StuddleyG Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 While I believe the church has been steadfast in its mission of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, it seems that it has a history of adopting philosophies and ideas from other peoples in society. For Example:-The the adoption of the popular idea that all black people are descended from Cain through Ham.- The priesthood being given to blacks conveniently following the civil rights movement.- Anti-scientific ideas from the Young Earth Creationist movement perpetuated by Bruce R. McKonkie and Joseph Fielding Smith.-The idea that all native americans descended from lost tribes of Israel (A popular belief in the 19th century).It makes me wonder if they'll ever give in and let women have the priesthood or allow gays to marry. Maybe. Maybe not.
nicolasconnault Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 While I believe the church has been steadfast in its mission of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, it seems that it has a history of adopting philosophies and ideas from other peoples in society. For Example:-The the adoption of the popular idea that all black people are descended from Cain through Ham.- The priesthood being given to blacks conveniently following the civil rights movement.- Anti-scientific ideas from the Young Earth Creationist movement perpetuated by Bruce R. McKonkie and Joseph Fielding Smith.-The idea that all native americans descended from lost tribes of Israel (A popular belief in the 19th century).It makes me wonder if they'll ever give in and let women have the priesthood or allow gays to marry. Maybe. Maybe not."The Church" is not a person. If some of the leaders espouse certain views or opinions and share them with the world, that doesn't make it "the Church's opinion". if 99% of members believe something that isn't taught in scriptures or declared as saving doctrine, that doesn't make it "Church doctrine". Of course the Church's membership (including its human, fallible leaders) are susceptible to being influenced by worldly philosophies. Revealed religion wasn't dumped on Joseph Smith as one big theological package, it came precept by precept, line upon line, and has continued to do so since then, as fast as we are ready to receive it. There will continue to be imperfections and inaccuracies until the Millennium, when all things will be revealed.That being said, there is an unbreachable gap between the examples you have given and "allowing gays to marry". While all the other examples might change with time without significantly rocking the LDS theological boat, gay marriages would completely sink it. It would invalidate the doctrines of the creation, the fall, the purpose of life etc. All your other examples have or may eventually change. This one won't. It's not a matter of "popular belief".
Calm Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 .- The priesthood being given to blacks conveniently following the civil rights movement.How old are you? Having grown up during the time that Civil Rights finally became mainstream, I can tell you as a member then that it seemed like a very significant length of time between then and the time that the priesthood was given to the blacks. Did the CR movement have some influence...I would say so, but I wouldn't use the term "conveniently following" because to many LDS there wasn't anything "convenient" about it; like polygamy, the Priesthood ban became a test of faith for members for many years.-The idea that all native americans descended from lost tribes of Israel (A popular belief in the 19th century).The Lehites were not a "lost tribe" though in the sense that the label is usually applied as they (and the Mulekites were from the southern Kingdom of Judah, not northern Israel).
california boy Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 How old are you? Having grown up during the time that Civil Rights finally became mainstream, I can tell you as a member then that it seemed like a very significant length of time between then and the time that the priesthood was given to the blacks. Did the CR movement have some influence...I would say so, but I wouldn't use the term "conveniently following" because to many LDS there wasn't anything "convenient" about it; like polygamy, the Priesthood ban became a test of faith for members for many years.The Lehites were not a "lost tribe" though in the sense that the label is usually applied as they (and the Mulekites were from the southern Kingdom of Judah, not northern Israel).I have to ask you the same question. How old are you? While the Civil Rights issue was finally becoming mainstream, attention started to focus directly on the church only a few years before the revelation. Specifically when black players from other schools started to refuse to play against BYU. The heat was becoming very strong. I am not going to say that heat brought about the revelation. Only Spencer W. Kimball can answer that question, and he has. You have to take his word for it. But I think few would disagree with the statement that pressure on the church was becoming very focused just prior to the revelation. Until that time, civil rights energy was directed in other areas.I feel you are splitting hairs over common beliefs held in the 1800's concerning the native indian population. The point is well taken and something valid to look at.Certainly right now the gay rights issues are focused very strongly against the church. It appears that at least in Australia, they may be softening their approach.
nicolasconnault Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Certainly right now the gay rights issues are focused very strongly against the church. It appears that at least in Australia, they may be softening their approach.You are jumping to unjustified conclusions here. Please wait until this has been confirmed
keithb Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 . . . if 99% of members believe something that isn't taught in scriptures or declared as saving doctrine, that doesn't make it "Church doctrine". . .But, surely, within the only true and living church, if 99% of the membership of the church believes a doctrine that is incorrect, the leadership of the church should correct that doctrine right away instead of allowing the church to continue believing incorrect doctrines at all (and certainly not for generations at a time).
