Challenging The First Presidency

[Duncan]

My point was that if you take the "science" of earlier times you will find that it is as racist as these statements by church leaders.  Yes the church tends to lag behind the "philosophies of men" because we think we should avoid them for some reason, but catching up is inevitable.  We are all programmed by our times- even the church now uses computers.    The medium is the message, after all.

 

My only point was that what is seen as true changes over time- both in science AND religion.  These earlier statements by church leaders would never be spoken today, just as much as what was seen as science about the "inferiority of the Negro" is not accepted today either.

 

So my point about this alleged discrepancy is that it is a product of the times in which both the church leaders, and the sociologists of their times, lived.

 

So as I see it, this whole thread is saying "times change".   Duh.

 

The church has changed its position- so what's the gripe?  If you had been born in 1700 you would probably be racist too.

 

Have you even heard of the 1950's TV show called Amos n' Andy?   Totally racist by today's standards- but acceptable enough to be on the air then.  Times change. 

 

 

it's true, even on Bugs Bunny cartoons they have a disclaimer!!

[canard78]

I think it is inappropriate for a member to teach a moral philosophy to the Prophet.  It is certainly suitable to have an opposing opinion, but not to "teach" the prophet.

 

On the question of the priesthood ban Elder McConkie said that he and prophets before him spoke "...with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject"

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570

 

If they sometimes speak with limited understanding on a moral topic, why is it never OK to teach them new light? 

 

Lester E. Bush's 1973 article had a big influence on "teaching" the prophets that their assumptions of the origins of and reasons for the ban were unfounded.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V08N01_13.pdf

[mfbukowski]

it's true, even on Bugs Bunny cartoons they have a disclaimer!!

Exacto-mundo!  Not to mention Speedy Gonzales!

[canard78]

It's hard to believe that McKay, in all the leadership positions he must have held before being called as an apostle (bishop, stake president?), did not notice that no black person was ever in the temple or that there were no black men in any of the priesthood quorums he attended.  I wonder why he thought that was so?

 

 

That could be.

 

I don't believe that God is a racist.  I do believe that He had ultimate power to end the priesthood ban at any time, if it had been His will to do so.  For whatever reason, He allowed it to continue.

 

 

The best part of that counsel is where it says "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost."  Too many people assume that if they are mad, or if they really believe they are right, then that justifies 'sharpness'.  It doesn't.

 

This just doesn't work. That God could have ended the ban, but left them to continue perpetuating the myth that inter-racial marriage was "repugnant" (first presidency's word). 

 

It seems that God only answers when a question is asked. How many times do unsolicited answers get sent/imposed? Maybe even the prophets only hear what they want to/are willing to hear.

 

Did the prophet teach that inter-racial marriage is repugnant and against God's will? Yes.

Is it? No.

Could the prophet therefore have, unknowingly, lead Nelson astray on this specific principle? Yes.

Will the prophet never lead us astray? It seems not.

[DBMormon]

1. Most would agree that time has vindicated Nelson’s position and sensibilities on this issue.  However, was he right to promote his views that the Church was wrong on this issue, or did he have the moral obligation to be quiet about it and follow the Church’s leaders?

It is wrong to speak evil of them, it is not wrong to question and to to disagree.  If there weren't any Lowrys this revelation in 78' may not have occurred till 98'

 

 

2.  Most would agree that the opinions about race expressed in these letters by the First Presidency and by President Minks are simply wrong.  After reading these letters, does it change your view about the likelihood of the current leadership eventually being proven wrong on issues of same-sex marriage and women holding the priesthood?

 

It shows me that there is room for them to be wrong about issues today and yet in their mind to think they are 100% right.  They declared that it was Doctrine and now we don't assume that.  That leaves room for anything that is "Doctrine" today to not be at some point doesn't it?

 

 

3.  If an investigator read these letters and came to the conclusion that this proves academic sociology is a better place to learn what is true and good than the Prophet, how would you respond?

 

 

With the exception of direct God to Man communication - I would agree.  But I hold out faith and some knowledge, that God does indeed communicate to man at least once in a while.

[canard78]

My point was that if you take the "science" of earlier times you will find that it is as racist as these statements by church leaders.  Yes the church tends to lag behind the "philosophies of men" because we think we should avoid them for some reason, but catching up is inevitable.  We are all programmed by our times- even the church now uses computers.    The medium is the message, after all.

