worth so much money? Clearly not because of its words, since the words are available in innumerable formats for no charge at all. On the other hand, it is precisely because of those words that the manuscript is so valuable. This manuscript represents a fundamental and foundational text for the LDS faith. The possession of this manuscript asserts a fundamental connection to the genesis of the Book of Mormon. In this sense, the manuscript is indeed very valuable to a large organization eager to project and protect its image, and provide for its legacy. As I indicated earlier, I pass no moral judgment on this development. I merely note its impact, as the possession of a historical text directly ties contemporary worshipers to an earlier era. We see the same thing with the Dead Sea Scrolls on display in Israel at the national museum.

Except you DO pass moral judgment. Your use of the term Mammon is precisely that. That's what it means, thats why you chose the word, and that's what you meant to convey. And you know it. But it seems you concede that the church's actions with the manuscript passes contemporary behavioral scrutiny. ANd yet you also say the sale and purchase of the manuscript highlights what is wrong with both churches. And that the LDS church knows it can buy anything it wants with money (yet again an allusion tailor-made to your audience here to make a salient point). It would be like saying there is "nothing wrong with taking the money" but instead of calling it "money" you call it "filthy lucre." Everyone here would know exactly what you really think, regardless of any introductory denials or qualifications.

The actions of the LDS church to emphasize prophetic, authoritative, and divinely inspired leadership underscore this attention to and desire for authoritative legitimacy. Old copies of the Book of Mormon that highlighted (inapt) comparisons between Meso-American cultures and Book of Mormon references; the insistence that current LDS leaders are “prophets, seers, revelators”, as heirs to the Old Testament tradition; the emphasis on authority and hierarchy as restored practices of ancient Christianity – all of these things are intended to tie contemporary LDS to past religious observance.
I think it is a defensible and tenable position to claim that the LDS church is very much aware of the importance of authoritative legitimacy – in the eyes of God, and in the eyes of humans. Thus, I posited the birthright analogy as encapsulating this idea of securing the authorititative & legitimate birthright.

Nothing to really argue with here except as it pertains to the manuscript. Simply put, the manuscritp does not fit in this claim to authority. It is an historical artifact of sentimental value, but its possession has no bearing on the church's actual or claimed authority or legitimacy. And you have not demonstrated any relationship here.

But why speak of Mammon? These are spiritual matters, not temporal matters – are they not? My assertion that the LDS church is interested in using money to help bolster its authoritative legitimacy again brokers no moral condemnation. It is a reasonable interpretation that manifests in all sorts of ways, from the manicured gardens of City Creek Center to the glittering prosperity of the brand-new Cedar City Temple. A temporally prosperous church suggests Divine approval - an idea at least as old as the Puritans.

But, see, this is where you are too facile. You claim you assert no moral condemnation. If that is indeed the case, then why, as you ask yourself but do not answer, speak of mammon? It only makes sense if you do offer moral condemnation. ANd this, then, is one of the things that bothered my about your posts. They claim to be neutral and academic, but are loaded with imagery and terms that convey a very obvious and understood condemnation. It is an insidious approach as it undermines legitimacy without being willing to address the argument head on. As I said, the decision to spend 35 million on this manuscript can easily be questioned. But if that is your problem, then address it directly. DOn't cast aspersions while denying you are doing so.

Also with respect. Really.

[tooblue]

Apparently you didnt read Solon's follow up post where he made it abundantly clear his birthright post was neither a joke nor was he trolling.

Well, then his perspective on the issue rises to Diogenes levels of cynicism doesn't it. And as far as winners and losers are concerned, the only real winner in mammonistic terms is the beneficiary of the 35 million.

[RC Vikings]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...MON-THEFT.html

I was still laughing about this John Hajicek guy thinking the church got a steal at $35 million and it was worth $100 million, apparently this guy isn't the best source to ask.

[Solon]

I didn't expect you to discuss the fact of truthfulness from your POV, but you pay mere lip service to the POV of church leadership. You say you consider it but neither your analysis nor your conclusion offers evidence of such consideration. It still doesn't. Nothing wrong wiht that. But it does mean your analysis is, at best, incomplete.



