Is the Church sometimes influenced by the philosophies of men?

[Calm]

that Pahoran and Calmoriah (whose separate perceptions from Australia and New Zealand and northern California and Utah seem to match mine very accurately) are actual people who aren't lying, and so forth.

You are so naive.

Don't you know I end everything I say with "Yeah! that's the ticket!"

[Daniel Peterson]

Got smart and did a google on frank's quote, it was the Bob Jones U case he was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

Yeah. I thought so. Not quite relevant, really.

But I keep piling up absurd assumptions. Right now, for example, I'm going to assume that Duncan's mother is a real person who isn't just making things up, and -- much more dangerously -- that this place called "Canada" is a genuine country.

[Calm]

Right now, for example, I'm going to assume that Duncan's mother is a real person who isn't just making things up, and -- much more dangerously -- that this place called "Canada" is a genuine country.

I can testify to that since I lived in Canada for 13 years....yeah! that's the ticket?

[cinepro]

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.

I doubt the civil marriage of gays would do any more damage to the doctrines of the creation and fall than the theory of evolution has already done.

[Deborah]

Even Wikipedia has it. This is nothing new. The whole origin of Black Africans was inculcated from generations of folk "doctrine". Mormons simply brought it with them. The Missouri furor caused by Phelps' hubris resulted in Joseph Smith eventually writing his views on slavery as permitted while God did nothing to alter it; Joseph Smith appealed to the OT as his "original source" and proceeded from there....

You do know there is an on-going battle on Wiki with non-Mormons and Mormons and their input. In other words don't trust anything Wiki says about the Mormons.

The church continued to support the abolition of slavery which is one reason the Missourians were so hostile. However, to jump from that to saying that the reason for the ban was that Joseph adopted a middle of the road policy because the Missourians were getting angry over the Mormons trying to persuade their slaves to leave their masters for Mormonism isn

[Scott Lloyd]

Even Wikipedia has it. This is nothing new. The whole origin of Black Africans was inculcated from generations of folk "doctrine". Mormons simply brought it with them. The Missouri furor caused by Phelps' hubris resulted in Joseph Smith eventually writing his views on slavery as permitted while God did nothing to alter it; Joseph Smith appealed to the OT as his "original source" and proceeded from there....

Wikipedia? As a thread over on the "In the News" forum demonstrates, Wikipedia at any given moment is at the mercy of whoever logged on last.

[cinepro]

To me it is logical that if it took a revelation to lift the ban it was a revelation that put it in place. Otherwise it could have been lifted long before by the action of earlier prophets who were faced with persecution because of the ban.

It is possible (and logical) that non-revelatory policies can be changed with revelation.

For example, we recently discussed how Christ appeared to Lorenzo Snow and told him not to wait to reorganize the First Presidency after Wilford Woodruff's death (the practice had been to wait a few years after the death of a Prophet before the President of the Q12 would organize a separate FP). But that doesn't mean we should logically assume that Christ had appeared to Brigham Young and told him to wait a few years before organizing a FP.

While that may have happened, it's also possible that Brigham Young just happened to wait a few years, and that became the tradition for John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff. And then Jesus decided to change the procedure and personally inform Lorenzo Snow.

[Pahoran]

I know what you're doing here: making a distinction between "lost TEN Tribes of Israel", and a lost remnant, i.e. the "branch broken off" from the land of Jerusalem and transplanted in the Americas. Sorry, that won't work.

Among those who regularly deal in generalities and broad brush strokes, I suppose it won't.

Among those for whom the facts matter, it may.

The BofM is all about HEBREWS being the dominant (or even entire) source of Native American presence.

Is it?

Pardon me, but I seem to have missed that, in all my Book of Mormon reading; would you mind giving a reference to a relevant BofM passage that asserts that?

In case you're wondering: yes Virginia, this is a CFR.

If 20th century scholarship has debunked "View of the Hebrews" fascination that gripped Joseph Smith

Did it? What is your evidence for that assertion, or assumption?

it has at the same time rendered the "history" asserted in the BofM to that of a fable, fantasy or religious myth....

Really?

Then that should be fairly easy to prove, shouldn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

It is possible (and logical) that non-revelatory policies can be changed with revelation.

For example, we recently discussed how Christ appeared to Lorenzo Snow and told him not to wait to reorganize the First Presidency after Wilford Woodruff's death (the practice had been to wait a few years after the death of a Prophet before the President of the Q12 would organize a separate FP). But that doesn't mean we should logically assume that Christ had appeared to Brigham Young and told him to wait a few years before organizing a FP.

While that may have happened, it's also possible that Brigham Young just happened to wait a few years, and that became the tradition for John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff. And then Jesus decided to change the procedure and personally inform Lorenzo Snow.

