Challenging The First Presidency

[DBMormon]

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."

 

 

What if they were labeled

1.)  "the  14 fundamentals  of a prophet only when he is acting as such"

 

2.) "when A PROPHET IS ACTING AS A PROPHET AND the prophet speaks THE MIND AND WILL OF GOD the debate is over, AND IT IS YOUR RESPOSIBILITY TO BE WORTHY OF THE HOLY GHOST TO KNOW WHEN THIS IS AND THEN TO BE OBEDIENT."

 

3.)"a prophet will never lead us astray AS IT TAKES ALL 15 MEN TO TEACH SOMETHING UNITEDLY TO DEFINE DOCTRINE AND SO ONE MAN REGARDLESS OF HIS TITLE AND OFFICE CAN'T DO IT ALONE"

Edited December 6, 2013 by DBMormon

[Duncan]

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.

 

 

I recall Richard Bushman saying somewhere that the Church won't go astray but doesn't mean the Church won't get into trouble

[canard78]

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

 

You said: 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.

I think I understand it very well. I think it's wrong. The idea that a prophet can't be taught by another man is ridiculous and bordering on arrogance.

 

I said: 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.

 

You said:CFR

 

Try this:

 

The possibility for changing the policy increased subtly as scholarly efforts to trace the restriction to its source showed no certain beginnings and shaky reasoning in support of the practice. A 1967 article by Armand L. Mauss pointed out the speculative nature of the explanations based on premortal conduct and the “curse of Cain.” He concluded that the policy rested on tradition, not on scriptural mandate.

A 1970 book by University of Utah student Steven Taggart proposed that the policy began in Missouri in the 1830s as an expedient for dealing with the slavery question among slaveholders.55

Lester E. Bush responded in 1973 with an exhaustive monograph-length study, concluding that the earliest clear evidence of priesthood denial dates only to Brigham Young.

Elder Marion D. Hanks, among others, hypothesized that change in the policy perhaps depended on LDS members’ willingness to accept black men and women in true fellowship

On May 25, Mark E. Petersen called President Kimball’s attention to an article that proposed the priesthood policy had begun with Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith, and he suggested that the President might wish to consider this factor.

 

 

http://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf 

This article mentioned in the last sentence is thought to be the Bush article, but whatever article it was, it was still a factor in "teaching" the prophet.

[CV75]

Just read this article about Africa in the Ensign: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/12/africa-continent-of-bright-hope?lang=eng

A good point was made about changes happening on the Lord's timetable, even as anxious and less-informed servants might want to counsel Him otherwise (see Jacob 5:21, 22). The Lord has a strategy to prevent imbalance between capacity and demand in the vineyward--He doesn't want one aspect of His kingdom's development to overrun, overcome or overpower another since that would be to the overall detriment of His children. New wine in old wineskins also comes to mind.

[canard78]

What if they were labeled

1.)  "The  14 fundamentals  of a prophet only when he is acting as such"

 

2.) "When a prophet is acting as a prophet and the prophet speaks the mind and will of god the debate is over, and it is your resposibility to be worthy of the holy ghost to know when this is and then to be obedient."

 

 

3.)"A prophet will never lead us astray as it takes all 15 men to teach something unitedly to define doctrine and so one man regardless of his title and office can't do it alone"

 

1). I don't think the 14 fundamentals even apply when he is acting as a prophet. I do not think that the way a prophet actually acts is the way the 14 fundamentals teaches it.

2). I believe the mind and will of God is applied differently to different people. So I don't believe that a prophet can speak the mind and will of God in a way that the debate could be over for all people.

3). All 15 are sustained in general conference as prophets. The priesthood ban was supported by all 15. They were united in leading the church in a racist policy. I don't see much more safety in 15 fallible men than in 1.

[canard78]

Just read this article about Africa in the Ensign: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/12/africa-continent-of-bright-hope?lang=eng

A good point was made about changes happening on the Lord's timetable, even as anxious and less-informed servants might want to counsel Him otherwise (see Jacob 5:21, 22). The Lord has a strategy to prevent imbalance between capacity and demand in the vineyward--He doesn't want one aspect of His kingdom's development to overrun, overcome or overpower another since that would be to the overall detriment of His children. New wine in old wineskins also comes to mind.

 

Unfortunately it seems the Lord's timetable is limited and even defined by our prejudices, preferences and assumptions.

