Climbing Our Temporal Rameumptoms

[awyatt]

In a recent comment on a different thread, Canard78 directed readers towards some conclusions that were on his blog. Another commenter thanked Canard78 for his summary of some disturbing historical quotes relative to blacks and the priesthood.

 

These two comments, along with a recent blog post by Jana Riess about Brigham Young's racism, spurred me to write a rather long blog post about our too-human tendency to climb upon Rameumptoms of our own fashioning. (I see it ALL the time on this and other message boards, and we all are guilty of it, even myself.)

 

   http://www.allenwyatt.com/blog/the-lure-and-peril-of-our-temporal-rameumptoms/

 

Short story: We effortlessly and harshly judge others who have gone before by the standards of our day.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

In a recent comment on a different thread, Canard78 directed readers towards some conclusions that were on his blog. Another commenter thanked Canard78 for his summary of some disturbing historical quotes relative to blacks and the priesthood.

 

These two comments, along with a recent blog post by Jana Riess about Brigham Young's racism, spurred me to write a rather long blog post about our too-human tendency to climb upon Rameumptoms of our own fashioning. (I see it ALL the time on this and other message boards, and we all are guilty of it, even myself.)

 

   http://www.allenwyatt.com/blog/the-lure-and-peril-of-our-temporal-rameumptoms/

 

Short story: We effortlessly and harshly judge others who have gone before by the standards of our day.

A superb analysis.

 

And, at the risk of mounting my own temporal rameumptom, I'll add that your remarks are sorely needed today.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[cinepro]

 

Short story: We effortlessly and harshly judge others who have gone before by the standards of our day.

 

I'm not sure I understand you.  When judging peoples' attitudes and comments about those of other races, how should they be judged?

 

I don't judge past racist comments harshly because they were made in the past.  I judge them harshly because they are wrong (whenever they were made).   Certainly, it can be argued that people who grew up in racist cultures should be held to a different (i.e. lower) standard because of the culture they grew up in.  But when someone claims to be in communication with an omniscient source of morality and wisdom, I hold them to a higher standard, not a lower one, regardless of when or where they are living.

[Scott Lloyd]

Allen's essay has caused me to reflect that there may be attitudes and practices in which people in earlier times were more wise if not more advanced than we are today.

 

I can think of at least a couple:

 

 -- family solidarity and the associated ideas of marital fidelity and moral purity.

 

-- avoidance of personal debt and the deferment of immediate gratification with the expectation of later reward.

 

I wonder how they would be inclined to view our attitudes and rationalizations.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

  But when someone claims to be in communication with an omniscient source of morality and wisdom, I hold them to a higher standard, not a lower one, regardless of when or where they are living.

Isn't this an instance of belief in the infallibility of prophets that I see condemned so often on this board and elsewhere?

[Benjamin McGuire]

The problem is, the term racism didn’t even exist in Brigham’s day. You won’t find it in Webster’s 1828 dictionary at all. The term racist didn’t come about until 1936, long after Brigham was gone. How could Brigham be judged guilty of something that didn’t even exist in his day? He could, of course, when judged upon a temporal Rameumptom where anachronistic views of history aren’t precluded in our prayers of thanks.

You are absolutely right, Allen, that the term racism didn't exist in Brigham's day. But that seems to be a rather impotent argument - because they had other terms that they used. Terms like negro-phobia:

 

 

I desire to say a few words to the Convention, and gentlemen need to be under no apprehension that I am going to deliver a harangue on the "negro question." I took no part in the protracted discussion of that question when it was before the Convention, and do not expect that I shall, when in the order of business, it again comes up for our consideration. I would advocate the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Dearborn (Mr. Watts) if there was not a negro in the State or the Union. It appears to me that a sort of negro-phobia has seized upon the majority of this Convention, and that they are read with a "mad dog" cry to pursue any proposition that may be even remotely connected with the welfare of that unfortunate race. (Report of the debates and proceedings of the Convention for the revision of the constitution of the state of Indiana. 1850.

or ...

