Elder Gilbert Interview with Peggy Fletcher Stack

[Marcus]

...I would ask the question (for which there may not be any readily provable answer), as to how far and how many critics have really gone beneath "surface level investigations"? Or 'silo level' investigations.

Hard to say. Just as it is hard to say looking the other direction. How many members look below the surface level? The narrative of critics would seemingly dictate that it is none at all or not very far.

Again, not readily provable one way or the other...

Mentalgymnast is completely wrong in this. Just on this site alone there are many, many topics that have been discussed and investigated far beyond "surface level investigations". The mentally pretzeled gymnast knows this, as he has participated in many of them, repeatedly, for decades, and yet he continues to push this idea that investigation has not happened to any significant level. Why would a gymnastically inclined poster continue to argue this? In the past I've noted that

...the definitions I’ve posted and commented on here have all been from research into trolling that is taking place in online forums and online communities organized around a concept. The basic rules particular to a forum are assumed to always hold, and within that framework, deliberate intent to disrupt communication is defined as trolling. Invariably it’s a skirting of the rules just enough for an individual post to be acceptable, while still indicating an intent to disrupt across multiple posts, which is tougher to catch and define.

I'm not asking mentalgymnast to explain why he repeatedly states things that are untrue, like the above, as it's pretty clear he does it simply to disrupt. He says he thinks his comments are being circumvented (or ignored, as Limnor more accurately noted), but what is actually happening is that his trolling techniques are being calmly noted and then moved past as others contribute to the discussion while he refuses to. He can't disrupt if his repetitious strategies are thus rendered harmless. Back to the topic...

[I Have Questions]

I’d agree with this. It all seems normal until you find out about rocks in hats.

<snip>

I would ask the question (for which there may not be any readily provable answer), as to how far and how many critics have really gone beneath "surface level investigations"? Or 'silo level' investigations.

I think there is definitely an easy way to readily provide a response to your question. Pick an aspect of your Mormon beliefs that you suspect hasn't been investigated at a level beyond scratching just the surface. Just one will do. But I bet you won't...

[Marcus]

That interview was a train wreck of condescension, surveillance-state vibes and misogyny. Gilbert comes off sounding like a complete dick.

The story regarding women in leadership is perhaps the most telling moment of the interview. Gilbert actually needed a prompting from God before he would ask a female colleague for her input. What an amazing heartwarming example of inclusion. Gilbert is like a CEO bragging about how progressive he is because he once allowed a vice president to speak during a board meeting.

Another disturbing example of Gilbert's modus operandi is the surveillance and auditing of BYU faculty's social media and personal lives. As has been previously discussed, professors have reported feeling their privacy violated, with some losing their jobs because of their public support on social media for LGBTQ+ rights or feminism.

Gilbert is the ultimate Big Brother who will monitor your social media, but needs a prompting from God just to remember that women might actually have something useful to say. The church is in big trouble with this guy.

Not only that, he noted it wasn't 'just women' who should be listened to, but to anyone else who he describes, like women, as feeling uncomfortable, shy, and like they don't have much to offer:

"...it was amazing how that council couldn’t work until everyone felt safe to share their feelings. I was the key holder in that meeting, but the Lord didn’t give me the answer. He gave it to someone else. … It’s not just women, but people who are shy, people who didn’t think they had a lot to offer, people who felt uncomfortable. All of them had to contribute.”

[MG 2.0]

In a subculture (Joseph Smith's specific environment/times/culture) where folk magic, seer stones, and visionary practices were taken for granted, “rocks in hats” might not have felt abnormal at all. In fact, they didn't/weren't.

Where did you get this idea? Was it from the book Early Mormonism and the Magic World View by D. Michael Quinn?

Honestly? This is information that I've gleaned from many sources over the years. The fact is, in Joseph Smith's time the concern that Limnor has would not have been a 'thing' in the area/time Joseph Smith grew up in.

Folk magic was a thing.

It's more of a concern nowadays, especially among certain critics of the restoration.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It’s born from necessity. You can’t have your prophet taking other men’s wives and be able to hold to a simple common sense moral framework. You can’t have a fantastic ahistorical account of the ancient Americas and hold to a common sense view of history.

Fortunately none of those mental gymnastics are necessary to follow Christ, they’re only necessary to follow Joseph Smith.

At the risk of further derail (too late)—if the reasoning and justification becomes context about “was this abnormal for 1825?” the next question ought to be “what does it mean for a claimed translation by the gift and power of God to come from the same rock used for folk treasure seeking?”

