Folklore Vs. Doctrine

[cinepro]

It would seem that the Church leaders thought they were putting the Priesthood Ban behind them in 1978, and that future discussion could focus on the fact that it ended in 1978 (thus ending the need for any further discussion).

It would also seem that the Church leaders thought that shifting the explanations for the ban from the pre-1978 theories to the non-explanation of "We don't know" would be a satisfactory way to deal with any vestigial discomfort.

It would seem the Church leaders were wrong.

Edited March 6, 2012 by cinepro

[BCSpace]

It would seem

x 3

I think the problem is that we are not all unified with the Church in doctrine. I've found that by sticking to the doctrine, critics are reduced to mere denial and that always defuses the situation. The logic of the doctrine dictates that the ban was not racist and God was still in control prior to 1978 so we are in a good position when we keep the doctrine pure as the Church requires from it's teachers. It's not the Church's modus operandi that is at fault, but ours.

[Analytics]

My understanding is that they are not contradictory, that the Church's position is that the restriction remained in place in accordance with the mind of God, even though the origin is not clear and the reasons are unknown.

Just to clarify, what do you mean when you say "the reasons are unknown?" The first presidency unambiguously said that the origin and reason for the ban was because it was a “direct command of the Lord.” That sounds crystal clear.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Analytics

[Scott Lloyd]

Just to clarify, what do you mean when you say "the reasons are unknown?" The first presidency unambiguously said that the origin and reason for the ban was because it was a “direct command of the Lord.” That sounds crystal clear.

What I meant was that the reasons for it being a command have not been revealed.

Clear now?

[Scott Lloyd]

It would seem that the Church leaders thought they were putting the Priesthood Ban behind them in 1978, and that future discussion could focus on the fact that it ended in 1978 (thus ending the need for any further discussion).

It would also seem that the Church leaders thought that shifting the explanations for the ban from the pre-1978 theories to the non-explanation of "We don't know" would be a satisfactory way to deal with any vestigial discomfort.

It would seem the Church leaders were wrong.

It would seem that Church leaders are more careful today about stating what they do and don't know.

Is that a bad thing?

[Analytics]

What I meant was that the reasons for it being a command have not been revealed.

Clear now?

Yes, thank you.

[Xander]

What I meant was that the reasons for it being a command have not been revealed.

Clear now?

Why can't you see how this question is just a red herring?

We do not know the reason why a lot of things that "come from the Lord" in the context of Mormon doctrines. How does this change in any way the fact that these are still claimed to be from the Lord? Can you explain to me the reason why tea is part of the Word of Wisdom when most medical professionals believe the pros in health benefits far outweigh the cons? I don't remember Mormons complaining about this or refusing to believe the WoW was based on revelation. Can you explain why polygamy was commanded by an angel with a flaming sword when it was short-lived and served no apparent purpose whatsoever? I've yet to hear a good "reason" for it other than the usual, "God commanded it and his ways are not our ways." That reasoning seems to have worked well for Mormons for more than a century. So why is it that suddenly we have to question the "why" behind the Priesthood ban, and then, because we don't think there is a good reason for it, presume it was never inspired of God?

You guys are doing what so many other apostates before you have done. This is a very slippery slope you're dancing on. You're essentially telling us that an official proclamation by the Church, stating in unambiguous terms, that X is of God.... isn't really from God because you haven't heard a good reason for it!!

Say what you will, but bcspace got it right. FAIR is not the Church. Armand Mauss is not the Church. Lester Bush is not the Church.

The Church has stated what it has stated in an official capacity, claiming this is from the Lord. That by any definition is as good as saying it is divine revelation. What I see here is a tendency for some Mormons to put their faith, not in the Church, but rather apologetic scholarship.

Some of the most well reasoned and thought out commentary on this issue has come from non-LDS authorities, I admit. The Church release was something you'd expect in a corporate memo and it came across as PC, bland, intentionally ambiguous and ultimately uninspired. But when the time comes that Mormons are quoting the self-appointed internet authorities instead of the LDS authorities, then something has truly gone awry in Zion.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Xander

[Analytics]

Why can't you see how this question is just a red herring?

We do not know the reason why a lot of things "come from the Lord" in the context of Mormon doctrines. How does this change in any way the fact that these are still claimed to be from the Lord? Can you explain to me the reason why tea is part of the Word of Wisdom when most medical professionals believe the pros in health benefits far outweigh the cons? I don't remember Mormons complaining about this or refusing to believe the WoW was based on revelation. Can you explain why polygamy was commanded by an angel with a flaming sword when it was short-lived and served no apparent purpose whatsoever? I've yet to hear a good "reason" for it other than the usual, "God commanded it and his ways are not our ways." That reasoning seems to have worked well for Mormons for more than a century. So why is it that suddenly we have to question the "why" behind the Priesthood ban, and then, because we don't think there is a good reason for it, presume it was never inspired of God?

