VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:41:24 09/18/11 Sun
Author: George
Subject: Re: Silencing of Richard Price -- Part Two
In reply to: George 's message, "Silencing of Richard Price -- Part One" on 12:21:27 09/18/11 Sun


O.C> Well, that's what I want to say. They have responded in ways that you probably are not aware of. In the sense that, uh, they deny much of what you've said. They deny it in many different ways. Uh, they've not only denied it, but they've identified in detail, the areas where "Decision Time" and "Saints at the Crossroads" are inaccurate. They've detailed it.

RICHARD Where? I'd like to have it in print...

O.C> Uh-huh, well...

RICHARD Now there is one letter that they wrote, I guess two or three of the administrators, didn't even send me a copy...

DAVID Where you were compared to Judas

RICHARD That I was called a Judas, uh, in regard to "Decision Time." And the only thing in that paper that they said that I did wrong was that I said that the church was based upon the scriptures. And they proceeded to say that it was based upon the writings or the, uh, workings of the First Presidency. This is exactly the same doctrine that Brigham Young put out. The living oracles, said Brigham Young, is the word of the First Presidency and that supercedes the scriptures. And that's exactly what they put in that letter, and I've got a copy of it at home; I'd be glad to send you one. In fact, I've mailed it out to a good many people, because it said the only thing (they didn't–they didn't say "the only thing,") but the only thing that they said that I said was wrong was that the church is based on the scriptures; and I still say it is based on the scriptures. And you know it is.

O.C> The church is based on scripture?

RICHARD The church is based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith, III tells us, and the First Presidency does not have the right to supercede the scriptures.

[4 second pause]

O.C> I don't know that that has been a, uh, a controversial issue.

RICHARD Well, this...

O.C> uh...

RICHARD ...the, uh, this is the answer that they had in that letter concerning "Decision Time."

[Pause, then the single word after is obscured by the following response]

DAVID Now is there one example of, of anything that...what is one example where my father has misquoted someone or made a mistake?

RICHARD Uh, let me add this for example: Where is any statement in "The Saints at the Crossroads," I mean anything the Presidency has ever said that I, uh, misquoted or said incorrectly in "The Saints at the Crossroads?" I want it in writing, because I have never seen them say anything that I had in "The Saints at the Crossroads" was, uh, false. Now they said I, uh, uh, I, what's the word,

DAVID "Polarized "

RICHARD "maligned," and all of this, but they didn't give any examples. No page numbers, no chapter and verse.

[1 second pause]

O.C> Well, uh, of course, we may get to that point, but uh...

RICHARD I hope so, I'd appreciate it.

O.C> In addition to that fact, I need to share this with you, too. I suspect that as well-versed as you are in reading, according to what you, and, uh, what David and others have said about your, uh, background in history, you know that the participation of uh, your role as a ... a, uh, participant, for example, in the "Restoration Voice" or in the publication of the materials that you've already published, and those that you plan to publish from this 197...1985 letter that you've recently published to the saints, is in contradiction to the editorial policy of the First Presidency.

RICHARD Why?

O.C> "Why?" If you haven't read it, of course, you need to read it.

RICHARD Well, I've got a copy of it.

O.C> You have a copy of ...

RICHARD Yeah...

O.C> ...the editorial policy?

RICHARD Yes, sir, they, uh, published it in The Presidential Papers, and I read it very carefully, and then, uh, Apostle, uh, Schaefer sent us a copy of it; thought maybe we didn't know anything about it. Yes, we haven't heard [unintelligible word], but see they made one mistake. When the Presidency is telling us that only they have the right to, uh, uh, editorial, uh, rights of the church. This isn't true. You see, the Doctrine and Covenants tells us that all things shall be done by common consent in the church, and there is no common consent unless there is freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and, uh, freedom of assembly.

O.C> You don't take the rule out of the GCR, then, as applicable?

RICHARD Well, the, uh, it's superceded by the Doctrine and Covenants. You cannot have free, uh, uh, what's the term, uh, in the Doctrine and Covenants, uh?

DAVID Common consent.

RICHARD Common consent unless people know what's going on. And they can't know what's going on unless somebody either preaches or teaches them, or prints, uh, the other side of the story. And the Presidency is only putting out one side of the story, as you very well know, they won't allow anybody to publish anything contrary to them, and people don't know what's going on; there's no way for them to find out, they go to the general con... uh, or to the stake conference, and you won't, uh, allow people to, uh, say things that you think would be detrimental, and, uh, so, where are we? We, we don't have any freedom of speech in the church.