Brenda Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 While I believe the church has been steadfast in its mission of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, it seems that it has a history of adopting philosophies and ideas from other peoples in society. For Example:-The the adoption of the popular idea that all black people are descended from Cain through Ham.- The priesthood being given to blacks conveniently following the civil rights movement.- Anti-scientific ideas from the Young Earth Creationist movement perpetuated by Bruce R. McKonkie and Joseph Fielding Smith.-The idea that all native americans descended from lost tribes of Israel (A popular belief in the 19th century).It makes me wonder if they'll ever give in and let women have the priesthood or allow gays to marry. Maybe. Maybe not.Not. All of your examples, with the exception of the 2nd one, are simply theories that God remained somewhat silent on, possibly because they do not affect anyone's salvation. Well, except IMO He has spoken about the creation of the earth and its age, but that's another well-worn thread. As for your 2nd example, how do you know that the civil rights movement wasn't part of the plan to prepare us for the priesthood change?
Zakuska Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 1 Corinthians 11:19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.2 Peter 2:1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
nicolasconnault Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 But, surely, within the only true and living church, if 99% of the membership of the church believes a doctrine that is incorrect, the leadership of the church should correct that doctrine right away instead of allowing the church to continue believing incorrect doctrines at all (and certainly not for generations at a time).I didn't say "doctrine", I said "something". 99% of members may very well include the first presidency and 12 apostles. If that "something" is simply not important to our salvation, why would the Lord correct it? Believing that the Lord should correct every incorrect belief of its entire membership, or even of its entire leadership, leads to a very big problem: believing that our leaders' knowledge is 100% revealed and contains no error whatsoever. That is unrealistic and probably not even desirable.
daz2 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Revelation and the restoration do not happen in a vacuum. Virtually all of the ideas included as part of the restoration were not new. Baptism for the dead had been practiced as part of the Radical Reformation in the 1500s, as was polygamy and holding goods in common. The Word of Wisdom was received at a time of concern about health and alcohol and temperance in religous and other circles. The law of consecration was received in a time of experimentation in the U.S. about communalism. The relief society was established at a time when many churches were establishing such female and other "auxiliaries" (a term used in U.S. religious culture then, not just LDS).A few years ago, as part of the annual Joseph Smith seminar at BYU, the participants assembled an Archive of Restoration Culture given helpful background of ideas and concepts and teachings that were part of the culture of the times, and from which, in my opinion, by revelation and inspiration, Joseph and others were able to extract truths to be taught as part of the restoration. http://byustudies.byu.edu/ARC.aspxIf your concern is that restoration teachings were not pristine or "perfect", I would prefer to say that the teachings then, and the teachings now, are subject to "we believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."
Calm Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 But I think few would disagree with the statement that pressure on the church was becoming very focused just prior to the revelation. Until that time, civil rights energy was directed in other areas.Born in the 50's. Was going to BYU at the time of the revelation (had been there for a few years), summers spent back in CA. My experience was that the heat had pretty much passed or perhaps a better way of saying it was that it was just accepted as standard operating practices. The schools that weren't going to play with us were not on our schedule, no new surprises that I remember. I grew up in California and I remember the civil rights complaints going way back many, many years (and while California was not as densely packed with LDS as Utah, there was a large population of LDS, enough so that---imo---any significant pressure occurring there would definitely be on the radar of the Brethren in Salt Lake.)Maybe if you gave a time outline of when you see the pressure being applied, perhaps you are simply using a longer time period for "just prior" than I am. I am thinking within a five year period (sports boycotts had been going on for at least ten years prior to the revelation) and it was my impression both when I was in CA and in UT, that the pressure had actually cooled off some as the topic became 'old hat' and therefore less newsworthy. People around me in CA had accepted that the Church was a rigid, bigoted organization that wasn't going to change and dismissed it as inconsequential in the long run rather than continuing to expend energy on it by trying to induce or influence change of perception.Also from Wiki:The NAACP attempted to get the LDS church to support civil rights legislation and to reverse its discriminating practices during the Civil Rights era in the 1960s. In 1963 NAACP leadership tried to arrange meetings with church leadership, but the church refused to meet with them.[44] In 1965, the church leadership did meet with the NAACP, and agreed to publish an editorial in church-owned newspaper The Deseret News, which would support civil rights legislation pending in the Utah legislature. The church failed to follow-through on the commitment, and church Apostle N. Eldon Tanner explained "We have decided to remain silent".[44] In March 1965, the NAACP led a anti-discrimination march in Salt Lake City, protesting church policies.[44] In 1966, the NAACP issued a statement criticizing the church, saying the church "has maintained a rigid and continuous segregation stand" and that "the church has made "no effort to conteract the widespread discriminatory practices in education, in housing, in employment, and other areas of life"[74]I don't see 15 years plus being "just prior", if you do, perhaps it would be best to use actual occurrences and events in the discussion rather than just making a general statement about pressure and energy so we know that we are both talking about the same thing.