You guys are doing what so many other apostates before you have done. This is a very slippery slope you're dancing on. You're essentially telling us that an official proclamation by the Church, stating in unambiguous terms, that X is of God.... isn't really from God because you haven't heard a good reason for it!!

Say what you will, but bcspace got it right. FAIR is not the Church. Armand Mauss is not the Church. Lester Bush is not the Church.

The Church has stated what it has stated in an official capacity, claiming this is from the Lord. That by any definition is as good as saying it is divine revelation. What I see here is a tendency for some Mormons to put their faith, not in the Church, but rather apologetic scholarship.

Some of the most well reasoned and thought out commentary on this issue has come from non-LDS authorities, I admit. The Church release was something you'd expect in a corporate memo and it came across as PC, bland, intentionally ambiguous and ultimately uninspired. But when the time comes that Mormons are quoting the self-appointed internet authorities instead of the LDS authorities, then something has truly gone awry in Zion.

If I understand what Scott is saying, he agrees with bcspace. The difference is that Scott is following the Church's lead of focusing on what is not known rather than what is.

[cinepro]

It would seem that Church leaders are more careful today about stating what they do and don't know.

Is that a bad thing?

I guess it depends on what your expectations are for a Church that is led by a Prophet who communes with God, and whether "being more careful" results in more things being classified as "unknown" than one might expect.

In other words, we obviously expect our leaders to know something, and if we ultimately find that the things they are most sure about are also those things which are least likely to be falsified or be "politically incorrect", it might be a little disappointing.

[BCSpace]

and if we ultimately find that the things they are most sure about are also those things which are least likely to be falsified or be "politically incorrect", it might be a little disappointing.

Isn't that almost always the case? That truths taught are usually rejected?

"For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country."

etc.

[BCSpace]

If I understand what Scott is saying, he agrees with bcspace. The difference is that Scott is following the Church's lead of focusing on what is not known rather than what is.

bcspace is merely showing that certain interpretations of the Church's statements are incorrect and out of context. But a critic of the Church has nowhere to turn. Either we honestly don't know, else what we do know is no problem.

[Xander]

bcspace is merely showing that certain interpretations of the Church's statements are incorrect and out of context. But a critic of the Church has nowhere to turn. Either we honestly don't know, else what we do know is no problem.

Which interpretations are wrong?

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess it depends on what your expectations are for a Church that is led by a Prophet who communes with God, and whether "being more careful" results in more things being classified as "unknown" than one might expect.

In other words, we obviously expect our leaders to know something, and if we ultimately find that the things they are most sure about are also those things which are least likely to be falsified or be "politically incorrect", it might be a little disappointing.

Whatever. I've never had any problem with the concept that God will reveal things on His own timetable, not men's. What I do have a problem with is unauthoritative enlargement upon matters on which God has remained silent. I hope such a mistake is less likely to be made in the future, at least among the leading councils of the Church.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

bcspace is merely showing that certain interpretations of the Church's statements are incorrect and out of context. But a critic of the Church has nowhere to turn. Either we honestly don't know, else what we do know is no problem.

From the perspective of non-believers, this issue isn't that interesting: largely because of their enviornment, past leaders were racist, and incorporated that racism into their teachings. When the old racist generation had passed on, the racist teachings and practices were removed. Not that hard to understand, and not that big a deal.

The part that's interesting is how the Latter-day Saints now deal with their history. Some believe that the policy was in fact from God, which makes your God look like a racist. Others believe that the policy was from your past leaders, which make them look uninspired. Members believe anything they want along this spectrum, and the church is unwilling to give very much clarification regarding what is known and what is not.

The only taboo is speculating about it in public.

[Xander]

I guess it depends on what your expectations are for a Church that is led by a Prophet who communes with God

Precisely. I think the reason why so many people have become disaffected from the Church is because they start to gradually realize that the Church described during missionary discussions isn't really the Church they attend. On my mission we taught people how wonderful it was to know that, unlike other Churches, we had a bonafide prophet of God would could teach us exactly what he wanted us to do and know at any given time. There was no room for misinterpretation or being tossed to and fro with the reasoning of me. And then we read things like the above citation from Kimball, who said he prayed about the priesthood ban for more than fifteen years without an answer. And then we see how apologists downplay official statements as "personal" remarks coming from none other than a fallible human (if I wanted to be misled by bad reasoning then I could get that from any other apostate Church). And then we have LeGrand Richards essentially admitting that the reason for the ban's removal had to do with Church expansion. There was simpoly no practical means by which the Church could expect countries like Brazil, with growing LDS populations, to operate without priesthood authority.

As I said before, the Church statements do not come across as clarifying or enlightening. They come across as though they were quickly written by a Church speech writer who was trying to quickly diffuse a potential public relations bomb.

