Mormondiscussionpodcast On Repercussions Of Priesthood Essay

[Brian 2.0]

I meant to post this a while ago when I first came out.

 

Bill Reel did a great podcast on the repersuccions of the Priesthood essay (I'm pretty sure this was separate than the podcast he did on the essay in general).  This podcast asks all the questions that lead to more questions that can come from looking at this issue in light of the recent essay.

 

It was, in my opinion, the best coverage out there in print, radio or podcast about the essay.  He clearly talked about what the essay was and what it was not, and dealt with all the questions that could come up because of it.  

 

A lot of it was issues and questions that have come up here on this board so I'm not really interested in rehashing those in the thread, just wanted to let whomever know about it as we had a number of lively contributors to the threads about this.

 

Thanks, Bill.  Keep up the good work.

 

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/2014/02/03/repercussions-of-the-new-race-priesthood-announcement/

[rpn]

It has surprised me how much some church members are finding it hard to live with because it seems to say to them that their previous belief that the Lord would never let a prophet lead the people astray has proven false.    Fact is that we know it continued for a long time.  What we don't know is whether that is because the Lord approved, even though it wasn't how He planned it; or whether He disapproved but kept hands off for some other purpose we don't know; or whether He disapproved and kept trying to get His leaders to pay attention (there were at least two apostle lead investigations of the issue before Pres. Kimball got the revelation) but it took that long for Him to get a consensus that would all listen. 

 

As to members believing prophets to be infallible, I have such a hard time understanding why, when we've all messed up the leadership or other callings we have had, even while trying our mortal best to follow Him, we expect prophets to be any different?

[BCSpace]

As to members believing prophets to be infallible

 

 

In the Catholic church, the doctrine is Papal infallibility and no one believes it.  In the LDS Church, the doctrine is that the prophets are fallible and no one believes it.

[Buckeye]

Thanks for the recommendation Brian.  I listened to the podcast last night and really enjoyed it.  I agree with Bill that the new Gospel Topic entry on Race and the Priesthood may begin to profoundly change the way members view church leaders. 

 

For those who don't have a 45 minute attention span, here is a 5 minute video from Brother Jake addressing very similar issues.  Note that Brother Jake's video is largely sarcasm, whereas Bill Reel's podcast takes a serious approach.

 

http://www.modernmormonmen.com/2014/02/brother-jake-explains-prophets-are.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ModernMormonMen+%28Modern+Mormon+Men%29

[Buckeye]

It has surprised me how much some church members are finding it hard to live with because it seems to say to them that their previous belief that the Lord would never let a prophet lead the people astray has proven false.    Fact is that we know it continued for a long time.  What we don't know is whether that is because the Lord approved, even though it wasn't how He planned it; or whether He disapproved but kept hands off for some other purpose we don't know; or whether He disapproved and kept trying to get His leaders to pay attention (there were at least two apostle lead investigations of the issue before Pres. Kimball got the revelation) but it took that long for Him to get a consensus that would all listen. 

 

As to members believing prophets to be infallible, I have such a hard time understanding why, when we've all messed up the leadership or other callings we have had, even while trying our mortal best to follow Him, we expect prophets to be any different?

 

The problem arises because, at least in the past, local and general church leaders have used the following arguments/tactics to encourage members to obey teachings that the members did not have a testimony of.  Perhaps these arguments are dying at the general level, but they haven't yet at my local level.

1. The Lord will never allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray;
2. Either everything the Prophet teaches is true or the whole thing is a fraud;
3. If the Prophet errs, follow anyway because the sin will be on his head and not yours;
4. You will lose blessings if you follow what you believe is right rather than what the Church teaches is right, even if in the end your views prove correct;
5. If you begin to question the Church on one issue, your children will see your example and they will (leave the church) (become drunkards) (go to the U of U  );
6. "Sustaining the Prophet" means obeying his every teaching, even if you don't have a testimony of the teaching.  Thus, if you disagee with the Prophet on anything, you are not temple worthy.

As Bill said in his podcast, the fact that the Church has now officially repudiated important teachings that, only 60 years ago prophets, seers and revelators declared were "doctrine from God," means that questioning members now have a very defensable basis to not follow current teachings that they disagree with.  I agree with Bill that members are not free to denounce their leaders or interfere with their governance.  But members can now reasonably say "You know, leaders have made mistakes in the past.  I don't yet have a testimony of the church's teaching regarding (civil gay marriage is bad) (there needs to be a "Zion curtain" in restaurants) (seminary is more important for kids than sleep) (ETC)" and so I'm okay not following that teaching until I do have a testimony."

Edited February 14, 2014 by Buckeye

[DBMormon]

The problem arises because, at least in the past, local and general church leaders have used the following arguments/tactics to encourage members to obey teachings that the members did not have a testimony of.  Perhaps these arguments are dying at the general level, but they haven't yet at my local level.

1. The Lord will never allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray;
2. Either everything the Prophet teaches is true or the whole thing is a fraud;
3. If the Prophet errs, follow anyway because the sin will be on his head and not yours;
4. You will lose blessings if you follow what you believe is right rather than what the Church teaches is right, even if in the end your views prove correct;
5. If you begin to question the Church on one issue, your children will see your example and they will (leave the church) (become drunkards) (go to the U of U  );
6. "Sustaining the Prophet" means obeying his every teaching, even if you don't have a testimony of the teaching.  Thus, if you disagee with the Prophet on anything, you are not temple worthy.

As Bill said in his podcast, the fact that the Church has now officially repudiated important teachings that, only 60 years ago prophets, seers and revelators declared were "doctrine from God," means that questioning members now have a very defensable basis to not follow current teachings that they disagree with.  I agree with Bill that members are not free to denounce their leaders or interfere with their governance.  But members can now reasonably say "You know, leaders have made mistakes in the past.  I don't yet have a testimony of the church's teaching regarding (civil gay marriage is bad) (there needs to be a "Zion curtain" in restaurants) (seminary is more important for kids than sleep) (ETC)" and so I'm okay not following that teaching until I do have a testimony."

 

I would also add two caveats that seem obvious but should be stated

1.) We have no right to impose our view when it differs from the Brethren on others as fact

2.) There are things that are the Word of God, and we ought to be real hesitant to disagree simply because it is hard to take.  This said as always the responsibility to know truth is between you and the Holy Ghost.

 

Thanks for compliments Brian and Buckeye.  I felt when this occurred that I saw this issue in a way that got to the heart of the matter but most folks disagreed with what I was seeing.  I too felt this article has big repercussion for how we develop "what is Doctrine" from here on out.

[Alan]

I have never believed that our leaders can't lead us astray. I think many of them have.

I think however, that we need to understand what we mean by this. In my view I mean deliberately lead us astray.

I'm quite sure we are innocently taught false doctrine all the time. A good example is "pay your tithing first, before your food and bills etc", which is entirely unscriptural. But it isn't a deliberate ploy to extract more funds from us or plunge us into hardship. It's an error IMHO and those who don't know the scriptures or can't be bothered to find out what they say on this or any other subject have only themselves to blame.

The priesthood ban may well have been instigated for what were thought to be genuine reasons and perpetuated through a misplaced deference to previous leaders and their statements. However, it's longevity serves as a warning to the saints to be wary. We are responsible for our own salvation.

[Buckeye]

I would also add two caveats that seem obvious but should be stated

1.) We have no right to impose our view when it differs from the Brethren on others as fact

2.) There are things that are the Word of God, and we ought to be real hesitant to disagree simply because it is hard to take.  This said as always the responsibility to know truth is between you and the Holy Ghost.

 

Thanks for compliments Brian and Buckeye.  I felt when this occurred that I saw this issue in a way that got to the heart of the matter but most folks disagreed with what I was seeing.  I too felt this article has big repercussion for how we develop "what is Doctrine" from here on out.

 

Completely agree.  I could have been more balanced in my comments.  All members should be mindful of their own limitations and propensity to misjudge.  And there can be great value in following the example and teachings of those with more experience/wisdom for matters in which one does not yet have sufficient experience to form their own judgment.  I would never discard all of my parents' counsel simply because I have come to view a few things differently from them over the years.  The same principle holds for church leaders. 

 

One of the really good aspects of our church organization is that, by having members serve in local/limited leadership positions, members gain not only a first-hand knowledge that leaders make mistakes (they are their own example), but also an empathy for the stress and significant burden placed on leaders who oversee them.  In some of the callings I have had, I found it uncomfortable when members would ask for my judgment under a belief that I was somehow closer to God and could make the decision better than they.  I'm quite sure that when our leaders are put on false pedastals it is a result of members wanting their leaders to be perfect more than the leaders wanting members to think they are perfect. 

[Buckeye]

I have never believed that our leaders can't lead us astray. I think many of them have.

I think however, that we need to understand what we mean by this. In my view I mean deliberately lead us astray.

I'm quite sure we are innocently taught false doctrine all the time. A good example is "pay your tithing first, before your food and bills etc", which is entirely unscriptural. But it isn't a deliberate ploy to extract more funds from us or plunge us into hardship. It's an error IMHO and those who don't know the scriptures or can't be bothered to find out what they say on this or any other subject have only themselves to blame.

The priesthood ban may well have been instigated for what were thought to be genuine reasons and perpetuated through a misplaced deference to previous leaders and their statements. However, it's longevity serves as a warning to the saints to be wary. We are responsible for our own salvation.

 

Specific to the priesthood ban, I think it is an important point that neither Brigham nor any of his successors justified the ban based of a claim to having personally received a revelation. Brigham began the ban based off of his reading of the scriptures. The FP in 1949 did not claim a direct revelation, but simply said the ban was doctrine because it had been taught to them as doctrine. This isn't to say their teachings were not wrong (the church has now repudiated the reasons for the ban, if not the ban itself), but that their mistake was a mistake of fact, one of scriptural interpretation, rather than a mistake of a direct revelation. That's an important difference for me.

[Deborah]

I actually listened to the 45 minute podcast. I especially like this way of looking at doctrine as a teaching and I think 3 Nephi11:30 rather supports this definition of doctrine: "Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." Doctrine in this usage certainly doesn't apply to salvational requirements (ie baptism, etc) so much as practice in living.

 

In fact the whole chapter talks about doctrine as a way of acting. Many of the more fanatic fundamentalists, such as my nephew, will use quote after quote of Brigham Young to prove that the current church is in apostasy but if we look at doctrine as the teaching of the day then there is no conflict in accepting both prophets of the past and those today.

 

It is interesting in reading Section 132 for example, that it isn't expressed as "doctrine" but as a covenant which is binding for those who enter it. In fact as I think about the things that we don't change they aren't defined even in the scriptures as doctrine but as covenants. The Lord speaks throughout the scriptures of "covenants" he makes with men when it comes to the essential things of the gospel.These are not defined as "doctrine" though certainly some interpret them as the definition of doctrine and I think that has become a stumbling block to many as the practice of plural marriage and the Priesthood ban were done away.

[Deborah]

Further along this line Matthew 16:12 states "Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." When the scriptures talk about the doctrine of Christ they are talking about his teachings. In fact the word doctrine used throughout the NT is referring to any teaching, whether of Christ or the Pharisees or any other group.

[Buckeye]

Further along this line Matthew 16:12 states "Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." When the scriptures talk about the doctrine of Christ they are talking about his teachings. In fact the word doctrine used throughout the NT is referring to any teaching, whether of Christ or the Pharisees or any other group.

 

I don't have a link, but I was just reading the Mormon Encyclopedia entry for "doctrine."  The article points out that in the NT, Christ's teachings are referred to as "doctrine" - singular.  When the plural "doctrines" is used it is most often in a negative light referring to the teachings of Pharisees and others.

[thesometimesaint]

Who knows? Maybe it was a test of the white Saints to see for ourselves how we would treat our black brothers and sisters?

[rpn]

The thing is, BY is quoted as saying (not long after the mountain meadows massacre) that he was more concerned that members would fail to do their own due diligence, than that they wouldn't be obedient.   The problem isn't that members do or do not follow prophetic counsel.  It is whether or not they are doing it having done their due diligence to assure it is consistent with His will.

 

Members are no more free do disregard the prophets because of their own feelings on the subject now than they have ever been.   The issue is following God's will.  Members can only influence church procedure within their own stewardship and challenging policies that directly affect them (by praying for God to correct His leaders).  Otherwise they are obligated to do their own personal part to push His work forward (not His work as members define it: His work as the leaders He has chosen define it).

[Gray]

Who knows? Maybe it was a test of the white Saints to see for ourselves how we would treat our black brothers and sisters?

 

I think it was just a mistake - a big one

[DBMormon]

The thing is, BY is quoted as saying (not long after the mountain meadows massacre) that he was more concerned that members would fail to do their own due diligence, than that they wouldn't be obedient.   The problem isn't that members do or do not follow prophetic counsel.  It is whether or not they are doing it having done their due diligence to assure it is consistent with His will.

 

Members are no more free do disregard the prophets because of their own feelings on the subject now than they have ever been.   The issue is following God's will.  Members can only influence church procedure within their own stewardship and challenging policies that directly affect them (by praying for God to correct His leaders).  Otherwise they are obligated to do their own personal part to push His work forward (not His work as members define it: His work as the leaders He has chosen define it).

 

It goes both ways.  For every time we are asked to do our "Due Dilligence" we have ten instances of discussing obedience that sounds a lot like "blind obedience"

 

ex: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/04/faith-obedience?lang=eng

 

“Faith obedience” is a matter of trust. The question is simple: Do we trust our Heavenly Father? Do we trust our prophets?

 

 

One of the sneaky ploys of the adversary is to have us believe that unquestioning obedience to the principles and commandments of God is blind obedience. His goal is to have us believe that we should be following our own worldly ways and selfish ambitions. This he does by persuading us that “blindly” following the prophets and obeying the commandments is not thinking for ourselves. He teaches that it is not intelligent to do something just because we are told to do so by a living prophet or by prophets who speak to us from the scriptures.

 

 

 

He then goes and blurs the line by combining obeying prophets without questions and obeying commandments.  But he seems to fail to recognize that One could obey the Lord's Commandments and still set aside some of the things Church leaders teach and ask of us when they are not acting as prophet

Edited February 14, 2014 by DBMormon

[thesometimesaint]

I think it was just a mistake - a big one

 

I don't know as it was a mistake, but I am confident that the rationalizations for it were.

[Gray]

I don't know as it was a mistake, but I am confident that the rationalizations for it were.

 

I think the priesthood essay makes it clear that it was a mistake

[thesometimesaint]

I think the priesthood essay makes it clear that it was a mistake

Last I looked Mormondiscussionpodcast.com isn't the Church.

Edited February 14, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[DBMormon]

Last I looked Mormondiscussionpodcast.com isn't the Church.

False Assumption = Mormon Discussion Podcast stated the Ban was not from God.

This statement would be untrue but rather then read what Gray wrote or ask what I stated... or heavens forbid you take the time to listen to the episode so you could speak in a informed way.... you stuck your foot in your mouth!

Edited February 14, 2014 by DBMormon

[Gray]

Last I looked Mormondiscussionpodcast.com isn't the Church.

 

The essay denounced all racism in addition to all the reasons behind the ban, some of which were canonized. To me that means the church has disavowed the ban itself 

[DBMormon]

The essay denounced all racism in addition to all the reasons behind the ban, some of which were canonized. To me that means the church has disavowed the ban itself 

to you it means, but the Church never said that directly and any leap that way is a personal belief.  They may or may or may not be inferring that

Edited February 14, 2014 by DBMormon

[Gray]

to you it means, but the Church never said that directly and any leap that way is a personal belief.  They may or may or may not be inferring that

 

Well they did do exactly what I said they did - denounced all racism in addition to all the reasons behind the ban. I'm not sure how that leaves any room for an inspired ban when the church says that all racism is wrong. 

[canard78]

Who knows? Maybe it was a test of the white Saints to see for ourselves how we would treat our black brothers and sisters?

 

You're wrong. But you're also entitled to your opinion. 

[DBMormon]

Well they did do exactly what I said they did - denounced all racism in addition to all the reasons behind the ban. I'm not sure how that leaves any room for an inspired ban when the church says that all racism is wrong. 

unless God had a ban for non racist reasons.  racist is not only about treating a ethnicity a certain way that is different from others but is also ties to the feeling behind why.