It is not an ad hominem. I don't care if you believe or not. But bias is bias. Everyone has some bias and here yours is both apparent and relevant to your conclusion. You simply cannot fairly evaluate whether the LDS church acted appropriately in this instance without considering the purchase form their POV. I never said your bias was derogatory. If you hear it that way, well, the wicked take the truth to be hard, I suppose. (For Tooblue's sake let me point out that was a joke)




Here you are simply being disingenuous and you know it. Mammon, by its very definition, means wealth that constitutes an evil influence. There is no such thing as neutral or positive Mammon. Moreover, your audience here is almost certainly familiar with the term in a single context: Jesus telling his disciples that you cannot serve both God and Mammon. Choose this day who you will serve and all that. So, when you first used the term Mammon to describe the Church's use of money, and then when you double down on it here, you are not being neutral. You are not being academic. You are directly condemning the church as having fallen prey to the evils of wealth and serving it, not God. So not only do you not include even the possibility of a spiritual motivation, you implicitly judge and condemn the action as influenced by evil. That I even have to explain this to you, with your background, and who is a better writer and more intelligent than me, just proves that you are being disingenuous. The irony, to me, is that you claim not to care what the church does, and to recognize that the church is only doing what any organization might do, and to not be interested in the actual spiritual truth issues, but then you make a normative evaluation of those actions by referring to the means they use as mammon, which is itself a type of spiritual assessment.



I am not equipped to argue this point with you. For purposes of our discussion, however, I am willing to concede your conclusion that, from an academic perspective, and making the assumptions you described, the RLDS have the better claim to succession. I will also point out, however, that the manuscript has nothing whatsoever to do with either the claim to succession or the legitimacy of the leader for either church. Moreover, it having now switched hands, no one, afaik, has switched sides on the succession debate as a result. In other words, apart from you, it seems like no one else finds an association with the analogy to the Esau/Jacob birthright. Thus, as I posted earlier, it seems to me the analogy is not apt and breaks down very quickly.



Except you DO pass moral judgment. Your use of the term Mammon is precisely that. That's what it means, thats why you chose the word, and that's what you meant to convey. And you know it. But it seems you concede that the church's actions with the manuscript passes contemporary behavioral scrutiny. ANd yet you also say the sale and purchase of the manuscript highlights what is wrong with both churches. And that the LDS church knows it can buy anything it wants with money (yet again an allusion tailor-made to your audience here to make a salient point). It would be like saying there is "nothing wrong with taking the money" but instead of calling it "money" you call it "filthy lucre." Everyone here would know exactly what you really think, regardless of any introductory denials or qualifications.



Nothing to really argue with here except as it pertains to the manuscript. Simply put, the manuscritp does not fit in this claim to authority. It is an historical artifact of sentimental value, but its possession has no bearing on the church's actual or claimed authority or legitimacy. And you have not demonstrated any relationship here.



But, see, this is where you are too facile. You claim you assert no moral condemnation. If that is indeed the case, then why, as you ask yourself but do not answer, speak of mammon? It only makes sense if you do offer moral condemnation. ANd this, then, is one of the things that bothered my about your posts. They claim to be neutral and academic, but are loaded with imagery and terms that convey a very obvious and understood condemnation. It is an insidious approach as it undermines legitimacy without being willing to address the argument head on. As I said, the decision to spend 35 million on this manuscript can easily be questioned. But if that is your problem, then address it directly. DOn't cast aspersions while denying you are doing so.

Also with respect. Really.

So, after all this, the summation is: "Solon is biased against the church and condemns this transaction - a fact which is clear since he used the word "mammon", ergo his analysis is flawed." ?
Am I reading that correctly?

Hmmmm.

Rather than spending all of your time parsing my words (which are imprecise, to be sure, but still, I am familiar with what I wrote), maybe you could propose a counter-position? Perhaps you could engage with my main point, which I will strip of any possibly scandalous or slanderous charges of "mammonry" (although I haven't changed my mind about this, but clearly this word-choice has proven distracting to the overall position I hold).

Here, I'll sum it up:

Thesis: The church bought this manuscript - paid a king's ransom for it, in fact - (in part) because it has a compelling and driving desire, like all big organizations, to control the narrative of its origins, its image, and its legacy. This manuscript represents a tangible link to the origins of Mormonism, and therein lies its apparently enormous value to LDS leadership, and presumably by extension to LDS membership. The LDS church demonstrates through many avenues this strong commitment to spending lots of money to project and protect this connection to origins, image, and legacy.



Or, maybe we should resort to, "Eff you, we're done!" (this is a Mike Waters reference & a joke, for any onlookers)

After all, we're still friends, creekster (at least from my point-of-view).

[creekster]

So, after all this, the summation is: "Solon is biased against the church and condemns this transaction - a fact which is clear since he used the word "mammon", ergo his analysis is flawed." ?
Am I reading that correctly?

Hmmmm.

Rather than spending all of your time parsing my words (which are imprecise, to be sure, but still, I am familiar with what I wrote), maybe you could propose a counter-position? Perhaps you could engage with my main point, which I will strip of any possibly scandalous or slanderous charges of "mammonry" (although I haven't changed my mind about this, but clearly this word-choice has proven distracting to the overall position I hold).