Compare this to the Church during Joseph Smith. A man who was constantly coming up with new revelations that would astonish the Mormon people as they marveled at the new doctrines he revealed to them. It must have been a very interesting time to be a Mormon, never knowing what Joseph Smith would reveal next. Seeing God as a humanoid was revealed many years after the fact, as were other doctrines (the plurality of Gods, the deification of man, the preexistence, etc). But since that time, the Church has been on cruise control. Suddenly God doesn't send angels anymore (Hinckley said he never saw one), let alone on a regular basis as was the case with Joseph Smith. The only "revelations" that come about since Joseph Smith are those that are necessary for the Church's growth (i.e. removal of polygamy, priesthood ban), which are things a corporate board of directors would have come up with, except they'd just base it on common sense, not God's revelation.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

Whatever. I've never had any problem with the concept that God will reveal things on His own timetable, not men's. What I do have a problem with is unauthoritative enlargement upon matters on which God has remained silent. I hope such a mistake is less likely to be made in the future, at least among the leading councils of the Church.

Scott, do you or do you not believe the priesthood ban was divinely sanctioned by God himself? It sounds like you do, but that you are just upset that some people would speculate why. Is this accurate?

[Bob Crockett]

Scott, do you or do you not believe the priesthood ban was divinely sanctioned by God himself? It sounds like you do, but that you are just upset that some people would speculate why. Is this accurate?

It doesn't matter. Matt 18:19 provides that if a quorum of the twelve agree on a principle then it is so. Endorsed by the twelve meant endorsement by God. The priesthood ban arose from the Missouri Compromise. It took some time to undo for no reason other than geriatric inertia.

[BCSpace]

From the perspective of non-believers, this issue isn't that interesting: largely because of their enviornment, past leaders were racist, and incorporated that racism into their teachings. When the old racist generation had passed on, the racist teachings and practices were removed. Not that hard to understand, and not that big a deal.

Nothing has been removed on this issue to the point of becoming "not doctrine" as far as I can tell. But speculations indeed have been spoken against. For some, identifying what is and is not speculation has been tricky, but that's not the case for most members.

The part that's interesting is how the Latter-day Saints now deal with their history. Some believe that the policy was in fact from God, which makes your God look like a racist. Others believe that the policy was from your past leaders, which make them look uninspired. Members believe anything they want along this spectrum, and the church is unwilling to give very much clarification regarding what is known and what is not.

Sticking with the doctrine ensures nothing seems racist or uninspired.

The only taboo is speculating about it in public.

I've never felt any taboos discussing it in Church. It does come up even though it may not fit the topic or direction of the lesson. From time to time members come before the Bishop, or the High Council, or the Stake Pres. asking about these and similar issues. I've never felt afraid to speak in those situations as I do now. The only people I've ever met who seem to be afraid of talking about it post here.

[Analytics]

It doesn't matter. Matt 18:19 provides that if a quorum of the twelve agree on a principle then it is so. Endorsed by the twelve meant endorsement by God. The priesthood ban arose from the Missouri Compromise. It took some time to undo for no reason other than geriatric inertia.

Bob,

May I use the highlighted portion of your statement above as my new sig?

Thanks,

Analytics

Edited March 7, 2012 by Analytics

[Xander]

It doesn't matter. Matt 18:19 provides that if a quorum of the twelve agree on a principle then it is so. Endorsed by the twelve meant endorsement by God. The priesthood ban arose from the Missouri Compromise. It took some time to undo for no reason other than geriatric inertia.

You're relying on the arm of the flesh Bob. The Church said it came from God, not because of the Missouri Compromise. And Matt 18:19 doesn't even begin to say what you're reading into it. I'd still like to hear Scott's answer though.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Xander

[Analytics]

Sticking with the doctrine ensures nothing seems racist or uninspired.

But you guys can't agree on what the doctrine is, and your leaders don't provide you with much help.

[Xander]

Last night Michelle Bachman was asked four times if she would condemn Rush Limbaugh's calling a woman the "S" word.

The way she kept bouncing off the question and derailing the subject - complaining that no one in the media cared when she was called names in the past - reminds me a lot of what we see when we try to get the church to unambiguously address any of the controversial matters. Hinckley did this a lot during his interviews in the 90's.It just isn't what I expected from God's one true Church where the truth is supposed to set you free. I see people coach by rhetoric specialists who are afraid of public perceptions, not people interested declaring doctrines of God without shame.

[BCSpace]

Sticking with the doctrine ensures nothing seems racist or uninspired.

But you guys can't agree on what the doctrine is,

Sure we do. Just look at all recent conversions regarding the LDS Newsroom as official doctrine.

and your leaders don't provide you with much help.

They have clearly specified what is and is not doctrine. A summary can be found in my siggy. You'll not find any disagreement on this in the Church (recall that FAIR or it's associated message board is not the Church).

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, do you or do you not believe the priesthood ban was divinely sanctioned by God himself? It sounds like you do, but that you are just upset that some people would speculate why. Is this accurate?

My position has been expressed clearly enough. Your baiting doesn't interest me.

[Xander]

If it were clear, would I be asking for clarification? What's so difficult about a simple yes or no?