[Duncan]

Unfortunately it seems the Lord's timetable is limited and even defined by our prejudices, preferences and assumptions.

 

 

that seems to follow James 5:17

 

"Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are"

[CV75]

Unfortunately it seems the Lord's timetable is limited and even defined by our prejudices, preferences and assumptions.

Maybe, maybe not -- it doesn't matter in the context of Jacob 5. None were denied any effort or unwarrantedly cast into the fire, or cast away. All the servants had joy with Him. The Lord was not the least displeased in the end, and it is His timetable.

[foster]

This is a fantastic thread. This thread shows that the buffet of Mormonism is open to all sorts who will pick and choose what they will while still remaining active or faithfull. The Doctrine of the Church was once ine way regarding the Priesthood. A magnificent revelation was given which completly abolished that Doctrine.

It was a significant change, one which fully opened the blessings to all in our mortality.

[mfbukowski]

 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. 

I agree that it could be taken as condescending.

 

I also agree with you about the nature of his progression.  But in a sense I think that he also grows in knowledge because the pool of what has happened in his interactions with his children grows. But the whole question of what knowledge IS becomes cloudy on this interpretation, because if there really are no facts, only interpretations, that would mean that God has available to him all possible interpretations of data, I suppose including what we call the "future", but it is said that all things are present to God.

 

The problem is that we are trying to discuss things we cannot possibly understand or even speak of logically because they are beyond our ability to do so.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Of course our understanding of what works best changes over time. The truth is what works best for a specific purpose, and that does not change. It is always what works best for a specific purpose.

I don't know how you could find that conflicting with what I said, or that to be "nonsense".

I suppose we will now have to go back over why what is expedient is not necessarily what is "best", based on the best moral position, but if you can't see that distinction after all we have discussed, I really don't know what to do.

If you are not a postmodern and you have no idea of what truth means on your own, I would suggest you figure out what that important word means before you go around using the term in an unexamined way. That leads to confusion.

I love you John, we just cannot talk about this stuff. I wish we could but we can't.

[Storm Rider]

I don't forfeit my agency or my own brain when I believe there are prophets on the earth. I listen to them, but that does not abdicate my own responsibility to ponder and reflect on what they say. I feel quite comfortable ignoring what some men, regardless of their position of leadership, say or emphasize.  I become convicted of truth when the Holy Spirit speaks and bears witness of truth until that point I will not easily follow blindly.

 

When prophets have shared an opinion and talked as if they were speaking from a position of authority or as a prophet, their error and their desire to speak in such capacity weighs on their head and they have violated the simple concept of humility.  Our leaders, as all leaders, become quickly insulated from the common member. In such condition, it is too easy to become convinced of their rightness in thinking.  If this were not so the Church would not have experienced such erroneous polices of which we are all aware. 

 

It would be very wise indeed for every member to remind themselves that our leaders remain men with all the foibles they themselves possess. None are perfect; what they are are men who have willingly accepted the heavy burden of leadership. Their manner of leadership will be judged as will the actions of all humanity.  

[sunstoned]

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.

 

 

I wonder about this also.  The Church's track record gives me pause.

Edited December 7, 2013 by sunstoned

[BCSpace]

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?

He is not right as the Church itself implies, even in the recent addition to the Topics section on lds.org, that the ban is inspired.  To wit:

 

1.  The Church has not disavowed the ban, only some of the explanations and beliefs extant at the time

2.  BY prophesied that blacks would one day have the same privileges.

3.  President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.

4. "Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and     temple blessings."

5.  The Church makes it clear that later prophets felt the need for a revelation to overturn the policy.

 

 

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?

No. The ban itself was based on, according to the opinions/doctrines of the past, lineage.  Race was merely an identifying factor.  Hence to make a comparison of genetics (male/female) or possible genetics (homosexuality) with what was considered a matter of obedience is apples to oranges.

 

Plus the scriptural and doctrinal basis against SSM and women holding the priesthood is far more clear and certain.

 

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?

 

See my answer to number one.  Such a conclusion I assume, assumes the Church was wrong to have the ban and the Church is saying no such thing.

Edited December 7, 2013 by BCSpace

[AndyDnom]

The mormons that went against the first presidency during that time on this issue are heroes. it took guts to do, and they were right, and history has shown them to be right.

 

think about that next time you want to criticize someone in the present day that challenge the first presidency. Chances are, they will also be vindicated.

