As we examine ourselves, if we feel there is disharmony between our beliefs and the doctrines of the church, I think a fair question is “Am I living this principle?” It is not possible to be blessed with a love, belief, strong testimony of a principle while we lack the desire to live it. It may be that the Lord (or Holy Ghost) will not be able to give us spiritual testimony of a principle we are not ready to accept. This would prevent us from being condemned for not living it. However, we can have patience with ourselves, knowing that only the Son of God was able to keep all the commandments. It is most important to renew our covenants each week, receive forgiveness and keep moving on, repenting as we go. Eventually, we will have the ability to live and have testimony of gospel principles we struggled with in the past.

To reiterate, he doesn’t encourage doubters to become inactive, on the contrary. If the oblique admission that some have become inactive because of doubts, somehow thinking their “integrity” dictates that, he tries to *debunk* it, not endorse it.

I’d hate to have my statements parsed this way – I really don’t envy the Church leaders. It is impossible to please everyone, so naturally there’s some tendency to make sure that whatever makes it into official statements are “on message”. OTOH, I am happy that there’s less private speculation in conference talks these days. I speculate a lot, but I don’t share all my speculations. We are not overqualified for gospel basics, IMHO. I know far too many people who live beyond their means, don’t hold FHE’s and family prayers in their homes or the like.

Wow. What WOULD constitute controversy for you?

The linkage of doubt to inactivity, the priority of personal integrity over church activity, and the endorsement of menu Mormonism would make this quote too hot to handle for today’s church.

The Hunter quote is nice, but very dated. President Hunter died in 1995. It also states nothing of the above.

Really, the leaders talk about the real issue of doubts entering the minds of the people. They encourage activity in the Church along with study, pondering and prayer to help resolve doubt. Integrity is also talked about.

The quote above did not endorse inactivity for doubting individuals, on the contrary. The one thing that anybody could find objectionable is that it could be said to condone “smorgasbord” approach to the gospel. But on closer study it doesn’t. It just says that if you can’t figure something out right now, give it some time. Nobody learned everything at once. Remember the often-quoted “line upon line”.

In summary, I see nothing controversial in the quote in light of what’s available at the Gospel Library.

I guess it comes down to two scenarios if the young person was using his brain and doing what he thought was right but still felt the church was wrong I don’t think God would punish him or her in the next life. “The Glory of God is intelligence” we teach that at church.. We’re suppose to use every method we can to seek the truth and to live our lives in a pleasing way.

You can’t blame a young person who start learning about things they have never heard of like , 9 versions of the first vision, Gold Plates not used in the translation of the book of Mormon, Why doesn’t Joseph Smith’s translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian papyri match what Egyptologists say they mean. Etc Etc

Likewise if the church isn’t true, then I don’t think a just God would punish anyone for believing in it if they really believed it

I guess if you were brother Tanner or believe in what he said you would have live up to your convictions

I wonder what the Bishops advice would be if a sincere young person came back and said I have really studied the History of our church the uncorrelated history as well as our history and I need to follow my heart on this I’m not buying it. May be that’s one of the reasons why this would never make it past correlation.

Thanks John

Enjoyed the quote, the format and the dialogue! Interesting to compare the “doctrinal culture” of the different decades. It’s sad that general authorities must be so cautious with advice even given “unofficially” as “an understanding great-uncle at a family gathering.” As much as I respect a Bishop or other leader 99 percent of the time, the other one percent of the time, I may inadvertently comment on a character trait or singular bad moment to my wife in confidence that could be construed, if overheard, as discontent…even though it doesn’t reflect my sustaining of his calling or unity with his counsel. Thank goodness my wife doesn’t blog about me!

“Unofficial advising” has become the substance of blogs intended to portray lack of unity between members of leadership quorums. Feeling some responsibility for the negative information that is out there, a resolve to refrain from further “unofficial advising” is a natural response.

