Elder Gilbert Interview with Peggy Fletcher Stack

[sock puppet]

...it never ceases to amaze me just how much angst some folks have against the leadership of the church.

Yea. A man telling others God speaks to him and wants you to do this, it's a commandment, only to have years later his successor God-talkers change that and say the prior one was just speaking as a man not for God. This is a so transparently abusive leverage and tool. Just must amaze those of you still drinking the Flavor Aid Jonestown-style to view those of us who see the obvious as having angst against the "leadership of the church."

[Limnor]

Yes.

Yes, definitely. When I was growing up, things like reading horoscopes, using tarot cards and playing with Ouija boards were strictly forbidden. The reasoning given was that Mormons are above all that, because we have "real" power in our religion. Imagine my surprise a couple of years ago when I saw an op-Ed in the Deseret arguing that using seer stones and reading words in a hat are just as "normal" as astrology and therefore it's no surprise Smith used those methods. Kind of like mentalgymnast's argument that Smith's behavior was perfectly normal and acceptable to all. That is a very recent argument in the LDS church, and in my opinion is used only because people know the history now and they can't justify Smith's con-man behavior any other way.

I didn’t personally experience it quite the same way. Ouija boards, tarot cards, and seances were definitely considered “dark” or spiritually dangerous growing up, but seer stones were never a thing. I remember hearing about divining rids too, and even tried it myself on the farm, but I guess my technique was poor because I never found anything. Pyramids were supposed to have some kind of power too. I recall reading an ad in a magazine for a small pyramid you could purchase that was supposed to be able to keep razor blades sharp.

[Limnor]

...it never ceases to amaze me just how much angst some folks have against the leadership of the church.

Yea. A man telling others God speaks to him and wants you to do this, it's a commandment, only to have years later his successor God-talkers change that and say the prior one was just speaking as a man not for God. This is a so transparently abusive leverage and tool. Just must amaze those of you still drinking the Flavor Aid Jonestown-style to view those of us who see the obvious as having angst against the "leadership of the church."

I can understand why someone would react strongly to the “angst” accusation. If people feel their concerns about consistency are being dismissed, it’s not surprising to see a sharp response.

[huckelberry]

You purposefully leave out the fact that believing and critical treatments alike recognize that Joseph dictated a lengthy, internally complex text over a relatively short period, working day after day without notes, and that witnesses consistently describe a stable procedure with the stone in the hat.

MG, you do realize that the church admitting to the rock in a hat is a relatively recent phenomenon, right? Because, much like multiple differing accounts of the first vision, the rock in the hat was incredibly embarrassing.

I’m not that old and I still remember the primary depiction of Joseph as a real translator staring at the plates, translating word by word from the whole text as a real translator would do.



You’re older than me, have you simply forgotten this?

Drumdude, what has been taught appears to have varied perhaps place to place, time to time. In the decade of 1960 I was taught the rock in hat words appearing there to be read. The image you present is foreign to me. I had not seen it before being posted here various times.

I noticed a comment from Marcus about being surprised relatively recently by an LDS article arguing seer stone was culturally acceptable because it was part of the culture like astrology. Marcus was surprised at the shift about astrology. I was reminded that in the 60s Joseph Smith treasure hunting with a stone was vigorously denied. That was all antimormon falsehoods and exaggeration. More historical information has made people accept the reality of treasure seeking. I suspect that change encouraged the new image translation illustrated above (one foreign to me).

[Marcus]

MG, you do realize that the church admitting to the rock in a hat is a relatively recent phenomenon, right? Because, much like multiple differing accounts of the first vision, the rock in the hat was incredibly embarrassing.

I’m not that old and I still remember the primary depiction of Joseph as a real translator staring at the plates, translating word by word from the whole text as a real translator would do.



You’re older than me, have you simply forgotten this?

Drumdude, what has been taught appears to have varied perhaps place to place, time to time. In the decade of 1960 I was taught the rock in hat words appearing there to be read. The image you present is foreign to me. I had not seen it before being posted here various times.