 

History is not gonig to look kindly at a  lot of the actions of LDS leadership in 1980-2010

[BCSpace]

The mormons that went against the first presidency during that time on this issue are heroes. it took guts to do, and they were right, and history has shown them to be right.

 

Looks to me like they've failed miserably so far.  Everything known about the issue is pretty much out on the table and nothing has changed.  The Church has not said the ban was not inspired.  What BY prophesied came to pass.  The Church has moved on. The critics continue to misread the doctrine.  Etc.

[canard78]

He is not right as the Church itself implies, even in the recent addition to the Topics section on lds.org, that the ban is inspired.

 

CFR BCSpace. 

 

I've been asking for this for over a year. Give me some solid evidence that there was any inspiration whatsoever that the ban was divinely inspired. It doesn't exist.

 

Leaps and conclusions based on your personal assumptions don't cut it.

[BCSpace]

 

He is not right as the Church itself implies, even in the recent addition to the Topics section on lds.org, that the ban is inspired.

CFR BCSpace.

 

 

 

I gave 5 evidences, all found in the recent addition to Topics on lds.org, in post 139 of this thread.

[canard78]

Looks to me like they've failed miserably so far.  Everything known about the issue is pretty much out on the table and nothing has changed.  The Church has not said the ban was not inspired.  What BY prophesied came to pass.  The Church has moved on. The critics continue to misread the doctrine.  Etc.

 

He's talking about people like Nelson and Bush who actually went and found some hard evidence and challenged the false assumptions of the 1900s. 

 

There are all sorts of errors in statements of the 1940s/50s/60s apostles about the origins of the ban and justification for its perpetuation. The scholars educated the apostles and only then were they willing and able to prepare themselves for a change in the policy.

[canard78]

Looks to me like they've failed miserably so far.  Everything known about the issue is pretty much out on the table and nothing has changed.  The Church has not said the ban was not inspired.  What BY prophesied came to pass.  The Church has moved on. The critics continue to misread the doctrine.  Etc.

 

None of that is evidence for the divinely inspired origin of the ban. They are all evidences of people reflecting on the ban once it was introduced. Show me the origin of the ban itself, not the reaction to it.

[BCSpace]

None of that is evidence for the divinely inspired origin of the ban.

 

 

 

I think most would agree that it is.

 

They are all evidences of people reflecting on the ban once it was introduced. Show me the origin of the ban itself, not the reaction to it.

 

I merely claimed it was so by implication; too strong to go any other way. Notice again that the Church is:

 

1) Not disavowing the ban

2) Is respecting BY's decision

3) Is respecting DoM's failure to get a revelation on the subject.

4) Is respecting BY's prophecy that they would have all the privileges and tying it in to the 1978 revelation.

 

Etc. Etc.

[canard78]

I think most would agree that it is.

 

 

I merely claimed it was so by implication; too strong to go any other way. Notice again that the Church is:

 

1) Not disavowing the ban

2) Is respecting BY's decision

3) Is respecting DoM's failure to get a revelation on the subject.

4) Is respecting BY's prophecy that they would have all the privileges and tying it in to the 1978 revelation.

 

Etc. Etc.

 

So when you say "the ban is (sic) inspired" you don't really have any evidence for it. Glad we've got that cleared up. The wait continues.

 

It might be "too strong to go any other way" for you but nothing you've offered as "evidence" convinces me that it was of divine origins. The article is neutral and tries to stay within the boundaries of the evidence. What you are doing is taking that evidence and making an unfounded assumption.

[BCSpace]

So when you say "the ban is (sic) inspired" you don't really have any evidence for it

 

Nope.  The above are all evidences.  You've denied them without saying why they are deniable.  Your prerogative but unconvincing.

[canard78]

Nope.  The above are all evidences.  You've denied them without saying why they are deniable.  Your prerogative but unconvincing.

 

I've already pointed out that all 5 are reflections on or reactions to the ban. None show that it was of divine origins.

[BCSpace]

Here's yet another point to ponder.  From the statement in question:
 

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,”

 

So the Church obviously considers BY's prophecy to be inspired.

 

But now look from the same statement again:

 

In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.

 

So we have BY's prophecy that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members defined as inspirational.  And now we also have BY's priesthood restriction policy tied directly to the inspired prophecy.  Yet more evidence for the inspirational nature of the policy and no evidence against.

Edited December 7, 2013 by BCSpace