Yes, his daughter is Carolyn Tanner Irish, who was (is?) the Episcopal Bishop of Utah. The brand new Humanities building at the University of Utah bears her name. President Hinckley, who was close to the Tanner family, was unable to attend the groundbreaking ceremony last year, but he sent words of praise for Carolyn.

AHLDuke,

Glad to be of service! This is one of the reasons I like the Bloggernacle too! It preserves and circulates an unofficial or folk memory of the Church’s past which is not carried over into the present by current Church programs. Now, I’m too young to have gone to any Green and Gold Balls, or whatever those were, but I’m old enough to see some things like Know Your Religion disappear…

Everyone who is growing up today is going to face doubts. There’s just no escaping that. I have doubts despite my very strong experiences that I can’t possibly ignore. Yet doubt is something I live with. Yet I go to church every week despite that. Young people need to know that sort of thing. Faith isn’t a magic power that you suddenly gain all banishment of doubt–it’s a process whereby doubt is slowly removed–and it takes time for most of us.

Enough said.

Another good example would be Elder Packer’s widely-quoted opinion on the historian’s craft (courtesy of DMQ).

Thanks!

I could see the apostles you mentioned saying something similar, but none of them ever has…I still think the priority Tanner puts on personal integrity (i.e. putting it ahead of activity) would not be countenanced today.

Hawk,

I have never heard this quote in church. Man, who was disobeying the counsel to stick to the current manual by quoting this?!

Anyway, I would not be surprised to hear it at GC, but would absolutely not expect it in any teaching manual today.

You’re right.

The quote is taken from a lesson titled “Sincerity” from the 1954 Sunday School manual Christ’s Ideals for Living.

Obert and Grace Tanner were the owners of the O.C. Tanner company, which started out in jewelry retailing and now specializes in employee recognition awards. (I have a fishing pole from them for working at the U of U for a number of years!)

Obert was a Renaissance man, one of the (in?)famous Swearing Elders, and the son of polygamous wife Annie Clark Tanner, whose autobiography A Mormon Mother was required reading in my BYU intro to historiography course. I recommend it highly.

Obert loved to donate fountains. Fountains at BYU, the U of U, Stanford, etc. are just a few examples of his philanthropy.

His best known fountain is the spraying fountain in front of the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City. He rejected a reflecting pool (which is ironically now in front of the Salt Lake Temple) as static and hence unrepresentative of Mormonism, which is dynamic and in motion.

He taught philosophy at the University of Utah, and his autobiography, One Man’s Search for Freedom, tells that President David McKay asked him to write a manual for Sunday School use. Tanner replied he was too liberal-minded to pass the reading committee of General Authorities. President McKay said, “We’ll change the committee” and placed liberal apostle Adam Bennion in charge. The manual passed just fine and was used throughout the 50s and 60s as the Sunday School text, known as Christ’s Ideals for Living.

Tanner also had a hand in writing texts on the New Testament for Church use and had many other interests. Several of his children died at an early age, acquainting him with grief and helping him have empathy for those who had suffered similar tragedies.

I find him one of the fascinating figures of twentieth century Mormonism.

For Ray, Eric, adcama, and others who disagree,

If the Obert Tanner quote could get past correlation or be uttered in general conference in today’s Church, wouldn’t the best evidence for your position be something similar to these words having been printed in the Ensign, correlated church manual, or General Conference? In this situation, the absence of such evidence is the evidence of the absence of the attitude Tanner espouses.

In General Conference and official church publications from the 1970s on, doubt is not natural, (or is only as natural as the natural man) and inactivity is caused by sin, weakness, or social maladjustment (not being given a calling). I have never heard a talk or read a church manual which gave me any clue that church leaders are aware that doubt can cause people to leave activity, and especially not one which would acknowledge the supremacy of sincerity and personal integrity.

Come on, guys! You might be thinking along these lines, but something in our culture prevents us from speaking these words in official church contexts. I find it tragic.