 

My only point was that what is seen as true changes over time- both in science AND religion.  These earlier statements by church leaders would never be spoken today, just as much as what was seen as science about the "inferiority of the Negro" is not accepted today either.

 

So my point about this alleged discrepancy is that it is a product of the times in which both the church leaders, and the sociologists of their times, lived.

 

So as I see it, this whole thread is saying "times change".   Duh.

 

The church has changed its position- so what's the gripe?  If you had been born in 1700 you would probably be racist too.

 

Have you even heard of the 1950's TV show called Amos n' Andy?   Totally racist by today's standards- but acceptable enough to be on the air then.  Times change. 

 

This is exactly the scary point. If I had been born in the 1700/1800 and maybe first half of 1900 I would probably be racist too. I know that I hold assumptions and prejudices today that in 100 years will be considered repugnant. I don't know what they will be yet because they're still societal, acceptable norms.

 

But isn't the Spirit and Prophet supposed to correct false traditions? Not perpetuate and build doctrine around them?

 

Like I've said before. I don't think the Prophet is supposed to do that any more. I used to. I think many members still do. Nowadays I look forward to their talks and articles but don't expect them to be setting trends or marking the path. I think the black priesthood issue shows how limited and environmentally driven any prophet's "revelations" actually are. I'll deal with it.

[jkwilliams]

I guess I wonder what the point is in following a religion that gropes its way along with every other human organization. "We'll get there eventually" is not a very attractive sales pitch for a religion.

[bluebell]

This just doesn't work. That God could have ended the ban, but left them to continue perpetuating the myth that inter-racial marriage was "repugnant" (first presidency's word).

It does work.  If God can't direct His church, then He's not the head of it.

 

It seems that God only answers when a question is asked. How many times do unsolicited answers get sent/imposed? Maybe even the prophets only hear what they want to/are willing to hear.

 

 

So, a prophet can hold God's church hostage?  Isn't that the implication of the idea that God can't direct His church unless the prophet asks the right questions?

 

Did the prophet teach that inter-racial marriage is repugnant and against God's will? Yes.

Is it? No.

 

 

And God allowed the prophet to do so, right?

 

Could the prophet therefore have, unknowingly, lead Nelson astray on this specific principle? Yes.

 

 

Yep.

 

Will the prophet never lead us astray? It seems not.

 

 

I believe the promise is that God will not allow a prophet to lead the church astray.  If God is truly the head of the church, that has to be true.

[Buckeye]

I guess I wonder what the point is in following a religion that gropes its way along with every other human organization. "We'll get there eventually" is not a very attractive sales pitch for a religion.

 

It depends on what you're looking to get out of the religion. For some, myself included, "we'll get there eventually" is as good a sales pitch as they'll ever hear. I don't expect any more from church leaders (or gov't leaders for that matter) than I do from myself. I have made many mistakes in the exercise of my callings, even doctrinal ones. And the times when I held priesthood keys did not prevent the mistakes from happening. Why would I expect anything different from leaders who preside over me?

 

For me, the historical racism I see in the church is small potatoes to the historical racism in my own family. We were slave-owners through the civil war. Lost everything and turned bitter in the aftermath. After 150 years, and the decision to have some missionary elders from Utah over for dinner, we are finally doing pretty good. I hate slavery with a vengance because of what it (correction: we) did to my family. But I'm also determined to hold on to my family bonds for the eternities, warts and all. As Canard78 says, I've learned to deal with it. If I ever find a better religion, or a better family, maybe I'll jump ship. But I rather doubt I'll find another group whose motto is anything other than "we'll get there eventually."

[juliann]

Nelson went public in 1952.  See Lowry Nelson, “Mormons and the Negro,” The Nation 174 (24 May 1952), found at https://archive.org/details/NelsonMormonismAndTheNegro.  You can judge for yourself whether it was a protest, but he certainly was not quiet.  While I have no personal knowledge, I have read that Nelson's 1952 article in the The Nation was the first time national attention began to be paid to the issue.

