Prophet And Church Paradigms: Expectations And Anomaly

[Freedom]

The church obviously didn't take any action with respect to allowing black members into temple and priesthood without the prophet being involved.  But, MLK definitely spoke the truth of equality first.  A truth that the church needed to follow.

The church no more needed to follow it than Jesus needed to allow non-jews into membership. Luther had a great influence in changing peoples perception of racial issues, but he did not receive Gods will concerning how the church should move forward. Only the prophet received this revelation. The change came when God wanted it to come, and there is no evidence that the change was made to correct a wrong. This is a false assumption drawn from projecting current cultural tolerances on church practices of the past.

[Freedom]

 

 

And there are many statements to the effect that the church is not the repository of all truth, and clearly even the idea of an open canon itself suggests that doctrine changes.

 

In fact that is one reason I am LDS- because doctrine and its interpretation can change according to the times.

 

 

There is a big difference between finding truth elsewhere and finding someone other than the prophet who is authorized by God to speak his will. When God speaks on any given topic, it will always be through his living prophet. Much truth, such as gravity, does not require divine revelation. I think this is the misunderstanding that arises. There is the false assumption that if we believe the prophet is the ultimate authority on all things God will say, then this also means that truth only comes through the prophet.

[rockpond]

The church no more needed to follow it than Jesus needed to allow non-jews into membership. Luther had a great influence in changing peoples perception of racial issues, but he did not receive Gods will concerning how the church should move forward. Only the prophet received this revelation. The change came when God wanted it to come, and there is no evidence that the change was made to correct a wrong. This is a false assumption drawn from projecting current cultural tolerances on church practices of the past.

 

The change came when God wanted it to come?  We don't know that.  We don't even know if God wanted the ban in the first place.  We don't know where it came from or what its basis was.

 

As a church we needed to move past a racist policy that we had in place.  MLK was fighting to end racism before we were, as a church.  So, while the instruction for action came through the prophet (as it should), the truth was spoken by MLK first.  And that's okay, all truth does not need to come through the mouth of our prophets.  We accept truth from any source.

[Freedom]

The change came when God wanted it to come?  We don't know that.  We don't even know if God wanted the ban in the first place.  We don't know where it came from or what its basis was.

 

As a church we needed to move past a racist policy that we had in place.  MLK was fighting to end racism before we were, as a church.  So, while the instruction for action came through the prophet (as it should), the truth was spoken by MLK first.  And that's okay, all truth does not need to come through the mouth of our prophets.  We accept truth from any source.

 

We don't know that? Are you suggesting that God has no control over his own creation? There is no more evidence that the policy was racially based that Jesus' refusal to allow non-jews into the church was racially based. Since you do not know either, your argument is based on an unverifiable hypothesis. Regardless, your comment has nothing to do with the discussion. I have never argued that truth only comes from prophets, the point being discussed is: is the prophet the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything. There is no evidence that MLK was speaking for the Lord. He never claimed as much and no church authority has claimed as such; therefore, he may have made a great contribution to equality but he was no more speaking for the Lord on race relations than Apple Co. was speaking for the lord when they introduced the modern computer. The only person who declared the will of God concerning who could receive ordinances was the prophet of God.

 

So, to stay on the topic, find a scripture that adds any more light to Amos 3:7. It might be worded like this: god will do nothing safe he first reveal it to a non-member of the church who is fighting a specific cause that will bring social change. But we do have the following:

 

Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote: “Whenever moved upon by the Spirit of the Lord, the man called to the prophet’s office assumes the prophetic mantle and speaks as a mouthpiece of the Lord. He may then interpret the word of God, apply it to the conditions of the day, governmental, social, or economic, warn against impending evil. … Such inspired deliverances are binding upon all who believe that the latter-day work came and is directed by revelation.” (Evidences and Reconciliations,1:182.)