It must have, because in my experience (in the late 60s, 70s and on) that picture was ubiquitous. It was always taught as Smith poring over the plates as he 'translated.'

[huckelberry]

Drumdude, what has been taught appears to have varied perhaps place to place, time to time. In the decade of 1960 I was taught the rock in hat words appearing there to be read. The image you present is foreign to me. I had not seen it before being posted here various times.

It must have, because in my experience (in the late 60s, 70s and on) that picture was ubiquitous. It was always taught as Smith poring over the plates as he 'translated.'

I have heard of a thing called correlation growing over recent decades. I gather more variety in teaching details may have occurred in seminary classes. Then again I had an adventurous teacher there. He took pleasure in digging up traditional Mormon teaching.

[Marcus]

It must have, because in my experience (in the late 60s, 70s and on) that picture was ubiquitous. It was always taught as Smith poring over the plates as he 'translated.'

I have heard of a thing called correlation growing over recent decades. I gather more variety in teaching details may have occurred in seminary classes. Then again I had an adventurous teacher there. He took pleasure in digging up traditional Mormon teaching.

Yes, they had to weed out individuality!! I like the idea of having an adventurous seminary teacher--the most adventurous seminary got for me was when I hung out in the seminary building across the street and adventurously, audaciously and daringly (!) cut ONE class (well, part of one class) the last month of my senior year. I think I would have benefitted greatly by hearing from an adventurous teacher. Or at least I hope I would have listened--I'm not sure. I envy your experience.

[Kishkumen]

In the following interview Elder Gilbert comes across across as a humble servant of the Lord. Some of the things covered in the wide ranging interview were:

1. The church is a 'big tent' church while at the same time under obligation to emphasize the fact that Jesus gave commandments to be followed.

LOL. Oh, sure. It is a big tent that requires one to follow the Gospel of modern social conservatism along the lines of heretical Protestant extremists. I mean, you can go and disagree and keep your trap shut, but there are those pesky temple recommend questions.

I suppose many LDS folk feel comfortable with this, or they figure that the blessings outweigh the necessary tolerance of intolerance from church leaders. And that is cool. I just can't accept it for myself. The journalistic portraits of Elder Gilbert say it all, and I don't like what they say.

I do laud his work in making education more available to all. I am in favor of the good he has done, but I want no part in the culture-warrior nonsense.

[MG 2.0]

You purposefully leave out the fact that believing and critical treatments alike recognize that Joseph dictated a lengthy, internally complex text over a relatively short period, working day after day without notes, and that witnesses consistently describe a stable procedure with the stone in the hat.

MG, you do realize that the church admitting to the rock in a hat is a relatively recent phenomenon, right?

Yes. But that wasn't the point. I would ask that you go back and decipher what the point(s) was/were that I was making. I know I'm being repetitive, but there have been a wee bit too many instances lately where what I've actually said has been either circumvented and/or ignored and then replaced with something else essentially unassociated with what I actually said. It has happened in the past, especially as it relates to one particular poster, but it has occurred more frequently recently across the board.

As I said to Limnor, when I see that happening I tend to lose interest in the conversation. And I'm not going to get caught in a he said/she said sort of loop at this point. I've lost interest in doing that also.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

You purposefully leave out the fact that believing and critical treatments alike recognize that Joseph dictated a lengthy, internally complex text over a relatively short period, working day after day without notes, and that witnesses consistently describe a stable procedure with the stone in the hat.

MG, you do realize that the church admitting to the rock in a hat is a relatively recent phenomenon, right? Because, much like multiple differing accounts of the first vision, the rock in the hat was incredibly embarrassing.

I’m not that old and I still remember the primary depiction of Joseph as a real translator staring at the plates, translating word by word from the whole text as a real translator would do.



You’re older than me, have you simply forgotten this?

drumdude, the narrative about the rock in the hat was hidden and suppressed by the Church up to the point South Park let the cat out of the bag. The Church didn’t tell the truth by choice - which is now a repeating pattern of deception first, transparency only when absolutely forced to.