Daniel Peterson Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I have to ask you the same question. How old are you? While the Civil Rights issue was finally becoming mainstream, attention started to focus directly on the church only a few years before the revelation.It was certainly focused in 1968, a full decade prior to the revelation. How do you define "only a few"?The pressure had substantially declined by 1978, when the revelation arrived. Critics had given up on us.Specifically when black players from other schools started to refuse to play against BYU.Which was really a big deal in the late 1960s.The heat was becoming very strong.It was much cooler than it had been.I lived through that period, mostly in California.But I think few would disagree with the statement that pressure on the church was becoming very focused just prior to the revelation.Count me in, as one of the "few."I disagree very, very strongly.
Calm Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 If your concern is that restoration teachings were not pristine or "perfect", I would prefer to say that the teachings then, and the teachings now, are subject to "we believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."I would be more concerned if church leaders acted like they were living in a vacuum rather than being aware of the concerns not only of the members, but of the culture that surrounds the Church membership everywhere there are Saints. We may not supposed to be "of the World", but we are not directed to ignore the World, but live in it as examples, missionaries, good citizens and neighbours, etc. etc. and acting as if the 'outside' doesn't matter would greatly impede our ability to do so.Given that and that we are human and liable to be distracted from time to time by anything shiny, it is hardly surprising that outside influence for both good and bad occurs at all levels of church organization.
Calm Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 The pressure had substantially declined by 1978, when the revelation arrived. Critics had given up on us.Exactly my experience (except for the fact I was in the San Fran area).
frankenstein Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 as early as 1970 the tax exempt status of a religious organization was revoked because of that organizations stance on interracial marriage. the issue of whether the IRS could revoke the status was not settled until 1983, The IRS again notified the University on April 16, 1975 of the proposed revocation. Officially, the IRS revoked the University's tax exempt status on January 19, 1976. The University paid $21 in unemployment taxes for one employee for tax year 1975 and then filed for a refund in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The Government counterclaimed for unpaid federal unemployment taxes for the taxable years 1971 through 1975, in the amount of $489,675.59, plus interest.I am not saying, nor do I suggest that it did, this case had any influence on the LDS Church, but I would recon any organization with dutiful attorneys were watching this case closely.
Calm Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 as early as 1970 the tax exempt status of a religious organization was revoked because of that organizations stance on interracial marriage. the issue of whether the IRS could revoke the status was not settled until 1983, I am not saying, nor do I suggest that it did, this case had any influence on the LDS Church, but I would recon any organization with dutiful attorneys were watching this case closely.IIRC, it was made a big deal in any conversation I had at BYU on this topic or others like it the first few years I was there that we were not receiving any federal funding for the school so what the government did was not much of a concern...things would continue as they were though there was some concern about government grants, I don't remember any big discussion about tax exempt status until much later.Was the leadership watching the tax exempt issue? Possibly, even probably but did they see the government going to the extreme of pulling tax exempt status over temple marriage and priesthood which were purely religious practices when the Church did not forbid any civil practices? Since the church did not excommunicate over or forbid interracial marriage, but only discouraged it due to the issues of priesthood and cultural conflicts, IIRC myself and those around me at BYU didn't have much concern about it happening to the Church. That the government would take action against religious practices was not considered a likelihood among those I associated with at the time.
Daniel Peterson Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 as early as 1970 the tax exempt status of a religious organization was revoked because of that organizations stance on interracial marriage. I had not heard of this case, and would like to know more.