 

 

No claim is put forth by the prophets of God to suggest that they are infallible, that everything they say and do is what the Lord would say and do. Only when they act in harmony with the will of the Lord do they become the Lord’s mouthpiece. Each President of the Church has been quick to point out that he has weaknesses and imperfections. These facts, together with the Lord’s endorsement of His servants, raise questions about how one should respond to the counsel of the prophets. D&C Student Manual

 

 

President J. Reuben Clark Jr., “the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church. He is God’s sole mouthpiece on earth for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true Church. He alone may declare the mind and will of God to his people. No officer of any other Church in the world has this high right and lofty prerogative.” (Church News, 31 July 1954, p. 10.)

 

 

Unless you can provide a doctrinal foundation that counters these statements, the doctrine remains quite secure.

[rockpond]

We don't know that? Are you suggesting that God has no control over his own creation? There is no more evidence that the policy was racially based that Jesus' refusal to allow non-jews into the church was racially based. Since you do not know either, your argument is based on an unverifiable hypothesis. Regardless, your comment has nothing to do with the discussion. I have never argued that truth only comes from prophets, the point being discussed is: is the prophet the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything. There is no evidence that MLK was speaking for the Lord. He never claimed as much and no church authority has claimed as such; therefore, he may have made a great contribution to equality but he was no more speaking for the Lord on race relations than Apple Co. was speaking for the lord when they introduced the modern computer. The only person who declared the will of God concerning who could receive ordinances was the prophet of God.

 

So, to stay on the topic, find a scripture that adds any more light to Amos 3:7. It might be worded like this: god will do nothing safe he first reveal it to a non-member of the church who is fighting a specific cause that will bring social change. But we do have the following:

 

 

 

 

Unless you can provide a doctrinal foundation that counters these statements, the doctrine remains quite secure.

 

I'm suggesting that God cannot override agency and force a revelation upon us.  We had to be ready to receive.  And ask.

 

There is no evidence of a commandment or revelation from God which instituted the policy.  And the policy is racially based -- i.e. it was a policy that kept a race of people from holding the priesthood and participating in temple ordinances.  That would be true even if we did have a reason from the Lord as to why it was put in place.

 

As to the rest, it sounds like we agree:  MLK was speaking truth and truth does not only have to come from the prophet.  But, I also agree that the prophet is the Lord's mouthpiece on earth.

[Freedom]

I'm suggesting that God cannot override agency and force a revelation upon us.  We had to be ready to receive.  And ask.

 

There is no evidence of a commandment or revelation from God which instituted the policy.  And the policy is racially based -- i.e. it was a policy that kept a race of people from holding the priesthood and participating in temple ordinances.  That would be true even if we did have a reason from the Lord as to why it was put in place.

 

As to the rest, it sounds like we agree:  MLK was speaking truth and truth does not only have to come from the prophet.  But, I also agree that the prophet is the Lord's mouthpiece on earth.

 

I would say we have no evidence either way so I choose not to pass judgement any more than I will not judge Jesus to be a racist.

[rockpond]

I would say we have no evidence either way so I choose not to pass judgement any more than I will not judge Jesus to be a racist.

 

I'm not passing judgement -- just stating what it is (was).

[Freedom]

I'm not passing judgement -- just stating what it is (was).

So do you feel Jesus was racist?

[rockpond]

So do you feel Jesus was racist?

Nope.  Is there any indication that he treated any race with anything other than love and compassion? Though It's possible that his mortal ministry/mission was specifically to the Jews.

Edited September 13, 2013 by rockpond

[Stone holm]

But we probably should require them to become experts in engineering and astrobiology before making statements like this:

 

 

 

 

Or this by Brigham Young:

 

 

 

 

Or this reportedly taught by Joseph Smith:

 

 

 

Interesting side note, when looking up the Joseph Fielding Smith quote it brought me to an LDS message board with a poll asking if JFS was correct.  47% of those voting agreed with him.     

Well as to the Sun, I believe there are a fair number of members who believe the Sun is a Celestial Kingdom. As for Joseph Fielding Smith he was never big on science.