That was a very well written article and in no way can it be considered an attack piece.  I do think he minimizes the extent of racism everywhere else though...it was long before the Civil Rights era.  He was obviously far ahead of his time and everything he says is applicable to today.   He mentioned the problem of members not having anyway to express their point of view.  This lack of accessibility will mean more and more will turn to a hungry media as a second resort.

[CV75]

That's what I would do, as well, but sometimes that doesn't sit well with leaders.

"The Spirit" isn't enough. I think when one wants to get the Church in the right place doctrinally, he also needs to get the right keys and live in such a way as to do so with the rest of the Quorum members. In the meantime, he can do a great deal of good in exercising whatever keys God has given him (if any), in patience and faith. Anything else he can do outside of these keys with his innate and/or Spirit-granted talents and gifts doesn’t really have much to do with getting the Church where he wants it to doctrinally.

[CV75]

I guess I wonder what the point is in following a religion that gropes its way along with every other human organization. "We'll get there eventually" is not a very attractive sales pitch for a religion.

But God is Human. He has operated in this way from dispensation to dispensation, with the very goal of fulfilling His plan (from one persepctive, "eventually"). The Good News is the actual sales pitch--the easy yoke and light burden included!

[Buckeye]

I believe the promise is that God will not allow a prophet to lead the church astray.  If God is truly the head of the church, that has to be true.

 

That promise was made by President Woodruff at the critical time he was trying to end polygamy.  It wasn't made by Joseph or even Brigham.  In the context of the time, I can understand why President Woodruff felt the need to make that claim.  But for me, I don't believe it is true.  If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and if he works through prophets the same today as in times past, then why would we have a infallible prophet who cannot lead the people astray but prior peoples were given fallible prophets who had agency and could do just that?  The answer is simple: our prophet can go astray.  I don't think he is going astray.  I intend to fully sustain him all my life.  But to say "he can't fail" is to take away his agency.  Christ could have failed in his mission.  He didn't, but he could have.  Why should we think a prophet is any greater than Christ?

[bluebell]

That promise was made by President Woodruff at the critical time he was trying to end polygamy.  It wasn't made by Joseph or even Brigham.  In the context of the time, I can understand why President Woodruff felt the need to make that claim.  But for me, I don't believe it is true.  If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and if he works through prophets the same today as in times past, then why would we have a infallible prophet who cannot lead the people astray but prior peoples were given fallible prophets who had agency and could do just that?  The answer is simple: our prophet can go astray.  I don't think he is going astray.  I intend to fully sustain him all my life.  But to say "he can't fail" is to take away his agency.  Christ could have failed in his mission.  He didn't, but he could have.  Why should we think a prophet is any greater than Christ?

 

We've been promised that there would never be another great apostasy, that the gospel wouldn't again be lost from the earth.  Earlier dispensations received no such promise.  That right there can serve as an explanation of why not then, but why now.

[jkwilliams]

"The Spirit" isn't enough. I think when one wants to get the Church in the right place doctrinally, he also needs to get the right keys and live in such a way as to do so with the rest of the Quorum members. In the meantime, he can do a great deal of good in exercising whatever keys God has given him (if any), in patience and faith. Anything else he can do outside of these keys with his innate and/or Spirit-granted talents and gifts doesn’t really have much to do with getting the Church where he wants it to doctrinally.

 

I'm not talking about changing the doctrines of the church (even if I cared about that, I have no impact on such things and never have). I'm thinking in more mundane things, such as whether I as a member should accept certain teachings or instructions from leaders when my conscience and the spirit tell me they are absolutely wrong. I have a hard time believing that objecting to misguided racism is a product of not living in harmony with the gospel.

[jkwilliams]

But God is Human. He has operated in this way from dispensation to dispensation, with the very goal of fulfilling His plan (from one persepctive, "eventually"). The Good News is the actual sales pitch--the easy yoke and light burden included!

 

If by "human" you mean that God is groping His way along the same way we are, I don't find that very comforting.

[Calm]

If the Church provided all the answers to how to live a progressive (eternally speaking) life, there would be no need for us to find out for ourselves, we could just blindly follow our leaders assured that nothing could go wrong, never having to really think about the issues or make painful judgments about right and wrong and what the Gospel really means.