The history of the matter argues against the notion that the pre-1978 policy remained in place merely because nobody thought to ask God about it.

[paulpatter]

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.

I encourage you and others who may be interested to read a scholarly, extensively documented account of developments that led to the 1978 Revelation. That account is entitled "Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church." The account (article) was edited by Lester E. Bush, Jr., and Armand L. Mauss and published in 1984 by Signature Books. It directly and convincingly contradicts your claim that the "priesthood [was]. . .given to blacks conveniently following the civil rights movement." The following sentence from p. 2 of the article may help you to understand that the Church was confronting the issue at least three decades before the Revelation:

The first stirrings [of the issue] might be seen in the 1947 [emphasis added] exchange of letters between Professor Lowry Nelson, a distinguished Mormon sociologist, and the First Presidency of the Church.

Historians generally describe the period 1955-1968 as the locus of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (from an article of that title in Wikipedia).

[Bikeemikey]

Since the beginning Mormon theology has had to capitulate and reframe it self due to pressures from the world (philosophies of men and political pressure - I will refer to them as the same thing).

An easy and obvious example of this is Polygamy.

Polygamy was a divine decree currently on display in restoration scripture.

It was stopped because of political pressure which stemmed from the philosophies of men (men thought they knew what was moral and correct and sought to force that morality on the church).

Any fair reading of the declaration responsible for the church wide statement discontinuation of polygamous practices would recognize it is a politically pressured change.

Now in our current times most Mormon's would find it impossible to agree to the reinstitution of the practice, indeed some Active-Mormons feel that it was wrong, un-inspired etc etc.

This is but one obvious example of how the philosophies of men impact the growth shape and popular doctrinal beliefs of the Church and it's members.

We live in the world. Of course it effect the church.

[Bikeemikey]

Accidental Double Post -- Deleted --

[Lightbearer]

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

[phaedrus ut]

I wonder when the time will come that the church still stop teaching against interracial marriage?

Phaedrus

[Walden]

Care to name a few? Dan reports his observations and his awareness of relevant events. Which of those are "assumptions?" Was Dan merely assuming that the Church built the Sao Paolo Temple at the time?

Yes, that's it, try to reframe the argument instead of speaking to the actual case at hand.

Of course I was not insinuating that "Dan merely assum[ed] that the Church built the Sao Paolo Temple at the time?"....are you serious with this logic?

The assumptions that I was referring to are those in which Dan states that the "one" influential event that brought the about-face by the church regarding it's stance on blacks and the priesthood was the dedication of the Sao Paulo temple. The second assumption that I was referring to was Dan's statement that this about-face by the church was "emphatically not [due to] any nonexistent crescendo of pressure within the United States."

It never ceases to amaze me the backflips and somersaults that apologists will go through to strain every nook and cranny of world history throught the myopic sieve of the LDS worldview. No, of course the end of polygamy had nothing to do with pressures from the US government, or the government's unwillingness to grant Utah statehood if polygamy continued. It was only a coincindence that the US Congress forced Utah to ban the practice in its state constitution in order to attain statehood. But no, the church was not influenced by the philosophies of men.

Likewise, I've heard a number of apologists and LDS members make the argument that the church was not swayed at all by public opinion when it gave blacks the priesthood in 1978. Rather, the civil rights movement is spun on it's head and it is argued that the movement was in preparation, and thus necessary, for blacks to attain the mormon priesthood. Of course there is no way that by 1978, fourteen years after the civil rights bill was signed, that a church who desparately desired growth and expansion both in the US and abroad could be swayed by a general public who had come to acknowledge that denying a certain people rights based on their skin color was deplorable and disgusting. Certainly that had nothing to do with the matter.

I could go on with the curious timing of the church's actions and teachings and how they have evolved over the years to remain, at the least, on the fringe of public acceptance (teachings on the actual age of the earth, the evolving location(s) of the Hill Cumorah, the evolution of the temple ceremonies, etc.). Taken as a single event, it might just seem like coincidence. When looked at as a whole, the number of coincidences becomes uncanny, especially for an institution that is supposedly not influenced by the philosophies of man.

[David T]

many of the black race were seeking out the restored Gospel and it was difficult to explain the curse (yes it was a curse and not racism)

Spencer W. Kimball, Bruce R. McConkie, and others initimately involved in the process leading up to the 1978 Revelation disagreed with you. They found no legitimate scriptural or modern revelatory basis for the "policy" as David O. McKay called it.

If you haven't, I highly recommend this article from BYU studies, written by President Kimball's son. With all of its primary sources and context presented, I consider it pretty much required reading for anyone discussing this topic. I found it not only deeply informational, but highly inspiring. I 100% sustain and mark as authentic the Revelation announced in OD-2.

