Challenging The First Presidency

[Duncan]

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. 

 

 

too true, our SP said he attended some scout camp in 1985 and heard Elder Rex Pinegar say that Pres. Kimball had said 10 years before that if the saints were righteous the second coming would have happened already

[CV75]

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.

Presentism still exists in using a definition out of context for the purpose of condemning the actual situation at hand. Something worse exists in charging a racist motive as the basis for the doctrine when one does not exist, and not just objectively describing one possible view of the doctrine.

[juliann]

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 agree with that...in fact, once the first was accepted there was simply no choice but to continue down the slippery slope.  Makes me wonder if part of knowing whether something is of God or the policy of men is measuring the unintended consequences.  But that also requires the willingness to accept that the huge institutional church has to be run by policy...not just revelation.

[juliann]

too true, our SP said he attended some scout camp in 1985 and heard Elder Rex Pinegar say that Pres. Kimball had said 10 years before that if the saints were righteous the second coming would have happened already

Seems to me the second coming could only come if all of the spirits are embodied.  I've never ever understood why anyone would want the end of the world and the suffering that is supposed to accompany it.  Not to mention the message of hopelessness it gives to our young people (which even Elder Packer has been trying to undo).  Seems a little...demented.

[The Nehor]

Seems to me the second coming could only come if all of the spirits are embodied.  I've never ever understood why anyone would want the end of the world and the suffering that is supposed to accompany it.  Not to mention the message of hopelessness it gives to our young people (which even Elder Packer has been trying to undo).  Seems a little...demented.

 

I am more hopeful FOR the Second Coming.

[Duncan]

Seems to me the second coming could only come if all of the spirits are embodied.  I've never ever understood why anyone would want the end of the world and the suffering that is supposed to accompany it.  Not to mention the message of hopelessness it gives to our young people (which even Elder Packer has been trying to undo).  Seems a little...demented.

 

 

I subscribe to the idea of Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith and Jesus that no one knows when the second coming is! But I fully agree with you!

[Analytics]

The most striking point that Nelson made was that even though he loved the Church and thought that apart from this issue its programs would be a huge benefit to society, that because of this single doctrine, people who lived outside of the land of wonderbread would be better off without the Church.  In Nelson's view, not only was this doctrine false, it was so harmful that people would be better off without the Church.

 

Personally, I think he was right about that.

[Analytics]

I am wondering if some of the reason for the lack of something resembling an apology has to do with the refusal to label the ban as racism.  I don't think there is any escaping that anymore but it will still be awhile before it really sinks in that we do have to use the same dictionary as everyone else unless we intend on creating a new language.

 

Now that gays can be legally and lawfully wedded, I can't see anyway to exclude those married couples in that social stigmatizing thing we do.  It makes absolutely no sense not to have them as participating members even if it is considered a sin. A married gay couple should not be put in the same category as a fornicator.  As for the purposes of the temple, I am having a hard time visualizing the church giving in to anything but male/female marriages because it is so tied to our core theology.  I think it would be much easier to give women the priesthood than to give gays sealings.  For that same reason, giving blacks the priesthood didn't require any serious doctrinal changes.

 

That sociology, like science, is only as good as the latest popular research which is driven by where the funding comes from.  Given Mormonism's well known tendency to move like molassess, she is less likely to get whiplash from a prophet 

 

Is opposite-sex marriage really a core part of the theology?  I can quite clearly imagine some Mormons sitting down to a musical in 100 years and watching two especially well-groomed men with a natural flare of song and dance singing:

 

John: I've seen your face somewhere before.

 

Steve: I've heard your voice before!

 

John and Steve in Unison: It seems we've talked like this before!

 

If what it's really about is love, commitment, eternal relationships, and the like, I can easily see the Church eventually coming to the point where they think that it is those things that matter and not the plumbing of the individuals involved.  In that day, denying a same-sex couple temple marriage will seem just as arbitrary and injust as the previous stance that if you weren't of the "pure white race," you weren't entitled to temple worship.

[oremites]

Seems to me the second coming could only come if all of the spirits are embodied. 

 

An interesting point.  It does make me wonder a couple of things.

 

Are babies going to be born after the second coming?  The Millennium will last a thousand years.  Is the process for populating the Earth going to be different then?

 

Is there certain group of spirits that have to be born on this world?   If they don't make it to this one, can't they just be born on another one?

[The Nehor]

Is opposite-sex marriage really a core part of the theology?  I can quite clearly imagine some Mormons sitting down to a musical in 100 years and watching two especially well-groomed men with a natural flare of song and dance singing:

 

Yes, it is pretty core. What with God the Father/Mother being a duality of male and female united in marriage. I would argue it is more core to our faith then any other religion I can think of off-hand.

 

Also, most gay men I know have too much class to be a part of "Saturday's Warriors". Just saying......