Calm Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 There was this wellknown one, not sure if that is what frank is talking about: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0461_0574_ZS.html
daz2 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 The Bob Jones case would not have affected the Church's priesthood/temple exclusions based on race/lineage. The case only applied to educational institutions--it did not apply to churches, synagogues or mosques or other religious organizations as religious organizations--but it would apply to a religiously sponsored educational institution. That being said, the Bob Jones case would not have been applicable to BYU--BYU did not discriminate in hiring or admission on the basis of race, and had no policy prohibiting interracial marriage or dating. A year or so before the change in practice, BYU students elected an African American as student body vice president.My recollection, though, is that Rex Lee, then solicitor general, did recuse himself from the Bob Jones case.
Calm Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 My recollection, though, is that Rex Lee, then solicitor general, did recuse himself from the Bob Jones case.Yep: http://books.google.com/books?id=784tRHO8mEEC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=%22rex+lee%22+solicitor+general+%22bob+jones%22&source=bl&ots=Ru7kgpkomp&sig=a97B-PsqSY6xbwya2aCQzDP6mFo&hl=en&ei=mi1HTfDOF4mosAOE6dHnAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22rex%20lee%22%20solicitor%20general%20%22bob%20jones%22&f=false
Bob Crockett Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Yep: http://books.google.com/books?id=784tRHO8mEEC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=%22rex+lee%22+solicitor+general+%22bob+jones%22&source=bl&ots=Ru7kgpkomp&sig=a97B-PsqSY6xbwya2aCQzDP6mFo&hl=en&ei=mi1HTfDOF4mosAOE6dHnAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22rex%20lee%22%20solicitor%20general%20%22bob%20jones%22&f=falseRex Lee had probably represented Bob Jones University in the past.I'd like to comment upon the charge that the Church was pressured to change its priesthood policy. One must first answer the question as to whether the Church should not react to external forces. Although we are treated to the axiom that God is the same yesterday today and forever, it is fairly evident that throughout the Bible things changed when it came to evangelizing the races. Jesus refused (and then relented) to heal a child on the ground that she was not an Israelite, and thereafter Paul condemned Peter for not adhering to the revelation to take the gospel to the Gentiles.The story of Jesus refusing, and then relenting, reveals that the Lord can change His view based upon some externality -- there, a mother pleading for the life of her child.
Obiwan Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 While I believe the church has been steadfast in its mission of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, it seems that it has a history of adopting philosophies and ideas from other peoples in society.Well, people in the Church are often men of their times, that's nothing new.For Example:-The the adoption of the popular idea that all black people are descended from Cain through Ham.1. That didn't apply to "black people", it applied to those of African Decent, not all blacks.2. The idea still could potentially be true, we don't know for sure. Modern understanding and opinion simply says it's likely not true.- The priesthood being given to blacks conveniently following the civil rights movement.Instead of being "convenient", I think God had specific reasons for those of African decent to not be given the Priesthood, and rather than a negative I think the oppression of the black man was a possible reason why the Priesthood was rescricted in the first place. God didn't want the Priesthood given to a people and it relate to the Church who weren't even actually FREE yet. God often does things according to the needs and circumstances of the society in which the Church is in at the time. This is all through the scriptures.- Anti-scientific ideas from the Young Earth Creationist movement perpetuated by Bruce R. McKonkie and Joseph Fielding Smith.I frankly think you are misrepresenting those issues and arguments. For example, Divine Design from a scientific view is not the same thing as Creationism which is a religious ideology.-The idea that all native americans descended from lost tribes of Israel (A popular belief in the 19th century).This is still true doctrine. DNA does nothing to this point. DNA doesn't prove every single relative of a man, only the dominate ancestry. DNA also doesn't address the "spiritual" heritage of descendecy, which is generally what the Church is usually talking about when it talks about descendecy. Ever read a Patriarchal Blessing lately? It's not talking about DNA there.It makes me wonder if they'll ever give in and let women have the priesthood or allow gays to marry. Maybe. Maybe not.Women it's possible, maybe in a limited way (there is scriptural precedence of this). However since we are in the fullness of times and men and women have different roles, I doubt such a change would ever be necessary. Homosexuality however will never change. It's clear the scriptures on this issue.The thing you don't realize is that with the Priesthood, with Polygamy, or whatever else might come up, these are ALL things that have scriptural precidence of being done. The Priesthood has always been restricted and adapted, Polygamy has always been given and taken away, etc. Sometimes people apply wrong ideas to true doctrine, such as in relation to the Priesthood ban, but that doesn't mean the Church itself is influenced. Even with the ideas of the Priesthood ban, half the Church didn't believe in those ideas. Doctrine in the Church has always been determined by Scripture, Prophets, Holy Ghost, and Common Consent. If something doesn't fit all 4 of those standards, then it's safe to say such isn't doctrine nor Eternal Truth, and it will fall away, which is why most of the ideas of the Priesthood ban has done so.