[WalkerW]

Spencer W. Kimball, Bruce R. McConkie, and others initimately involved in the process leading up to the 1978 Revelation disagreed with you. They found no legitimate scriptural or modern revelatory basis for the "policy" as David O. McKay called it.

If you haven't, I highly recommend this article from BYU studies, written by President Kimball's son. With all of its primary sources and context presented, I consider it pretty much required reading for anyone discussing this topic. I found it not only deeply informational, but highly inspiring. I 100% sustain and mark as authentic the Revelation announced in OD-2.

Yes. This is absolutely required reading.

[Daniel Peterson]

How Walden transmutes my pretty clear English-language comment ("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

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hot dang Dr. Peterson, I must say that was a great responce.

[Questing Beast]

You do know there is an on-going battle on Wiki with non-Mormons and Mormons and their input. In other words don't trust anything Wiki says about the Mormons.

Look at the sources. I only linked to the Wiki page because it was quick and convenient. It agrees with what I have understood as real Church history for virtually all my life. I am actually quite surprised that you question the historicity of Black Americans getting the priesthood in Joseph Smith's day.

The church continued to support the abolition of slavery which is one reason the Missourians were so hostile. However, to jump from that to saying that the reason for the ban was that Joseph adopted a middle of the road policy because the Missourians were getting angry over the Mormons trying to persuade their slaves to leave their masters for Mormonism isn

[WalkerW]

Read the Joseph Smith quote about slavery being sanctioned in the OT and therefore nothing man could do to eradicate slavery would have the slightest effect upon it until God said it was no longer a permissible institution. Wiki (anti-Mormons) did not make up that quote; Joseph Smith actually taught his personal denial of the abolitionist movement.

Joseph Smith didn't agree with the approach of the abolitionists. They weren't the only people who disagreed with slavery. Smith had his own views about how to get rid of it. For example, read Bushman's Prologue in Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

[Questing Beast]

Hot dang Dr. Peterson, I must say that was a great responce.

I'm new here. Is this Daniel Peterson" THE "Doc Peterson" of fame and infamy (depending on who you talk to)? The BYU Dan Peterson? The recent witness at the Brian David Mitchell trial "Doctor Peterson"?

Just curious, naturally. I thought this Mormon dialogue "Daniel Pererson" was just some other one. (although I did find your expressive and tight verbiage to be highly coincidental if that was the case....)

[Questing Beast]

Joseph Smith didn't agree with the approach of the abolitionists. They weren't the only people who disagreed with slavery. Smith had his own views about how to get rid of it. For example, read Bushman's Prologue in Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

Yes, Joseph Smith's approach was education (lifting up) of the Black man and the process of time. However, "worthy" Black individuals were ordained during his lifetime. None of these were, I am confident in saying, escaped slaves (that is "illegal" Black men). You may correct me if I am mistaken....

[WalkerW]

I'm new here. Is this Daniel Peterson" THE "Doc Peterson" of fame and infamy (depending on who you talk to)? The BYU Dan Peterson? The recent witness at the Brian David Mitchell trial "Doctor Peterson"?

Just curious, naturally. I thought this Mormon dialogue "Daniel Pererson" was just some other one. (although I did find your expressive and tight verbiage to be highly coincidental if that was the case....)

Dannibal Lecter himself.

[thesometimesaint]

Questing Beast:

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage.html

In the 1830's, Joseph Smith was pro-slavery, believing that Negros were the "sons of Ham" and that Ham cursed Canaan and his descendants (Negroes) with bondage. This was the general belief among Catholics and Protestants and Arabs and Jews of that day. Indeed, in the days of Joseph Smith, only the Quakers and some "Freethinkers" and some Spiritualists believed that Negro slavery was inherently evil. Joseph Smith once referred to blacks in the South who wanted to fight for their freedom as "rebellious niggers in the slaves states." (Millennial Star 22:602).

However, by the early 1840s, Joseph Smith was to change his mind completely regarding black slavery.

In a complete reversal of his previous beliefs, by 1840 Joseph Smith became a great advocate for the rights of black people. He was one of the first white men to call for the end to black slavery, and he called for the education and granting of equal rights of black people in America, back in 1843. Some historians believe his pro-black teachings influenced Abraham Lincoln, who lived not far from Joseph Smith in the 1840s.

Even if accepting that as a actual JS saying. We are stuck with the fact that JS recommended selling government lands/property to free the slaves. We have Scripture saying "... it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." (D&C 101:79), and Joseph Smith appointed Elijah Abel, his adopted brother and a black Mormon, to be a Seventy Apostle; a position Abel retained throughout his life.