Edited December 6, 2013 by The Nehor

[rockpond]

Is opposite-sex marriage really a core part of the theology?

 

No...

 

"The Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the Savior’s central role in our doctrine in one definitive sentence: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”  Elder Christofferson, May 2012, The Doctrine of Christ

[rockpond]

Yes, it is pretty core. What with God the Father/Mother being a duality of male and female united in marriage. I would argue it is more core to our faith then any other religion I can think of off-hand.

 

Interesting that you say it is "pretty core" and then back that up with an example of "mother in heaven" that we basically don't talk about.

[The Nehor]

Interesting that you say it is "pretty core" and then back that up with an example of "mother in heaven" that we basically don't talk about.

Lots of core doctrines are not talked about much. Temple stuff, becoming gods, placating Cthulhu through human sacrifice, etc.

[juliann]

Is opposite-sex marriage really a core part of the theology?  I can quite clearly imagine some Mormons sitting down to a musical in 100 years and watching two especially well-groomed men with a natural flare of song and dance singing:

 

John: I've seen your face somewhere before.

 

Steve: I've heard your voice before!

 

John and Steve in Unison: It seems we've talked like this before!

 

If what it's really about is love, commitment, eternal relationships, and the like, I can easily see the Church eventually coming to the point where they think that it is those things that matter and not the plumbing of the individuals involved.  In that day, denying a same-sex couple temple marriage will seem just as arbitrary and injust as the previous stance that if you weren't of the "pure white race," you weren't entitled to temple worship.

 

I don't see how it can't be core...we have the man can't be exalted without the woman stuff.  That is pretty central.  It is hard to envision that going since it is a major aspect of the temple...but who knows.  I have come to the conclusion that the most important thing is that we be open to continuing Restoration as well as continuing revelation. 

[rockpond]

I don't see how it can't be core...we have the man can't be exalted without the woman stuff. That is pretty central. It is hard to envision that going since it is a major aspect of the temple...but who knows. I have come to the conclusion that the most important thing is that we be open to continuing Restoration as well as continuing revelation.

I imagine that we could endlessly debate the definition of "core". But according to the Joseph Smith quote I provided above (via Elder Christofferson), it is an "appendage". Can we agree that something that is an appendage can not be "core"?

[bluebell]

The most striking point that Nelson made was that even though he loved the Church and thought that apart from this issue its programs would be a huge benefit to society, that because of this single doctrine, people who lived outside of the land of wonderbread would be better off without the Church. In Nelson's view, not only was this doctrine false, it was so harmful that people would be better off without the Church.

Personally, I think he was right about that.

I don't believe that Nelson is really qualified to proclaim that.

I've heard testimonies by black members during the ban who definitely believed they were better off with the gospel, even being limited.

Also, Cuba has not faired very well. It's hard to say life would have been worse or better without the gospel when there really isn't any way to judge that.

[canard78]

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.

True, Joseph and possibly Brigham were trend setters. Joseph was politically more liberal leaning and experimental. It's the 20thC ones who seem to have been especially committed to maintaining the status quo.

[canard78]

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."

 

I completely agree. The prophets are not immune to this. Which is why a "14 fundamentals" belief in prophets doesn't work for me. Nor does a "when the prophet speaks the debate is over." Nor does "a prophet will never lead us astray."

 

If we are all imperfect people it is simply not possible for a fallible leader to never make an error in speaking. Even when he thinks he's acting as prophet the things said will be influenced by his own limitations and finite view.

 

I say that fully accepting that I am entirely influenced by those same limitations. My signature should say "I'm probably wrong."

[canard78]

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.

 

I don't doubt his sincerity either. But if he was wrong that means that those who listened to and accepted this doctrine were lead into a "wrong" perspective. Nelson was right and not a prophet.

[cdowis]

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

 

I think there is something very basic about church doctrine and order that you do not understand, which goes back to the earliest history of the church.

 

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.

 

CFR

[CV75]

I completely agree. The prophets are not immune to this. Which is why a "14 fundamentals" belief in prophets doesn't work for me. Nor does a "when the prophet speaks the debate is over." Nor does "a prophet will never lead us astray."

 

If we are all imperfect people it is simply not possible for a fallible leader to never make an error in speaking. Even when he thinks he's acting as prophet the things said will be influenced by his own limitations and finite view.

 

I say that fully accepting that I am entirely influenced by those same limitations. My signature should say "I'm probably wrong."

Good point, and the "14 fundamentals" / "when the prophet speaks the debate is over" / "a prophet will never lead us astray" can be taken in a Spirit quite in conformity with “being kind regarding human frailty.”

The “swelling motions” (Alma 32;28) have convinced me that the picture is much bigger than a fallible leader making an error in speaking, and it is only by faith his hearers will not allow their limitations and finite view get in the way of being kind in applying the "14 fundamentals" / "when the prophet speaks the debate is over." / "a prophet will never lead us astray."

