The Silencing of Richard Price -- Part Two -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ 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: 07:32:11 06/20/13 Thu
Author: George
Subject: The Silencing of Richard Price -- Part Two

>>
>>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 ]