consiglieri wrote:These are good points.
So Elder Rasband is quoting from an uncanonized John Taylor revelation. I understand why this is problematic. Do you think it possible Elder Rasband is seeking to equate the Taylor revelation with the Nelson revelation in order to make the latter look more like the former, and that there is a seamless continuation of revelation from the beginning until the present?
I do have to say I am pretty amazed that Elder Rasband is quoting Taylor revelations virtually nobody (except fundamentalists) have ever read or even heard of; and Elder Renlund is telling stories from church history that virtually nobody has ever heard of.
I know they are doing it to reinforce the company line, but I do not recall this kind of thing in a long time.
In fact, maybe the last time I can think of it was Bruce R. McConkie referencing (without mentioning) journals relating to the papyrus translation and saying that this system of things has been going on for (however many) billion years. I think that was in his Seven Deadly Heresies speech.
But that was almost 40-years ago, and even then it stuck out like a sore thumb.
I do have to repeat a line I liked.
You can't take two steps in the minefield of church history without losing a limb.
I've been thinking about a reply to your post, you've asked a lot of really good questions and I'm not sure I have any satisfactory answers.
I think your first question really is onto something though, Rasband appears to be trying to justify Nelson's changes using examples from former prophets and John Taylor's revelation is perfect within that context, but it comes with all of the Fundamentalist Mormon baggage that comes with it.
We know that everything at General Conference passes through correlation and has done since at least the 1970s, but as you pointed out what has been allowed to pass through and is acceptable has obviously changed. Nelson does seem to want to put his own stamp on things and clearly has his own wish list that he's been wanting to put into play on becoming prophet and I think Nelson's vast organizational changes not to mention him sidelining Uchtdorf for Oaks shows that. How much does the President set the tone for correlation though? Could Nelson's own celestial polygamy, given that his current wife will be his plural wife in the hereafter be leading to a lack of censure be leading to more anecdotes about polygamy?
I think it's worth asking given the essays on an official website and releasing all of the documents in the Joseph Smith Papers project, could the Church be moving towards more acknowledgement even in allegedly faith promoting of including history that even two decades ago would have been sanitized out of Conference talks?
I do think Stem made a good point that really, no matter what aspect of history the leaders focus on there are inevitably going to be a big can of worms opened for the membership if they look too deeply. I do however think both examples highlighted here seem different from what I've seen before in my experience in the Church. Has the Church changed or am I viewing it differently because I've changed? I lean towards the former but I don't rule out the latter.
Maybe it's a good example of Hanlon's Razor which goes something like, "Don't assume malice when stupidity will suffice", but then again it's wise as "Heinlein's Razor" points out, to "not rule out malice".