[Freedom]

Nope.  Is there any indication that he treated any race with anything other than love and compassion? Though It's possible that his mortal ministry/mission was specifically to the Jews.

 

He not only blocked non-jews from holding the priesthood, but he didn't even let them be taught the gospel. One can rationalize it by saying that was his ministry but to assume the modern church was racists for restricting the priesthood to one group when the Savior blocked membership of the church to all but his own family line is rather hypocritical. The church treated African American with the utmost compassion. It is easy to look back through our 21st century eyes and call it racisms. We simply do not know why it occurred. I just find it hard to believe that God did not foresee this apparently massive sidestep in restoring the gospel, and that no subsequent prophets ever bothered to ask about it. It seems clear that Kimball spend a very long time seeking an answer to this question. If it was a no brainer, why didn't God answer him as soon as he first asked?  All we can say at this point is we do not know why there was a restriction but based on historical evidence it is clear that such restrictions are not unheard of.

[rockpond]

He not only blocked non-jews from holding the priesthood, but he didn't even let them be taught the gospel. One can rationalize it by saying that was his ministry but to assume the modern church was racists for restricting the priesthood to one group when the Savior blocked membership of the church to all but his own family line is rather hypocritical. The church treated African American with the utmost compassion. It is easy to look back through our 21st century eyes and call it racisms. We simply do not know why it occurred. I just find it hard to believe that God did not foresee this apparently massive sidestep in restoring the gospel, and that no subsequent prophets ever bothered to ask about it. It seems clear that Kimball spend a very long time seeking an answer to this question. If it was a no brainer, why didn't God answer him as soon as he first asked? All we can say at this point is we do not know why there was a restriction but based on historical evidence it is clear that such restrictions are not unheard of.

Other than his apostles, who did Christ give the priesthood to? And how do we know who was in the multitudes that heard Him speak? And after his crucifixion, He told the apostles to go and teach all nations.

Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood. Did God change his mind after that? Were those ordinations a mistake?

No. We let our mortal prejudices create a racist policy (a policy based solely on race). I'm not condemning anyone or saying that the Brethren went apostate. But I believe it's important to not sugar-coat it. It's important to learn from it.

Are you suggesting that the race-based priesthood/temple restrictions were what the Lord wanted for His church?

[Freedom]

Other than his apostles, who did Christ give the priesthood to? And how do we know who was in the multitudes that heard Him speak? And after his crucifixion, He told the apostles to go and teach all nations. Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood. Did God change his mind after that? Were those ordinations a mistake? No. We let our mortal prejudices create a racist policy (a policy based solely on race). I'm not condemning anyone or saying that the Brethren went apostate. But I believe it's important to not sugar-coat it. It's important to learn from it. Are you suggesting that the race-based priesthood/temple restrictions were what the Lord wanted for His church?

I am saying that we do not know, and you are assuming that it was racist. We do not see the affects different choices have on how the church progresses, but lets play devils advocate for a moment. Consider what would have happened to the church of blacks were allowed to join. They would have joined in large numbers because that is what was happening. They were very attracted to the church, to the freedom it portrayed. And they would have gone across the plains in large numbers, and their poor education and troubled social skills would have gone along with them. Imagine what the U.S. government would have done if hundreds, even thousands of black people started migrating together. It would have been a massacre.

 

The church needed to be established with educated and established members. God restored the gospel, in his own wisdom, to white anglo Saxons because this cultural group was best prepared and equipped to bring the church out of obscurity. So could God have instituted this ban? Absolutely. These people were not ignorant and uncivilized because of the color of their skin, but because they had been raised as slaves for generations. The natives of North America are facing the same social challenges. Even today, African Americans are struggling as a people because of the traditions of their parents and grand parents. The church needed a good start before it could be strong enough to include the poor and the needy. So it is quite easy to justify the reason for the ban if you put aside your notions of racism and consider that God, in his wisdom, to chooses who he includes and who he excludes. It is racism that causes all the quorum of the 12 to be white people? Was it racism that God sent his missionaries to England and not to Ethiopia or Brazil? Could he not just as easily raised up a Chinese prophet in the latter days?