DAVID Surely you're not, I hope you're not defending the position that my father not only doesn't have the right, but should not be encouraged to reprint, uh, uh, past, uh, Spiritual Herald articles, [unintelligible word] past testimonies, past, uh, portions of the church history which, of course, you never see in the Herald anymore. Uh, he shouldn't print modern day testimonials, uh, in "The Restoration Voice." Uh, what harm is being done to our membership in, uh, uh, testifying of Jesus Christ as the Savior, and Zion, the hope of the world, and the validity of the Book of Mormon? What, what great crime is Richard Price committing in testifying of the Christ?

O.C> I presume, Richard, you were a participant in agreeing to the Ivan Bird article in the November-December issue of "The Restoration Voice..."

RICHARD I saw it.

O.C> ...on page 3...

RICHARD That's right.

O.C> ...which specifically refers to "my church is being polluted," "I will cleanse the church," and all that kind of thing, which is an indictment on the leadership of the church. That isn't spiritual ministry coming across to the people.

RICHARD That is. After all, they've published the Presidential Papers, which said that there is no Restoration and apostasy, and, uh, never was one, and that the church is not, uh, "restored," but that it was just part of the, uh, uh, Christianity down through the ages, and all this kind of thing, that it's part of the universal church.

DAVID That God...

RICHARD This is the kind of thing....

DAVID That God and Christ did not appear to Joseph Smith, in the grove.

RICHARD They even imply that there isn't but one person in the Godhead, and all of this kind of thing.

O.C> Well, you're leaning very heavily on the Position Papers a lot, and, as you know, from what the First Presidency has said, that was never an official position of the church.

RICHARD Oh, now wait a minute. There is three members of the First Presidency...two
members, and three of the apostles, that approved the first, the , uh, Position Papers, and Draper even said "we had them write the papers."

O.C> But that doesn't mean it's the official policy [another word breaks off and is obscured by the next response]

DAVID Well it is, sir, when it's the basis of the new curriculum. When it's admitted in, in the board of the [unintelligible word or two] that it is the basis of the new curriculum.

RICHARD Well, [Unintelligible word] explained it as the basis of the new curriculum. And the new curriculum was put out by the Presidency. I heard, uh, Wallace get up and, and announce at the conference that we're going to have a new curriculum, and so on, and then, when it came out, they sponsored it, and all of this.

O.C> You can have your point of view about it, Richard, but that does not change what their belief is. (10)Their belief is that it is not, and it never was, and never was intended to be the official position of the church.

DAVID Well, what if...

RICHARD Then how come they sponsored it...the curriculum that came out of it? Don't you see that they're just running around the bush?

DAVID Now, my father could say, then, by the same token, that "The Saints at the Crossroads," and, uh, Restoration Voice, and Decision Time, and The Temple of the Lord book, in no way reflects my father's viewpoints and in no way, uh, uh, can he be held responsible for them. It's the very same thing. They write things, and they claim that they are not responsible. My father writes things. Why can't he claim that he's not responsible?

O.C> Maybe he could claim it... if he wants to...

RICHARD I don't want to...

O.C> but his name is attached to it...

DAVID As are theirs.

O.C> ...and he is the author of it.

RICHARD Right.

DAVID As are they.

O.C> No, that is not the case. I'm ....

RICHARD No, they wrote ... are the authors of The Presidential Papers...the First Presidency...

O.C> They may have been the authors of some papers, or they may not have been; but the
position has always been...their position that, that, what they represented was not the official position of the church.

RICHARD Uh...

O.C> They were working papers...

RICHARD They, uh....

O.C> to test certain areas...

RICHARD Uh, they said this about the Position Papers, which everybody knows they were just trying to push the blame on someone else; but they didn't say that about the Presidential Papers. They got up and read them themselves, as their own doctrine, Wallace and the other two, Wallace B., and the Presidential Papers are definitely their papers, isn't that right? They even said that in this last editorial.