 

 

His classifications were a little curious, too, for his hatred of colored people amounted to a negro-phobia. (The Convalescent 1859)

 

 

No one has satisfactorily accounted for the horror of the negro which exists in the free States of America. It is not a question of colour, for the shade makes little difference. The prejudice exists almost equally against the lightest mulatto and the blackest negro. And it does not exist against other coloured races. Some of the Americans themselves are very dark and swarthy - darker tthan the mulattoes they despise. They have no feeling against a dark Spaniard, an East Indian, a Moor, or one of their own aborigines, as such. There are many Americans with an inter-mixture of Indian blood, who show it in their coarse and straight black har, high cheek bones, and copepry tinge of the complexion; and they are rather proud of the savage alliance. It is no discredit to them with their fellow citizens. ... But let it be known that there is even one infinitesimal drop of the vlook of Central Aftrica flowing in the veins of an American, and it were better for that man that he had never been born. ... There is some reason, good or bad, for this negro-phobia, this antiphathy of races. It exists more in the North than in the South, probably for the reasons I have given. (Forty Years of American Life 1864, pp. 228 and 235)

The longer I look, the longer the list - and this is just for one term (although we start seeing others in them that we could use, right? The 'antipathy of races' makes a good example). The reality is that we (as Americans) had a cultural awareness of the problem (the "negro problem") and we have a historically rich language that is used to describe it. And if Brigham Young ought not to be labeled a racist because of the incongruity of using a term that came a few decades too late, perhaps we ought to use more of this colorful language that the term 'racist' has replaced to describe him. Brigham Young, the negro-phobic has a certain ring to it, maybe ...

 

So, for your blog? It seems to be for the most part, nonsense. Your claims of presentism have no basis in reality. Further, we will not get over the racist past of the church and its leaders through denial. We can argue whether that racism was justified then or not (it certainly isn't today), but let's not quibble about it. The reality is that there were enlightened members of society back in those days too - and they described racist attitudes very harshly. I think that it is absolutely appropriate for us to reflect on the past in such harsh terms. Not because it necessarily reflects the history of those attitudes (although it often can continue a tradition that was in the public awareness for much if not all of Brigham Young's life), and the slow cultural development that they reflect. Rather, it seems that if we don't, we can contribute to the justification of the same kinds of attitudes that exist today. When we read of the white supremacist  who just a week ago open fired and killed  three random Jews because of their race, we can see that we have a long ways to go.

 

Ben McGuire

Edited April 22, 2014 by Benjamin McGuire

[Ahab]

Isn't this an instance of belief in the infallibility of prophets that I see condemned so often on this board and elsewhere?

I understood him to mean that when someone claims to be sharing an idea from God that he expects that person to share an idea that God would have shared.

You don't think God shares stupid ideas, do you?

[Ahab]

In a recent comment on a different thread, Canard78 directed readers towards some conclusions that were on his blog. Another commenter thanked Canard78 for his summary of some disturbing historical quotes relative to blacks and the priesthood.

These two comments, along with a recent blog post by Jana Riess about Brigham Young's racism, spurred me to write a rather long blog post about our too-human tendency to climb upon Rameumptoms of our own fashioning. (I see it ALL the time on this and other message boards, and we all are guilty of it, even myself.)

http://www.allenwyatt.com/blog/the-lure-and-peril-of-our-temporal-rameumptoms/

Short story: We effortlessly and harshly judge others who have gone before by the standards of our day.

These days we call it a podium, and even though not all of the people who use them share the same exact words there is a lot of stupid stuff that is said, even though many people think the stupid stuff shows a high level of intelligence.

[cinepro]

Isn't this an instance of belief in the infallibility of prophets that I see condemned so often on this board and elsewhere?

 

I guess it depends on what you think a latter-day Prophet is or does.  There is certainly no shortage of people in this world who feel LDS leaders are expressing their fallible, culturally influenced opinions on a great many subjects, so I can't argue with anyone who supports such an approach.  It's just surprising to see LDS joining in without considering the collateral damage they might be inflicting.

[Scott Lloyd]

I understood him to mean that when someone claims to be sharing an idea from God that he expects that person to share an idea that God would have shared.

 

 

I don't see that as self-evident in the phrasing he used.

 

He might come along later and say you understood him better than I, but as it stands, I don't see it.