[bluebell]

I don't doubt his sincerity either. But if he was wrong that means that those who listened to and accepted this doctrine were lead into a "wrong" perspective. Nelson was right and not a prophet.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.

[DBMormon]

Buckeye, on 05 Dec 2013 - 3:16 PM, said:

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.  

=====================================================

 

My 2 unwelcomed cents

1.) Prophets can and have taught false Doctrine (adam-God - BY, Women shut up in the Church =paul, Peter saying Gentiles should not have the gospel) so if we define leading astray as teaching false Doctrine, I would disagree that Prophets don't lead astray

 

2.) Many parts of the BOM warn the reader in a way that seems to indicate God is speaking to LDS and warning them of general apostasy and not individual.  (I know you will ask for a reference and maybe others could help as I don't have time to read the entire BOM today).  But it seems prophets of old worried about us as a people (members of the Church).  so can we as a whole get off track - I think so in that we can emphasize principles disproportionately, we can gloss over truths that should be epmphasized, we can hold to beliefs as truth when they are not, we can create commandments where God never has.

 

3.) For me the Church is hinged on three things which I do not see them as able to go astray on. A.) We are the authorized institution designated by God to officiate the Priesthood till Christ comes again (when he comes he can do as he wishes, not that I am saying our Priesthood would end then.)  B.) We are the authorized institution designated by God to oversee the saving ordinances.  and C.) we have the full Doctrine of Christ implemented in it correct manner - Faith, Repentance, Ordinances, Endure to the End by TRYING to keep the commandments and pressing forward with steadfastness. 

 

So for me being astray means we can't get off track of #3 but we certainly can really screw up #1 & #2

[DBMormon]

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.

 

 

I have been thinking about this a lot.  Consider for a moment what is Doctrine?  For me I only define Doctrine as those truths God himself revealed.  Take President Packers talk on the unwritten order of things.  Is that stuff Doctrine?  What about other cultural policies

 

- Did God say the uniform of the Priesthood is a white shirt and tie?

 

- Did God say Women couldn't give opening prayer ( or pray in conference)

 

- Did God say Priesthood should be given to 12 year olds or has the age changed in different dispensations and even several times in our dispensation due to Leader preferences and awareness of needs?

 

-  Did God reveal to a prophet that Home teaching is a Doctrine orrather inspired leaders created the Hometeaching Program of the Church to fulfill the Doctrine of watching over the Church?

 

-  Did God state to a prophet that a Sunday School President needs to be Priesthood Brother?

 

- Did God say a Assistant Ward Mission Leader must be a Melchizedek priesthood holder or was that just a policy?

 

-  Did God forbid Blacks the PH?

 

I don't know that I have the answers on all of these, but I assume with most if not all that we created policies that in turn are referred to as Doctrines at times that are as much Doctrine (absolute divine truth) as Snow White is a real person whose story is historical.  This doesn't mean tese policies are not true, only that if they are God hasn't revealed it and we just got lucky and hit on it with the understanding we could also be wrong.

[bluebell]

 

Buckeye, on 05 Dec 2013 - 3:16 PM, said:

 

We'll just have to disagree.  

=====================================================

 

My 2 unwelcomed cents

1.) Prophets can and have taught false Doctrine (adam-God - BY, Women shut up in the Church =paul, Peter saying Gentiles should not have the gospel) so if we define leading astray as teaching false Doctrine, I would disagree that Prophets don't lead astray

 

2.) Many parts of the BOM warn the reader in a way that seems to indicate God is speaking to LDS and warning them of general apostasy and not individual.  (I know you will ask for a reference and maybe others could help as I don't have time to read the entire BOM today).  But it seems prophets of old worried about us as a people (members of the Church).  so can we as a whole get off track - I think so in that we can emphasize principles disproportionately, we can gloss over truths that should be epmphasized, we can hold to beliefs as truth when they are not, we can create commandments where God never has.

 

3.) For me the Church is hinged on three things which I do not see them as able to go astray on. A.) We are the authorized institution designated by God to officiate the Priesthood till Christ comes again (when he comes he can do as he wishes, not that I am saying our Priesthood would end then.)  B.) We are the authorized institution designated by God to oversee the saving ordinances.  and C.) we have the full Doctrine of Christ implemented in it correct manner - Faith, Repentance, Ordinances, Endure to the End by TRYING to keep the commandments and pressing forward with steadfastness. 

 

So for me being astray means we can't get off track of #3 but we certainly can really screw up #1 & #2

 

 

That is also how i interpret 'astray' as well.  I don't know that there is any way to interpret it to mean that the prophet will never be wrong, since the church openly teaches that prophets are fallible and imperfect and that implies they will sometimes be wrong. 

Edited December 6, 2013 by bluebell