Pahoran Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 I have to ask you the same question. How old are you?Old enough not to be fooled by the revisionist propaganda.I was on my mission when the revelation was announced. I had read a fair bit of anti-Mormon "literature" before my mission; on the day I heard about the revelation, I wrote in my journal a prediction that the enemies of the Church would eventually start claiming that the Church had "caved" under "pressure," and that the "pressure" would increase as a function of elapsed time. My prediction has been borne out to the letter.There was no "pressure" at the time; the announcement took everyone by surprise.While the Civil Rights issue was finally becoming mainstream, attention started to focus directly on the church only a few years before the revelation. Specifically when black players from other schools started to refuse to play against BYU. The heat was becoming very strong.So that's your idea of "heat?" That some petulant kids threatened to take their bat and ball and go home? Wow, I can't imagine what real pressure might look like!I am not going to say that heat brought about the revelation. Only Spencer W. Kimball can answer that question, and he has. You have to take his word for it. But I think few would disagree with the statement that pressure on the church was becoming very focused just prior to the revelation. Until that time, civil rights energy was directed in other areas.Actually by the mid 70's "pressure" on the Church had virtually disappeared. The Tanners make a big deal of the antics of Byron Marchant and "Lord" Douglas Wallace, because apart from their attention-grabbing stunts, they've got no "pressure" to show to support the notion that the Church caved under said pressure. For the Tanners, as evidently for you, if the Church does something good, it must not be allowed to take the credit for it, so the action must be explained away somehow.I feel you are splitting hairs over common beliefs held in the 1800's concerning the native indian population. The point is well taken and something valid to look at.To you it may look like "splitting hairs." To a generation of Bible-readers -- and I mean a generation for whom the Bible was one of the few books that could be found in every home and which people read often and well -- the distinction between the Lost Tribes and some other random group of Israelites is a significant one, and not at all trivial. The "point" is fairly pointless and is nothing valid to look at.Certainly right now the gay rights issues are focused very strongly against the church. It appears that at least in Australia, they may be softening their approach.Or not, as the case may be.For myself, I'll wait to see the statement verbatim and first-hand. Actually if the Church wanted to back away from SSM stuff, the logical approach would be to not mention it at all. Making an announcement to the members and encouraging them to get involved suggests that an outcome is being sought.But here's an idea, if you really think that a few school sports teams brought about the 1978 revelation: why don't a few of your "gay" friends threaten to boycott competitive crochet events that BYU participates in?Regards,Pahoran
Daniel Peterson Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 There was no "pressure" at the time; the announcement took everyone by surprise. . . .Actually by the mid 70's "pressure" on the Church had virtually disappeared.That's precisely my sense of the situation at the time.I do believe that one "external" event was influential in bringing the question of blacks and priesthood acutely to the mind of President Kimball. But that was the impending dedication of the S
Monster Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 I didn't say "doctrine", I said "something". 99% of members may very well include the first presidency and 12 apostles. If that "something" is simply not important to our salvation, why would the Lord correct it? Believing that the Lord should correct every incorrect belief of its entire membership, or even of its entire leadership, leads to a very big problem: believing that our leaders' knowledge is 100% revealed and contains no error whatsoever. That is unrealistic and probably not even desirable.It is not a matter of correcting incorrect beliefs, but actually giving us some real information so these beliefs never propagate. Take blacks in the priesthood. Why would God not give some small tidbit of information on the subject when the church was founded, considering it was going to affect a large part of the world population exaltation. No instead of being on the leading edge of doing what was the right, which you think inspired men would do, the church had to be dragged into doing what was right.Also who is to say what is vital to ones salvation. Everything that leads you to Jesus Christ is vital to your salvation, not just ordinances and outward manifestations of obedience.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.