 

The same argument that calls the early leaders racist can also call them sexist. How many women are allowed to receive the priesthood? Hmmm, so it is not acceptable to exclude blacks from the priesthood but it is quite acceptable to exclude women. Can you provide me a revelation that says women must not receive the priesthood?

[canard78]

Amos 3:7. The lord God will do NOTHING...

Unless you can find a scripture that says the Lord God will take some actions without the involvement of his prophets there is no doctrinal foundation to dispute this verse.

Did you intentionally leave off the end of the verse in the hope we'd forget the pluralisation? "...his servants the prophets."

What is the requirement to be a prophet? Not the priesthood. Joseph received revelation and was called as a prophet before he got the priesthood. There also doesn't have to be only one prophet. Jeremiah and Leh were both concurrent prophets. We sustain the entire 15 leaders of our church as prophets. God speaks through all of them. And he also speaks through other inspired men and women who speak with the spirit of prophecy both inside and outside of Mormonism. And all of them (Mormon or not) prophecy in part and speak while seeing through a glass darkly.

“While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and it is one of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend. … All the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them.”

B.H. Roberts

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

[rockpond]

I am saying that we do not know, and you are assuming that it was racist. We do not see the affects different choices have on how the church progresses, but lets play devils advocate for a moment. Consider what would have happened to the church of blacks were allowed to join. They would have joined in large numbers because that is what was happening. They were very attracted to the church, to the freedom it portrayed. And they would have gone across the plains in large numbers, and their poor education and troubled social skills would have gone along with them. Imagine what the U.S. government would have done if hundreds, even thousands of black people started migrating together. It would have been a massacre.

 

The church needed to be established with educated and established members. God restored the gospel, in his own wisdom, to white anglo Saxons because this cultural group was best prepared and equipped to bring the church out of obscurity. So could God have instituted this ban? Absolutely. These people were not ignorant and uncivilized because of the color of their skin, but because they had been raised as slaves for generations. The natives of North America are facing the same social challenges. Even today, African Americans are struggling as a people because of the traditions of their parents and grand parents. The church needed a good start before it could be strong enough to include the poor and the needy. So it is quite easy to justify the reason for the ban if you put aside your notions of racism and consider that God, in his wisdom, to chooses who he includes and who he excludes. It is racism that causes all the quorum of the 12 to be white people? Was it racism that God sent his missionaries to England and not to Ethiopia or Brazil? Could he not just as easily raised up a Chinese prophet in the latter days?

 

The same argument that calls the early leaders racist can also call them sexist. How many women are allowed to receive the priesthood? Hmmm, so it is not acceptable to exclude blacks from the priesthood but it is quite acceptable to exclude women. Can you provide me a revelation that says women must not receive the priesthood?

 

You keep telling me to stop looking through 21st century eyes but you can't seem to see the word racism for what it means, divorced from all the political baggage.  As I've said a couple times already, it was a racist policy because it was a policy based solely on race.  That's the definition of racist.

 

Is your scenario of the early church possible?  Sure.  Did we need to wait until 1978 to change things?  Did we need to create doctrines about "less valiant spirits" to support the ban?  To go back to the origin of this sub-thread:  Should MLK have been fighting for equality long before we reversed the policy?  Or could we have led in that regard?  Are there lessons we can learn from all of this?  (Rhetorical questions, not actually asking you to answer them.)

 

And no, I cannot provide a revelation that says women must not receive the priesthood.

[rockpond]

Did you intentionally leave off the end of the verse in the hope we'd forget the pluralisation? "...his servants the prophets."