 

His comment reminds me of those who seem to believe that because Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and had some visions, he had to have known every detail about Nephite culture, geography, migration, etc.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess it depends on what you think a latter-day Prophet is or does.  There is certainly no shortage of people in this world who feel LDS leaders are expressing their fallible, culturally influenced opinions on a great many subjects, so I can't argue with anyone who supports such an approach.  It's just surprising to see LDS joining in without considering the collateral damage they might be inflicting.

Joseph Smith said: "A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such."

 

That's the distinction. I can accept that without worrying about collateral damage.

[Ahab]

I don't see that as self-evident in the phrasing he used.

He might come along later and say you understood him better than I, but as it stands, I don't see it.

His comment reminds me of those who seem to believe that because Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he had to have known every detail about Nephite culture, geography, migration, etc.

Well, maybe what you think he meant is what he actually meant and the Holy Spirit helped me to get something (else) from what he said.

Either way, I like the message I got.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, maybe what you think he meant is what he actually meant and the Holy Spirit helped me to get something (else) from what he said.

Either way, I like the message I got.

Fine. I don't see anyone here disputing it.

[cinepro]

Joseph Smith said: "A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such."

 

That's the distinction. I can accept that without worrying about collateral damage.

 

Joseph Smith made that comment in a casual, private conversation.  So, according to your understanding of when a Prophet is "acting as such", was Joseph Smith speaking as a Prophet when he said that, or was he expressing his personal, fallible, culturally biased views on when a Prophet's words should be considered valid?

[Scott Lloyd]

Joseph Smith made that comment in a casual, private conversation.  So, according to your understanding of when a Prophet is "acting as such", was Joseph Smith speaking as a Prophet when he said that, or was he expressing his personal, fallible, culturally biased views on when a Prophet's words should be considered valid?

Evidently, it was a comment he thought important enough to record (or cause to be recorded) in his personal history and thus preserved for future generations.

 

At any rate, it is an attitude so widely accepted among our people -- leaders as well as rank-and-file -- as to seem almost axiomatic.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

I get to be the topic of a thread? Awesome. I'll use it to build my rameumpton a few blocks higher.

 

I'm so proud of myself.

 

(Read with a little British dry sarcasm sprinkled on top).

 

I'm pressed for time but will certainly read your blog and return to this thread.

 

EDIT: A quick note to mention that the "race and the priesthood" blog post was from a while ago and not what I had originally linked to in the other thread. I'd referenced a prayerful conclusion I'd reached more recently about what I believe called"I'm not afraid anymore."

 

The post about race is from longer ago and a compilation of the confusion caused by the racism of past church leaders (in recent memory, not just Brigham Young). This issue is not me playing an "anti-mormon race card" (as pahoran suggested on that thread) but me exploring the painful and raw feelings of discovering these attitudes from recent history. Originally the blog was written for my own personal records, but I recognise that putting in the public domain allows for others to read it and, as such, I need to take responsibility for it. With that in mind, I'll read this commentary and respond in due time.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Given the OP mentions me so directly, I hope you'll forgive me editing this post a second time. I've responded, but it's 5 pages deep already. With that in mind I'm also copying my main reply into this post too, for those who join the thread later.

 

As a matter of courtesy, there were three 'rep points' before I posted the following update from calmoriah, SeekingUnderstanding and stemelbow. Their reps only apply to the content above the lines and not to the content posted below. If any of them would prefer me to edit the comments below due to the potential confusion over what they have repped I'd be happy to do so. They are each held in too high a regard by me to want to misrepresent what they may otherwise appear to be endorsing.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Some responses:

 

Instead we easily and freely look down upon those who are no longer with us.

You see, our Rameumtoms are temporal in nature, meaning that we look back to people in bygone generations and thank God that we are not like them. We see ourselves as enlightened, as somehow smarter and “better off” than those who came before.

 

 

 

 

Every generation naturally thinks they have reached a greater awareness than before. I suppose that's a natural reaction. I am, however, aware of the problem of presentism. I studied history at University and am now a researcher of attitudes around the world. I'm very aware that what I believe about something (whether religious or not) might not be the cultural attitude of the historical (or other cultural) group.

 

You suggest Jana Reiss (and perhaps by implication me) of crafting our own Rameumptom of presentism by calling Brigham Young a racist. As an asside, Terryl Givens also called him one in his "crucible of doubt" Q&A section when visiting the UK.

 

It may be true that "racism" as a term didn't exist in BY's day. But the following did:

 

Prejudice

Equality

Bigotry

 

I could go on. If we limit ourselves only to the language of the day, BY still supported attitudes towards black people that were prejudiced, lacked equality and based on bigotry. They were also based on a false reading of the bible/book of abraham and a massive serving of cultural assumptions of his era. Can we simply excuse a prophet of prejudice, inequality and bigotry because those attitudes were common in that era? Perhaps... but in doing so we also need to adjust our perspectives either of what a prophet is or how often he is a prophet when speaking as a prophet.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Having said all that... my blog post that you reference in your post wasn't about Brigham Young. I don't mention him once. 

 

You make the point that:

 

The reminder provided by Jana was reinforced by the musings of a message board commenter who drew my attention to his thoughts about the tough time he had with some statements regarding race made by earlier generations.

 

Judgments made from our Rameumptoms cause us to condemn those in the past to lives of error and wrong. We are are grateful that we are not “led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren…which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.” The presumption, of course, is that “our God” would never allow such thinking among His people—and especially His leaders—as what is exemplified in the words of previous generations.

 

 

 

Instead of Brigham Young I limit all of my sources to people who made statements that are racist and all of them were made after the word was coined in 1936.

 

It was in use:

In 1947 when the first presidency wrote to Lowry Nelson...

In 1949 when the first presidency made their official statement on black members...

In 1954 when Elder Peterson spoke about 'Race problem as they affect the church'...

In 1964 when Elder Stapley wrote to Govenor George Romney (endorsing the 1960 book "Mormonism and the Negro..."

 

So given they are all after the word came into use, are you comfortable calling President George Albert, President J. Reuben Clark, President David O. McKay, Elder Mark E. Peterson and Elder Delbert L. Stapley racist?

 

Were their attitudes simply representative of their time and culture? Were they simply manifesting the environment they were raised in? That black people carried the curse of cain, were less faithful in the pre-mortal life, that their desire to have equal rights was not ordained of God, that any marriage between races was "repugnant" and against God's doctrine? Are all of these attitudes inspired of God or are they culturally influenced perspectives.

 

The problem is the following:

 

a) On the one hand they describe their racist positions and attitudes as "inspired" and "revelation" and "God's doctrine." They expect people to take these racist attitudes and accept them as being God's word on the matter.

a) At the same time they show the fallacy of their positions in the very moment of stating them. For example, in the 1947 letter, they state that this doctrine has been established since the days of Joseph Smith (it was not). They also state that this is a doctrine "never questioned by the any of the Church leaders."

 

This presents the big concern. It's not presentism that bothers me. It's evidence of attitudes that are heavily influenced by the culture and assumptions of the day that are still presented as a prophet acting as a prophet. Or at least thinking he's acting as a prophet.

 

I have never expected infallibility from prophets. My post that you've referenced is intended to ask the question of whether a prophet can sometimes not act as a prophet even when he thinks he is acting as one. It appears to me that when a first presidency make a statement of doctrine (which they did more publicly in their 1949 letter) that they believe they are acting as prophets. And what they say does not appear, to me, to be the word and will of God.

 

So this is not about presentism and is instead about trust and confidence. If there is evidence of a prophet saying things which he considers to be revealed doctrine but which are later disavowed as unacceptable racism don't we have a problem?

 

If prophets think they are being prophets but are actually only sharing their sincere opinions that are influenced by their earthly environment instead of heavenly messages doesn't it break the prophetic model?

 

If the prophetic model breaks (and in this instance I think it does break), doesn't that rather undermine a major pillar of our church?

 

You conclude with:

In other words, we climb our individual and collective temporal Rameumptoms and thank God we now know better and we aren’t like those poor, beknighted souls in times gone by. We sit atop our throne at the culmination of human progress, smug in the knowledge that we are better than all who came before.

 

Except we aren’t. We are still human, prone to human weaknesses, and likely to be judged by future generations with the same harsh judgment we administer from our Rameumptoms. In climbing the tower we jettison charity and cloak ourselves in pride. Our own temporal Rameumptoms are symptomatic of destructive pride just as surely as the physical Rameumptoms were for the Zoramites.

 

 

Exactly. Exactly! If we are all human, prone to human weaknesses, aren't the prophets too? Of course! I don't expect the prophets to be any less human than me. Given their humanity, isn't it possible that they, just like you and me, are prone to the same issue of having attitudes based on their cultural influences today instead of the influences of the past?

 

If I've come across as being prideful, that's not my intention. The 1947 letter stands as evidence to me that 'even' a prophet can reach the wrong conclusion based on his cultural influences. If he can then that leads me to preface every conclusion I reach with the following: "chances are, I'm probably wrong." As I reach a position of feeling a sense of peace in a divinely guided conclusion I also accept that my limited human capacity to communicate to myself, to others and receive communication from God and from others means that I am, in all probability, at a conclusion that will not be supported by later generations or maybe even myself in a few years. Given I've lost full confidence in prophets' ability to teach me the all of the right conclusions all of the time, I can only base my position on what we are invited to do; what we've always been invited to do: ask, seek, knock... and then try to make some sense of the divine answer given.

Edited April 23, 2014 by canard78

[Avatar4321]

Good advice. I've never thought the belief that we are smarter than previous generations or better because we have different standards is necessarily true. We wouldn't be where we are without them being what they were.

[awyatt]

I get to be the topic of a thread? Awesome. I'll use it to build my rameumpton a few blocks higher.

 

I'm so proud of myself.

 

(Read with a little British dry sarcasm sprinkled on top).

 

I'm pressed for time but will certainly read your blog and return to this thread.

 

EDIT: A quick note to mention that the "race and the priesthood" blog post was from a while ago and not what I had originally linked to in the other thread. I'd referenced a prayerful conclusion I'd reached more recently about what I believe called"I'm not afraid anymore."

 

The post about race is from longer ago and a compilation of the confusion caused by the racism of past church leaders (in recent memory, not just Brigham Young). This issue is not me playing an "anti-mormon race card" (as pahoran suggested on that thread) but me exploring the painful and raw feelings of discovering these attitudes from recent history. Originally the blog was written for my own personal records, but I recognise that putting in the public domain allows for others to read it and, as such, I need to take responsibility for it. With that in mind, I'll read this commentary and respond in due time.

 

Don't let it go to your head; you are not the topic. It was Jana's blog post that provided the original impetus--you and ChrisKnight just pushed it out of my "possible topics" list and into the realm or reality.

 

;-)

 

-Allen

[awyatt]

You are absolutely right, Allen, that the term racism didn't exist in Brigham's day. But that seems to be a rather impotent argument - because they had other terms that they used. Terms like negro-phobia:

 

Yes, I thought about using that term, but I didn't because racist and negrophobia are not synonymous. Compare the definition of racist provided by Jana in her blog (the feeling that one race is superior or another inferior based solely upon their race) with the definition of negrophoba (a strong fear or dislike of black people). They are not the same, and I can find nothing in Brigham Young's writings that evidence he had a "strong fear or dislike of black people." I grant he had strong feelings about what he saw as "proper" relations between blacks and whites, but that doesn't rise to the definition provided.

 

And if Brigham Young ought not to be labeled a racist because of the incongruity of using a term that came a few decades too late, perhaps we ought to use more of this colorful language that the term 'racist' has replaced to describe him. Brigham Young, the negro-phobic has a certain ring to it, maybe ...

 

Colorful, to be sure. But imprecise, for reasons already mentioned.

 

So, for your blog? It seems to be for the most part, nonsense. Your claims of presentism have no basis in reality.

Well, at least my "nonsense" got you to thinking, and I see some value in that. I don't believe that my "claims of presentism" have no basis in reality, nor have you shown such. The fact is, we *do* judge the past by today's standards, which is the very definition of presentism. We may as well judge the vast majority of deceased humans as racists, but to do so does no good. It does not speak to their virtues or to our vices. It stereotypes people by a social construct that we happen to find repugnant today.

 

Further, we will not get over the racist past of the church and its leaders through denial.

I'm not denying their attitudes. I'm just saying that it is wrong to judge them by any standards other than their own.

 

We can argue whether that racism was justified then or not (it certainly isn't today), but let's not quibble about it. The reality is that there were enlightened members of society back in those days too - and they described racist attitudes very harshly.

I'm not trying to justify it, so perhaps you can stop feverishly fashioning you straw man. ;-)

Yes, there were enlightened members of society back then, but they were *very* few and far between. (And the very use of the term "enlightened" is an example of a judgmental word that would be quite at home on the Rameumptom. It is a term that is relational and transitional. Most of the "enlightened" members of the 18th and 19th centuries seem rather quaint and provincial to our sensibilities today. No doubt we will be viewed as unenlightened by those a hundred years from now, as we are judged using the same standard with which we judge.)

But, speaking again to the "enlightened," there is very little chance that any of us would have been among their number in those days. People, for the most part, hold to the prevailing attitudes of their time and place. Us included.

 

I think that it is absolutely appropriate for us to reflect on the past in such harsh terms. ... it seems that if we don't, we can contribute to the justification of the same kinds of attitudes that exist today. When we read of the white supremacist who just a week ago open fired and killed three random Jews because of their race, we can see that we have a long ways to go.

I have no problem with judging our contemporaries based upon the prevailing sentiments. If their are racists at work today (such as those white supremacists you mention) their actions should be called out and labeled for what they are--racist. But to lump those in earlier centuries into the same bucket seems very simplistic and pointedly uncharitable.

Edited April 22, 2014 by awyatt

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

 

 

Yes, there were enlightened members of society back then, but they were *very* few and far between. (And the very use of the term "enlightened" is an example of a judgmental word that would be quite at home on the Rameumptom. It is a term that is relational and transitional. Most of the "enlightened" members of the 18th and 19th centuries seem rather quaint and provincial to our sensibilities today. No doubt we will be viewed as unenlightened by those a hundred years from now, as we are judged using the same standard with which we judge.)

But, speaking again to the "enlightened," there is very little chance that any of us would have been among their number in those days. People, for the most part, hold to the prevailing attitudes of their time and place. Us included.

 

 

Anti-racism seems to be the conventional wisdom today, if not an aggressive bandwagon phenomenon.

 

In future generations, people like Allen, who recognize the realities of presentism in themselves and others, may come to be viewed as having been the enlightened of our age.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[cinepro]

Good advice. I've never thought the belief that we are smarter than previous generations or better because we have different standards is necessarily true. We wouldn't be where we are without them being what they were.

 

I guess here's the problem.

 

Grandma Kettle, raised in the Kentucky from the early 1800's, writes in her journal "The negro was meant to be a slave.  It's their lot in life."

 

Elder Jackson tells you that he is a "prophet, seer and revelator".  You believe that he has a special communication with the God of the Bible.  You look to him as having the authority to act and speak for God on the Earth today.  He stands at the pulpit in a Church meeting and says "The negro was meant to be a slave.  It's their lot in life." He goes on to explain that this is God's will, and supports that explains that the scriptures teach this.

 

If the two are functionally equivalent to you, then great.  But hopefully you can understand why they might be considered quite different (and in very important ways) to other people.

Edited April 22, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

In the Church we are admonished to avoid speaking evil of the Lord's anointed. I think this leads many loyal, well-meaning members to want to throw a cloak of charity over past leaders' mistakes and try to deflect any criticism of them—one thinks here of Shem and Japheth walking backward to cover up Noah's nakedness, averting their gaze to preserve their father's dignity (Gen. 9:23). I think such a reaction is appropriate and commendable at times (who of us is without sin?), but I have to agree with Ben that "we will not get over the racist past of the church and its leaders through denial." As the Church grows globally, I think it's essential for the Church to face up to, and disavow, the racism of past leaders in order to move forward. Some will see this as throwing good men "under the bus" for the sake of political correctness, but I don't see how Zion can ever be achieved without disavowing racism, xenophobia, and the like.

I think Allen made a good point that to view past attitudes with enlightened understanding, charity and even a spirit of Christlike forgiveness, is not the same thing as to deny or minimize them.

 

I like to think that Brother Brigham and other Church leaders of the past --  if, as I expect, they are well along on the path to perfection and ultimate exaltation -- recognize by now any errors they might have committed in mortality. I expect that God has forgiven them, and I, in my own fallibility, can hardly do less.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

Don't let it go to your head; you are not the topic. It was Jana's blog post that provided the original impetus--you and ChrisKnight just pushed it out of my "possible topics" list and into the realm or reality.

 

;-)

 

-Allen

 

My delusions of grandeur are crushed. I may never recover.