 

I think having a Church leadership that has been misguided at times, sometimes drastically, is important so that members learn to rely on God and not the Church.  The Church is only one of the vehicles that help us get to God, it is not the destination or even the road imo.  It provides an environment for growth and that includes personal internal growth that can only occur when opposition is present...so sometimes I believe it is important that opposition on occasion (rarely for most, but enough imo to keep us focused on God and not the Church as our Saviour) comes from within the Church (one can get a lot of opposition from fellow members every day...not saying that type of opposition is rare...I am speaking of the opposition where one is faced with having to decide whether or not what one has been taught all one's life as doctrine is wrong or at least not right and if necessary, act on that spiritually derived from God knowledge.  I don't believe that all Abrahamic struggles are to be a result of the Church struggling against the world, sometimes it will be necessary for the individual to see that the struggle is against the error in the Church...are they willing to put the Gospel and God over and above all else, even the very institution that has helped them get as close to the Lord so far.

Edited December 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Buckeye]

We've been promised that there would never be another great apostasy, that the gospel wouldn't again be lost from the earth.  Earlier dispensations received no such promise.  That right there can serve as an explanation of why not then, but why now.

 

There's a huge gulf between great apostacy and a prophet leading people astray.  I don't expect another great apostacy, but I have no reason to believe that prior dispensations were not just as assured that they would be the "last one."  Christ's disciples were pretty sure they were living in the last days. 

[Buckeye]

I'm not talking about changing the doctrines of the church (even if I cared about that, I have no impact on such things and never have). I'm thinking in more mundane things, such as whether I as a member should accept certain teachings or instructions from leaders when my conscience and the spirit tell me they are absolutely wrong. I have a hard time believing that objecting to misguided racism is a product of not living in harmony with the gospel.

 

You're not obligated to believe anything that isn't true. 

[bluebell]

There's a huge gulf between great apostacy and a prophet leading people astray.  I don't expect another great apostacy, but I have no reason to believe that prior dispensations were not just as assured that they would be the "last one."  Christ's disciples were pretty sure they were living in the last days. 

 

We'll just have to disagree.  

[jkwilliams]

You're not obligated to believe anything that isn't true. 

 

That's exactly what I was told in an answer to prayer about whether I should stay in the church or not.

[CV75]

I'm not talking about changing the doctrines of the church (even if I cared about that, I have no impact on such things and never have). I'm thinking in more mundane things, such as whether I as a member should accept certain teachings or instructions from leaders when my conscience and the spirit tell me they are absolutely wrong. I have a hard time believing that objecting to misguided racism is a product of not living in harmony with the gospel.

I think everyone has a right to accept (or not) certain teachings or instructions from leaders acording to his conscience and the spirit (whatever he thinks that is or attributes it to be--he could be wrong, you know, but that's besides the point). See http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng -- the paragraphs under "To Those Who Leave."

The Church already decries racism, so why are you using that as an example? And how is racism mundane? Or not misguided for that matter?

How we accept or reject these things does make a difference. If you're talking about the OP, it seems to me that Nelson took a private conversation in which Church leaders sought his sociological expertise and got caught up in a doctrinal debate through a sociological lens/conscience/spirit. Accepting the guidance of those with the keys to do so is best accomplished through the lens of the Spirit; rejecting them on any other basis is foolish in my opinion.

Had he accepted their rights to the keys and still disagreed with their doctrine and rationale for it, he would have thought about the principles I included in the post you thought wasn't relevant. Had the Lord givem Him the keys and he was in the position of those he disagreed with, there is no telling what he would have done any differently than they.

[Calm]

I think it is also important to learn and develop our ability to forgive and tolerate error in others even while working to help them change it...just think of how much human error God must endure living with and yet he does not give up on us or toss us away as not worth the effort.

[CV75]

If by "human" you mean that God is groping His way along the same way we are, I don't find that very comforting.

Jesus advanced from grace to grace. But let's not get further sidetracked from the OP, as Nelson apparently did from the original purpose for the First Presidency contacting him.

[CV75]

I think it is also important to learn and develop our ability to forgive and tolerate error in others even while working to help them change it...just think of how much human error God must endure living with and yet he does not give up on us or toss us away as not worth the effort.

Absoluteky--erminds me of this talk: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng

 

"So be kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fulness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all.10 Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving."