Challenging The First Presidency

[Kenngo1969]

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

Bugs was (is) racist?  Who knew?

 

[Kenngo1969]

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.

As Elder Holland put it recently (paraphrasing), "Fallible mortals are all God has to work with.  That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it."

 

P.S.: CV75 beat me to it!  Good call!   

Edited December 5, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

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.

Only if you totally misunderstand what religion is.

 

I don't know how many times we have to go over this John.

 

There are no "facts" only interpretations.  You of all people should know that and consistently you manifest absolutely no understanding of postmodern thought though you style yourself as a postmodern.

 

All human thought is a response to present day needs as filtered through contemporary culture.  There can be no more as long as we are enculturated humans.  And guess what?  All humans are enculturated or we would still be in the trees.

 

Religion is no different.  It is the response of humans to the human condition.  The wonders of Mormonism include the idea that God himself is a human who teaches us as we are able to learn and understand- and that is why we have an open canon. 

 

If God himself can "repent" of a decision, cry, and hear and answer prayers, this is of a necessity what his nature is.

 

It is a false Greek philosophical position which says that TRVTH is unchanging, and is the basis of sectarianism, NOT Mormonism.

 

Get over it all.  We are Mormons and have an open canon for a reason. Stop thinking as children.

 

If God progresses and we believe in eternal progression, we better figure this point out, don't you think??

Edited December 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

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?

I was speaking specifically about Lowry Nelson. The church may decry racism now, but it embraced racism back then, hence the issue for Brother Nelson.

And how is racism mundane? Or not misguided for that matter?

I didn't say racism was mundane. What I meant is that deciding how to deal with a racist doctrine is much different from agitating to change that doctrine. As I said, it's not up to me to change doctrines, so I don't worry about that. And yes, racism is always misguided, even when it is presented as the revealed word of God.

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.

I guess I see it differently. To me, Nelson was taken aback that the church had a firm doctrinal stance on something he had always assumed was a non-doctrinal practice or policy. Remember that it was the mission president and the First Presidency who were asking Nelson to help figure out a way to implement a racist policy, so it was sort of thrust upon him. I think it speaks to his character that he stood up firmly for his convictions.

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.

I don't believe I said your post was irrelevant. I know a lot of people who quietly disagree with the church on a number of issues, but my question was more about how we deal with those private disagreements when we have to choose whether or not to act on them.

Edited December 5, 2013 by jkwilliams

[Kenngo1969]

Only if you totally misunderstand what religion is.

 

I don't know how many times we have to go over this John.

 

There are no "facts" only interpretations.  You of all people should know that and consistently you manifest absolutely no understanding of postmodern thought though you style yourself as a postmodern.

 

All human thought is a response to present day needs as filtered through contemporary culture.  There can be no more as long as we are enculturated humans.  And guess what?  All humans are enculturated or we would still be in the trees.

 

Religion is no different.  It is the response of humans to the human condition.  The wonders of Mormonism include the idea that God himself is a human who teaches us as we are able to learn and understand- and that is why we have an open canon. 

 

If God himself can "repent" of a decision, cry, and hear and answer prayers, this is of a necessity what his nature is.

 

It is a false Greek philosophical position which says that TRVTH is unchanging, and is the basis of sectarianism, NOT Mormonism.

 

Get over it all.  We are Mormons and have an open canon for a reason. Stop thinking as children.

 

If God progresses and we believe in eternal progression, we better figure this point out, don't you think??

Everything you say here I think is spot-on ... except the last sentence of your second-to-last line.  (I know what you mean when you use that phrase, and I don't necessarily think it's inapt.  After all, the Apostle Paul used it, and who am I to second-guess him?  But it could come across as somewhat condescending.)

 

P.S.: As to the notion of God progressing, I don't think He's still acquiring new abilities or knowledge. His "progression" occurs through the glory that His Children add to Him, in much the same way, I think, that you might appreciate and value the accomplishments and progression of your children. 

Edited December 5, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[jkwilliams]

Only if you totally misunderstand what religion is.

 

I don't know how many times we have to go over this John.

 

There are no "facts" only interpretations.  You of all people should know that and consistently you manifest absolutely no understanding of postmodern thought though you style yourself as a postmodern.

Actually I do not style myself a postmodern and never have. I don't know how many times we have to go over this. Also I have not talked about "facts" at all here. I'm not sure what you mean.

What I understand about postmodernism is that it tells us that there is no truth available to humans, changing or unchanging. I'm not sure what that has to do with whether a religion that has to be dragged along into doing good and abandoning cruel or anachronistic practices is appealing or not.

 

All human thought is a response to present day needs as filtered through contemporary culture.  There can be no more as long as we are enculturated humans.  And guess what?  All humans are enculturated or we would still be in the trees.

 

Religion is no different.  It is the response of humans to the human condition.  The wonders of Mormonism include the idea that God himself is a human who teaches us as we are able to learn and understand- and that is why we have an open canon. 

 

If God himself can "repent" of a decision, cry, and hear and answer prayers, this is of a necessity what his nature is.

 

It is a false Greek philosophical position which says that TRVTH is unchanging, and is the basis of sectarianism, NOT Mormonism.

Yeah, what was I thinking? I mistakenly bought into this nonsense:

Another unchanging principle is that of truth. Scripture reminds us that “the truth abideth forever and ever” (D&C 1:39). Even though one’s understanding of the truth may be fragmentary, truth itself does not change. Everlasting truth and wisdom come from the Lord. The first truth ever taught to man came directly from Deity. From generation to generation, God has given additional light. Whether truth comes from a laboratory of science or directly by revelation, truth is embraced by the gospel.

Get over it all.  We are Mormons and have an open canon for a reason. Stop thinking as children.

 

If God progresses and we believe in eternal progression, we better figure this point out, don't you think??

My understanding of religion is that it is how God communicates the path by which we can progress and return to him and eventually become like him. If that's misunderstanding religion, sorry.

Edited December 5, 2013 by jkwilliams

[canard78]

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

 

 

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?

 

 

And God allowed the prophet to do so, right?

 

 

Yep.

 

 

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.

 

So why did God's prophet say inter-racial marriage is "repugnant?" Is that correct or not? Why did prophets teach this for decades? Did God not care/not get asked?

[canard78]

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!

 

"God is perfect and his doctrine is pure"

Elder Uchtdorf

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us

 

What are you implying by your "God is Human" statement? That he's muddling through by trial and error like the rest of us? I think it's more likely that we and our leaders just forget to ask or choose not to listen.

[canard78]

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.

 

But what happens Cal when the church does provide answers (such as which race to marry) and they are wrong? I'm all for prophets that say "here's some good advice, but let's not mandate it." I'd love a prophet like that. The problem is we get in such a habit of taking everything they say and mandating it. Sometimes without their mandate and sometimes with it.

[CV75]

The church may decry racism now, but it embraced racism back then, hence the issue for Brother Nelson.

You can call it racism if that floats your boat (presentism, presentism... the standard then vs. standard now), but the First Presidency at the time explained what blacks not having the priesthood meant from their perspective, and Nelson explained what it meant from his. But they really weren't seeking his advice on that subject anyway; they were asking his help in thinking through how to best approach preaching the gospel in Cuba within the constraints they accepted as valid. But I went through all that in my earliest posts on this thread, so if you have anyhting to say about those, we can continue the conversation from there as long as I don't have to rehash them.

 

When you say you're not talking about the content of a post, it means it isn't relevant to what you are talking about. When you vacillate between talking about personal issues and the actual OP, it seems easy to slip into saying you are not talking about one or the other in avoiding adressing responses to you on either one of the ways.

[jkwilliams]

You can call it racism if that floats your boat (presentism, presentism... the standard then vs. standard now), but the First Presidency at the time explained what blacks not having the priesthood meant from their perspective, and Nelson explained what it meant from his. But they really weren't seeking his advice on that subject anyway; they were asking his help in thinking through how to best approach preaching the gospel in Cuba within the constraints they accepted as valid. But I went through all that in my earliest posts on this thread, so if you have anyhting to say about those, we can continue the conversation from there as long as I don't have to rehash them.

 

When you say you're not talking about the content of a post, it means it isn't relevant to what you are talking about. When you vacillate between talking about personal issues and the actual OP, it seems easy to slip into saying you are not talking about one or the other in avoiding adressing responses to you on either one of the ways.

Well then, I suppose you don't find much value in my responses, and for that I'm sorry.

[Calm]

The problem is we get in such a habit of taking everything they say and mandating it. 

The only thing you can do imo is to act as an individual and make a choice to not live by mandates, but to live by your experience and understanding of the Word and the Will of God...and if God doesn't confirm to you something the Prophet and other church leaders have said or even has told you it is wrong, then it seems to me it is important to act on the information.  If possible, I would do so in a way that didn't cause an issue for the Church itself, I would believe that in time if what I believed was the truth the Church would come to that position as well and I would simply assume patience and wait while taking opportunities to try to gently push along the progress of the individuals in the Church just as we are supposed to do on things we agree are in error.

 

We may be part of the church community, but even more so we are individuals and responsible to God for living as a moral and obedient agent towards him...not imo, towards the Church except in righteousness (just as a wife only needs to hearken to her husband when he is hearkening to the Lord).

Edited December 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

Bugs was (is) racist?  Who knew?

 

I don't know about racism but his penchant for transvestitism is disturbing.

[canard78]

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.

Problem is though, when you read that letter exchange you have to remember that one party is taught to have the keys and the gift of revelation for the whole earth. The other is a secular researcher. One party in the exchange was correct. The other was was drastically wrong.

The problem is that the right and wrong party were the wrong way round if the "14 fundamentals" idea of prophetic leadership is to be believed.

[The Nehor]

Problem is though, when you read that letter exchange you have to remember that one party is taught to have the keys and the gift of revelation for the whole earth. The other is a secular researcher. One party in the exchange was correct. The other was was drastically wrong.

The problem is that the right and wrong party were the wrong way round if the "14 fundamentals" idea of prophetic leadership is to be believed.

How do we know who is right and who is wrong? Because societal consensus says?

[canard78]

The only thing you can do imo is to act as an individual and make a choice to not live by mandates, but to live by the Word of God...and if God doesn't confirm to you something the Prophet and other church leaders have said or even has told you it is wrong, then it seems to me it is important to act on the information. If possible, I would do so in a way that didn't cause an issue for the Church itself, I would believe that in time if what I believed was the truth the Church would come to that position as well and I would simply assume patience and wait while taking opportunities to try to gently push along the progress of the individuals in the Church just as we are supposed to do on things we agree are in error.

We may be part of the church community, but even more so we are individuals and responsible to God for living as a moral and obedient agent towards him...not imo, towards the Church except in righteousness (just as a wife only needs to hearken to her husband when he is hearkening to the Lord).

I agree. I appreciate the words of prophets and sustain them in their role as leaders. But I consider myself to be the only person God will make answerable for my actions and character.

As I've said elsewhere, I've come to the conclusion that a prophet can't be blamed for me going astray. If I lived 70 years ago and chose to accept the racist teachings of a church leader, it's still my choice. It means a potential for "buffet Mormonism." Perhaps that's ok if I believe God is serving the food up.

It's challenging though to worship with a group of people that don't always see that perspective.

If, for example, I believed that the Word of Wisdom was adapted and enforced in 1920s/30s to suit and perpetuate the prohibition prejudices and instead that "mild alcoholic drinks" are fine, would that be ok with the rest of the membership? If no-one knew and I'd reconciled it through personal revelation it might be. But what if I brought a 6-pack if Bud-Light to the branch Christmas party? How would that be? (This is hypothetical, I can't stand the smell of beer).

What about if a Bishop today thought that the church had got it wrong? That the 1978 change was pandering to political correctness and refused to ordain black members? How long before he's released and not upholding the church policy? I would imagine if the opposite had been done 60-70 years ago the Bishop would have been released (or excommunicated?) if he did ordain a black member.

It's all very well saying we come to our own conclusions, and I do. But we don't have an organisation that supports individual interpretation and application of scriptures and doctrines.

Just last week a member of the stake presidency said in sacrament meeting: "when the Bishop or Stake President speaks, the debate is over."

It's not. It shouldn't be. Be we have a culture and structure that supports this approach.

[canard78]

How do we know who is right and who is wrong? Because societal consensus says?

Was the 1947 statement that inter-racial marriage is "repugnant" right or wrong? It was repugnant to society in 1947, but was it repugnant to God? If God is unchanging then was it then but is not now? Or did they just never think to ask?

It seems that prophets tend to spend more time trying to stop us moving to new societal norms, defending the old ones of their youth as "God's truth" when instead they should be leading the charge to move us away for societal norms and towards God's truth.

There aren't many examples of our leaders being societal trend setters. More defenders of old norms.

[bluebell]

So why did God's prophet say inter-racial marriage is "repugnant?" Is that correct or not? Why did prophets teach this for decades? Did God not care/not get asked?

 

In my opinion, he was wrong, but he said it because he sincerely thought it was the will of God.  I don't doubt that such a doctrine was simply the natural deconstruction of the teaching that black people could not receive all of God's blessings.

 

After all, if you sincerely believe that anyone who has African 'blood' in them will be denied temple blessings, is there any way to teach that interracial marriage (which would produce children who would be denied those blessings) is o.k.?   I certainly don't agree with it, but i think it's more a symptom of 'this is what the doctrine means' rather than 'God told me interracial marriage is wrong'.

 

I'm sure God cared very much, but i certainly don't have any way to judge whether or not He was asked.

[jkwilliams]

There aren't many examples of our leaders being societal trend setters. More defenders of old norms.

 

I don't know. Polygamy comes to mind.

 

I suppose the problem we get into is expecting too much from our leaders. We want them to be better than we are, more in tune with God's will than they are bound by societal norms. Maybe the lesson here is that they aren't really any different from the rest of us.

[The Nehor]

Was the 1947 statement that inter-racial marriage is "repugnant" right or wrong? It was repugnant to society in 1947, but was it repugnant to God? If God is unchanging then was it then but is not now? Or did they just never think to ask?

It seems that prophets tend to spend more time trying to stop us moving to new societal norms, defending the old ones of their youth as "God's truth" when instead they should be leading the charge to move us away for societal norms and towards God's truth.

There aren't many examples of our leaders being societal trend setters. More defenders of old norms.

Saying God is unchanging is silly. His laws to us change. Joseph made it clear that sometimes things are wrong and sometimes things are right. Only the Sith and Elder McConkie deal in absolutes.

As soon as we get the basics down we can get consecration going and really blow society away. We failed though.

[canard78]

You can call it racism if that floats your boat (presentism, presentism... the standard then vs. standard now), but the First Presidency at the time explained what blacks not having the priesthood meant from their perspective, and Nelson explained what it meant from his.

They taught that a race was not entitled to the full blessings of the gospel. It doesn't matter whether they were taught it by parents, culture, came to the perspective independently or thought that God had taught them this as doctrine. However they got to that perspective it's still a racist perspective. The denial of opportunities based on race is racism. They were therefore taking a racist position.

Racism:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

This isn't presentism, it's simple word definition.

[Calm]

It's challenging though to worship with a group of people that don't always see that perspective. 

 

Perhaps this is a typical Abrahamic test for today's Saint.

 

But we don't have an organisation that supports individual interpretation and application of scriptures and doctrines. 

 

I think the organization itself goes pretty far in allowing individual interpretation and depending on what it is, application as well.  Though it has limits on how far variation can occur or it would be unable to give any direction at all.

 

Now individual leaders may see things differently and try to be much more rigid in judging their stewardship, but again I think that is how the Lord wants it so that we turn to him rather than simply rely on authorities that are generally good and wise people.

Edited December 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[CV75]

"God is perfect and his doctrine is pure"

Elder Uchtdorf

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us

 

What are you implying by your "God is Human" statement? That he's muddling through by trial and error like the rest of us? I think it's more likely that we and our leaders just forget to ask or choose not to listen.

I am "implying" that with the capital "H" in "Human" He is perfect and His doctrine is pure. He has operated in this way from dispensation to dispensation, with the very goal of fulfilling His plan (from one persepctive, "eventually" and from another, "iine upon line...").

[CV75]

Problem is though, when you read that letter exchange you have to remember that one party is taught to have the keys and the gift of revelation for the whole earth. The other is a secular researcher. One party in the exchange was correct. The other was was drastically wrong.

The problem is that the right and wrong party were the wrong way round if the "14 fundamentals" idea of prophetic leadership is to be believed.

Problem is though, how you interpret and judge what is correct and what is drastically wrong under the circumstances (some 60-65 years later), and how you apply the 14 fundamentals in doing that.

[juliann]

 

Just last week a member of the stake presidency said in sacrament meeting: "when the Bishop or Stake President speaks, the debate is over."

It's not. It shouldn't be. Be we have a culture and structure that supports this approach.

Yikes.  I thought that one was put to bed a long time ago.  I'm wondering if this lingering mindset, plus the sameness we seem to require, is responsible for the periodic outbreaks of devotion to popular books promoting secret knowledge that will set the reader apart from those who don't know.  Right now the current fad seems to be apocalyptic special knowledge.