Here, I'll sum it up:

Thesis: The church bought this manuscript - paid a king's ransom for it, in fact - (in part) because it has a compelling and driving desire, like all big organizations, to control the narrative of its origins, its image, and its legacy. This manuscript represents a tangible link to the origins of Mormonism, and therein lies its apparently enormous value to LDS leadership, and presumably by extension to LDS membership. The LDS church demonstrates through many avenues this strong commitment to spending lots of money to project and protect this connection to origins, image, and legacy.



Or, maybe we should resort to, "Eff you, we're done!" (this is a Mike Waters reference & a joke, for any onlookers)

After all, we're still friends, creekster (at least from my point-of-view).

Well, no, you do not have that correctly. You have, it appears, backed off the analogy and the condemnation expressed and implied therein. You have also implicitly walked away from your use of the term mammon, at least as to its actual meaning (leaving very little, in fact). And you apparently concede your bias. With all that, then, I agree there is only left what you put in your thesis, with which I see no problem. But, you see, your thesis here is not what you said before. I defy you to find any part of that thesis in your original post stating the sale/purchase showed what was 'wrong' with both churches. I also find it hard to believe that you chose the word mammon by chance or as a result of imprecision. You are far too intelligent for that. And I am not nearly so naive as to think otherwise. If you want to walk back what you said to the thesis you are now presenting, that is fine with me.

ANd, of course, we are still friends. I have great respect for you. To be honest, your reputation being what it is here, I felt it even more important to parse what you said. Unlike my typo-ridden drivel, people pay attention to what you write and think.

[Northwestcoug]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...MON-THEFT.html

I was still laughing about this John Hajicek guy thinking the church got a steal at $35 million and it was worth $100 million, apparently this guy isn't the best source to ask.

Wait a minute. The Hajicek guy who said the manuscript was worth 100 mil was busted in the 90's for stealing an early edition BOM?!? If this for real?

Please tell me the church wasn't influenced by his wild overestimate.

[Solon]

Well, no, you do not have that correctly. You have, it appears, backed off the analogy and the condemnation expressed and implied therein. You have also implicitly walked away from your use of the term mammon, at least as to its actual meaning (leaving very little, in fact). And you apparently concede your bias. With all that, then, I agree there is only left what you put in your thesis, with which I see no problem. But, you see, your thesis here is not what you said before. I defy you to find any part of that thesis in your original post stating the sale/purchase showed what was 'wrong' with both churches. I also find it hard to believe that you chose the word mammon by chance or as a result of imprecision. You are far too intelligent for that. And I am not nearly so naive as to think otherwise. If you want to walk back what you said to the thesis you are now presenting, that is fine with me.

ANd, of course, we are still friends. I have great respect for you. To be honest, your reputation being what it is here, I felt it even more important to parse what you said. Unlike my typo-ridden drivel, people pay attention to what you write and think.

Fair enough. I'm not going to walk any of it back. Bias (real or perceived) doesn't preclude informed analysis or opinion.
But my suggestion that the church could buy its way to legitimacy and image seemed to draw the focus away from what I'm really interested in.

Peace.

[creekster]

Fair enough. I'm not going to walk any of it back. Bias (real or perceived) doesn't preclude informed analysis or opinion.
But my suggestion that the church could buy its way to legitimacy and image seemed to draw the focus away from what I'm really interested in.

Peace.

Except you did walk it back. I think we spelled that out pretty clearly. You presented your actual thesis, which contained none of the value-laden words or normative conclusions you originally posted, and it is not objectionable from my POV. But it is not at all what you first said. And while bias does not preclude analysis or opinion, here your analysis/opinion was only clarified once you stripped your content of the words revealing bias. It's all good.

[Solon]

Except you did walk it back. I think we spelled that out pretty clearly. You presented your actual thesis, which contained none of the value-laden words or normative conclusions you originally posted, and it is not objectionable from my POV. But it is not at all what you first said. And while bias does not preclude analysis or opinion, here your analysis/opinion was only clarified once you stripped your content of the words revealing bias. It's all good.

Fine. I will belabor this point. I am not walking it back. I sincerely believe what I wrote.
I am setting it aside, since all we were getting at was the intellectually lazy practice of dismissing the entire message because of the (perceived or real) bias of the messenger. And that is no way to run a discussion.

But since my sanitized "thesis" seems to raise no hackles, I guess I'm done here.

:hug:

[Flystripper]

wow. I can believe I actually enjoyed all of that ink being spilt. Its a pretty boring topic, but you guys made is somewhat interesting! Bravo to you both.