DAVID On November 30, 1982, the First Presidency sent a, uh, interoffice departmental correspondence to the salaried staff of the executives in the headquarters from the First
Presidency. "We did intend in the January 1979 meetings for appointees and the appointees of salaried staff executives to establish a theological base for the church program in the decade of the 1980's." This was for the Faith to Grow program. And, uh, in brief, that program, uh, they...they did in fact say that "the apostasy and the restoration were not events that happened," "it is demonic to insist the Book of Mormon is true," "other churches have as much authority as the RLDS Church," "The RLDS Church should not be isolated and should join the World Council of Churches," and that "the Faith to Grow program has as its theological base the Presidential program." signed "The First Presidency."

[Ten second pause]

O.C> When you set up this new publishing company, uh, Richard, [two second pause] you
obviously made the decision then [one second pause] that, uh, what you had begun in 1975, for example, or maybe before, I don't know, but you obviously made the decision that you were going to pursue the matter of publishing this material, and, of course, you state in your letter you're going to republish Saints at the Crossroads and so on.

RICHARD Uh-huh.

O.C> Uh, on a long range view, irrespective of, uh, whether or not it was in violation of the First Presidency's editorial position, as is found in GCR 709, or irrespective of, uh, their willingness to, uh, support you in that, you were going to go ahead and set it up, and you did, of course, set it up. Uh, I think that, along with everything else that has now been done, places you ... your situation, uh, in a very peculiar, uh, position. I think you've found yourself now at a point where, if you want to test this question of what is right and what is wrong, though you have your own point of view, some people, I'm told, are reporting that, uh, you are a parti... participant in the "Herald Review," and nobody ever signs those articles. Uh, even a member of your family made that statement, I understand.

RICHARD Oh, is that right? Uh, who said anything like that?

O.C> I'm also obviously curious...I don't know whether you will state yes or no, if the article that came in Saturday's "Examiner" was your publication.

RICHARD I had a part in it, but I didn't, uh, there were about a dozen people involved and, uh, I was a part of it.

O.C> Uh, all of the, all of that....

RICHARD Once again, now, this is freedom of the press. People have got to have the right to see the other side of the story, and, uh, being an elder, it's my responsibility to see that the saints, uh, have a right, and have the materials so that they can know what's going on and make their own decisions. If you notice in that statement in the "Examiner," I didn't do anything but tell them that they needed to insist on discussing and voting; and they have that right. They've got a right in every congregation to vote on whether that congregation is going to accept this...that is common consent.

O.C> You don't accept the GCR, uh, that has to do with... the jurisdiction.... usurping a right that belongs to World Conference only?

RICHARD Well, Conference has a right to declare whether or not, uh, such a thing is, uh, a law of the church. But then it's up to the, the, uh, congregation to accept...whether they're going to accept the law of the church. It's up to the individual to accept whether they're going to accept it.

O.C> If you....

RICHARD Just because the church declares something is true, me, or anyone else as an
individual doesn't have to accept that. That's not a...uh,

DAVID The guidelines...

RICHARD requirement of , uh, uh, membership.

DAVID The guidelines were not voted on by the Conference.

RICHARD The members...as you remember, Brother Wayne Ham, I believe out at the Enoch
Hill, uh, one night they asked him whether he believed in the Book of Mormon; and he said he didn't have to believe in the Book of Mormon to be a member of the church. And I don't have to believe in 156, or whatever, uh, to be a member of the church. And Enoch Hill, or any other group, doesn't have to accept anything to be a member of the church. Uh, because we have common consent, and freedom of the press, freedom of speech.

O.C> Now let me make one thing certain, so that it isn't taken off of this tape you're running inaccurately. Wayne Ham does believe in the Book of Mormon.

RICHARD Well, now I...

O.C> Let me pursue the point, though, that you've made. You did at least state in the article in the "Examiner" paper that Section 156 called for guidelines.

RICHARD I, I...

DAVID I don't know if he made that statement or not.

RICHARD I didn't make that statement.

O.C> Well, somebody did...

RICHARD Yeah, all right...

O.C> ...because it's written there.

RICHARD Somebody made the statement, I can't vouch for it...

O.C> So...it's not fact...

RICHARD It was not me, but it was in the article because I didn't have the final say over it.

O.C> It does state specifically guidelines in 156. So, since specific guidelines were called for in that section that is now the law of the church, only the World Conference can deal with that, not a congregation, nor a stake, nor a district, nor a region.

DAVID Then why is it being ... presented to the Saints? Why not....

O.C> For their information.

((Cont in next post)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.