What is the requirement to be a prophet? Not the priesthood. Joseph received revelation and was called as a prophet before he got the priesthood. There also doesn't have to be only one prophet. Jeremiah and Leh were both concurrent prophets. We sustain the entire 15 leaders of our church as prophets. God speaks through all of them. And he also speaks through other inspired men and women who speak with the spirit of prophecy both inside and outside of Mormonism. And all of them (Mormon or not) prophecy in part and speak while seeing through a glass darkly.

B.H. Roberts

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

 

Thanks for sharing that article on Muhammad.  I had not seen that before.  AND, I was lucky enough to have served as the executive secretary to the author, James Toronto, when he was a Bishop many years ago.  He was an outstanding bishop and is a wonderful man.

[Freedom]

You keep telling me to stop looking through 21st century eyes but you can't seem to see the word racism for what it means, divorced from all the political baggage.  As I've said a couple times already, it was a racist policy because it was a policy based solely on race.  That's the definition of racist.

 

Is your scenario of the early church possible?  Sure.  Did we need to wait until 1978 to change things?  Did we need to create doctrines about "less valiant spirits" to support the ban?  To go back to the origin of this sub-thread:  Should MLK have been fighting for equality long before we reversed the policy?  Or could we have led in that regard?  Are there lessons we can learn from all of this?  (Rhetorical questions, not actually asking you to answer them.)

 

And no, I cannot provide a revelation that says women must not receive the priesthood.

 

So you would argue then that the current ban on women is sexist? After taking away all that baggage that you referred to of course. The argument is not about your narrow definition of the term, but whether it was sanctioned by god or governed by racist leaders.

[rockpond]

So you would argue then that the current ban on women is sexist? After taking away all that baggage that you referred to of course. The argument is not about your narrow definition of the term, but whether it was sanctioned by god or governed by racist leaders.

 

Yes, there is plenty of sexism in the church.  Some of it is good.  And maybe some could change for the better.

 

My narrow definition of the term?

 

The official position of the church is that we don't know if it was or wasn't sanctioned by God.

 

For me, the evidence points to it being a cultural byproduct of the time.

[Freedom]

Did you intentionally leave off the end of the verse in the hope we'd forget the pluralisation? "...his servants the prophets."

 

well, if you had read my post you would see that I did not leave off the pluralism because I fully accept that there have been hundreds of prophets over the years. But let me give you an analogy.

 

You see an ad for an electronics store that says they carry every Sony product available. You go to the store and see a Panasonic TV. You then go across the street to the competitors store and find a Sony TV and then decide that the ad was a lie. This is what you are doing. The doctrine is that only the prophet can speak for the lord on all topics. You are then finding statements by prophets that arguably are not the word of God (the Panasonic tv in an otherwise fully stocked Sony store). You then identify actions and teachings by individual people that are inspired by god such as MLK (the Sony TV in the competitors store). You then conclude that the statement that only prophets can speak for the lord on all topics is false. None of your evidence has anything to do with the doctrines, any more than finding a Sony TV in another store proves that the one store does not carry all Sony products.

 

So I maintain that only the living prophet is authorized to speak for the lord on all topics, and he does not require any special education to speak for the lord on all topics. That he may express his own opinion from time to time is quite irrelevant, and that other people may share inspired thought is also irrelevant.

 

When God declared his word on blacks and the priesthood, he did so through an ordained prophet. There is no evidence that MLK was acting as a prophet and there is no evidence that the policy to ban blacks was contrary to the will of God.

[rockpond]

When God declared his word on blacks and the priesthood, he did so through an ordained prophet. There is no evidence that MLK was acting as a prophet and there is no evidence that the policy to ban blacks was contrary to the will of God.

 

And there is no evidence that the policy prohibiting blacks from the priesthood/temple was in accordance with the will of God either.

 

I'm curious though... is it not possible that MLK was acting as a prophet (lower case "p") when he spoke truth and helped prepare the world for the removal of the priesthood/temple ban?  For me, it would hinge upon whether or not he was acting upon divine revelation.

[Hestia]

Looks like it's time to close this topic.