Ancient Israelite priests also used physical stones as instruments of revelation.

Israel “casts lots” in various situations (division of land, choosing Saul, selecting Matthias in Acts 1.

In the ancient world, kings and priests used physical objects to seek divine direction. Joseph’s 'peep' stone fits this very old pattern of object‑mediated divination.

In Joseph Smith's world the use of a stone from his folk magic environment was repurposed by God. That's what believers believe anyway.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I notice, again, on this thread and others that there are two posters having a 'heyday' doing the thing they do in opposition to my postings. I will again repeat that I will not respond to these two posters...and one or two others...because the track record has been abysmal.

They are only out to get a 'fix' in regard to past grudges. They literally 'troll' me around doing whatever they can to besmirch my good name. They will, of course, say/determine otherwise. It is what it is.

I cannot have a civil conversation or entertain their jaundiced thoughts/expressions when I know they have that monkey on their back whose name is Vendetta.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

At the risk of further derail (too late)—if the reasoning and justification becomes context about “was this abnormal for 1825?” the next question ought to be “what does it mean for a claimed translation by the gift and power of God to come from the same rock used for folk treasure seeking?”

Ancient Israelite priests also used physical stones as instruments of revelation.

Israel “casts lots” in various situations (division of land, choosing Saul, selecting Matthias in Acts 1.

In the ancient world, kings and priests used physical objects to seek divine direction. Joseph’s 'peep' stone fits this very old pattern of object‑mediated divination.

In Joseph Smith's world the use of a stone from his folk magic environment was repurposed by God. That's what believers believe anyway.

Regards,
MG

Oh right, just like when Moses used his Urim and Thummin to dig up gold and then translated Exodus. Same thing.

[Limnor]

Seriously though, I’m not aware of any biblical precedent for priests using personal treasure-seeking stones to produce canonical scripture. Casting lots for communal decisions seems very different.

Can you cite evidence of this?

[huckelberry]

At the risk of further derail (too late)—if the reasoning and justification becomes context about “was this abnormal for 1825?” the next question ought to be “what does it mean for a claimed translation by the gift and power of God to come from the same rock used for folk treasure seeking?”

Ancient Israelite priests also used physical stones as instruments of revelation.

Israel “casts lots” in various situations (division of land, choosing Saul, selecting Matthias in Acts 1.

In the ancient world, kings and priests used physical objects to seek divine direction. Joseph’s 'peep' stone fits this very old pattern of object‑mediated divination.

In Joseph Smith's world the use of a stone from his folk magic environment was repurposed by God. That's what believers believe anyway.

Regards,
MG

thinking as a nonmormon I see no reason to believe God could not use a stone in a hat as part of revealing. Why in the world not? I think the Book of Mormon is the clearest evidence of revelation or not.

I suppose if one does not believe the book the stone suggests things other than revelation however.

[MG 2.0]

Ancient Israelite priests also used physical stones as instruments of revelation.

Israel “casts lots” in various situations (division of land, choosing Saul, selecting Matthias in Acts 1.

In the ancient world, kings and priests used physical objects to seek divine direction. Joseph’s 'peep' stone fits this very old pattern of object‑mediated divination.

In Joseph Smith's world the use of a stone from his folk magic environment was repurposed by God. That's what believers believe anyway.

Regards,
MG

thinking as a nonmormon I see no reason to believe God could not use a stone in a hat as part of revealing. Why in the world not? I think the Book of Mormon is the clearest evidence of revelation or not.

I suppose if one does not believe the book the stone suggests things other than revelation however.

This seems to be reasonable. God using a stone in a hat is a claim about means, not content, and religious traditions...even those not associated with Judeo-Christianity...accept different, sometimes odd, 'means' for revelation and/or messages from the gods.

Limnor, do you believe in talking donkeys?

In principle it would seem that there wouldn't be anything unusual (especially in a non-technology age) about God using the mundane, even folk magic associated objects, as a medium of communication. One would think that an omnipotent God could, at least in theory, use any contingent vehicle to get a message across/delivered.

huckelberry, you say that the Book of Mormon itself is "the clearest evidence of revelation or not". I would tend to agree. If this is so, it is the content of the Book of Mormon itself that outweighs the delivery system. The 'oddness' of the instrument being used may be secondary.

It seems to be a bit risky and possibly unreasonable to say, "Well, the delivery system is the the primary reason to discount the revelatory nature of the Book of Mormon". The important thing may be whether or not the resulting text bears the marks of genuine revelation.

The device is neutral. In my opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG