Climbing Our Temporal Rameumptoms

[awyatt]

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.

 

I do understand. But I also understand that such problems have more to do with our perceptions of the relationship between prophets and God than it does with anything else.

[cinepro]

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.

 

I'm more interested in what future generations of LDS leaders and members will look back on in our day and discount as the "fallible teachings" of our leaders, based on their "culture".  What are we currently treating as a "prophetic statement" that future generations will see (with their greater wisdom) that the Prophet wasn't "acting as such"?

 

If only there was some way for us to know that right now...

Edited April 22, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm more interested in what future generations of LDS leaders and members will look back on in our day and discount as the "fallible teachings" of our leaders, based on their "culture".  What are we currently treating as a "prophetic statement" that future generations will see (with their greater wisdom) that the Prophet wasn't "acting as such"?

 

If only there was some way for us to know that right now...

There is. But we have to be humble, prayerful, teachable and receptive to the Spirit.

[cinepro]

There is. But we have to be humble, prayerful, teachable and receptive to the Spirit.

 

So have you figured any out, or are we batting 1.000 these days?

[Scott Lloyd]

So have you figured any out, or are we batting 1.000 these days?

Not going to go there. Not on this board, anyway.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

 

From Jana Reiss:

 

 

These were people who were called by God despite being culturally conditioned by the racism of their own times—their belief that they were part of a superior racial or ethnic group.

They were human; they were flawed; they were flat-out wrong. They were also prophetic leaders, inspired in many things.

Prophets do not need to be perfect to be prophets. If the Book of Mormon, a canonized book of scripture, can contain “errors of men,” as it says it may contain, why should General Conference be free of any error? 

 

 

Exactly what do you find judgemental about that? Where in Jana's well thought out post did you get the feeling that she thought she was better than President Young (or on a temporal rameumptom)? Pointing out that leaders were wrong isn't the same as saying they were bad people or that we are better people.

 

The reason people (at least Jana and Canard) bring up this stuff is not to drag Brigham's name through the mud, it's not to condemn him. At least not as I read them. For me it is out of concern about the deference that I give to our current leaders (perhaps best outlined here). The reasons these statements are problematic is they show that past prophets have been very very wrong. So wrong, their statements have now been officially disavowed by the church. This has big implications for how we interpret the teachings of current prophets. What are they wrong about? It is not about being on a temporal rameumptom. It is about determine what is truth and how should we determine it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

There is. But we have to be humble, prayerful, teachable and receptive to the Spirit.

Yes, and if anyone comes to a different conclusion to you, they are by default not humble, prayerful, teachable or receptive to the Spirit? Or do you accept other's viewpoints on topics such as women ordination, or gay marriage as perfectly valid?

[cinepro]

Not going to go there. Not on this board, anyway.

 

If the teachings of the current Prophet(s) are more important than those of past Prophets, then it would be much, much more important to recognize the mistakes the current Prophet(s) are making. 

 

It's pretty weak to argue so forcibly that past Prophets were "fallible" and weren't "acting as such", even though Church members at the time didn't recognize it, and then treat modern leaders with kid gloves (in effect, perpetuating the same attitude that past Church members had towards their contemporary leaders). 

 

In other words, the solution to the problem isn't to recognize the error of long-dead leaders in areas that society has moved well past like race-relations.  The solution is to recognize that our modern leaders have the same blind spots and that members shouldn't support them in their error with the hope that future generations will correct them.

Edited April 22, 2014 by cinepro

[Buckeye]

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.

 

If anti-racism is fundamentally good (and I don't see any dispute on that) shouldn't we celebrate the fact that society is finally on the bandwagon?

 

If I have to judge between the harm from racism and the harm from presentism, I'm going to side with racism being worse. Much worse.

 

As for future generations' judgements, if presentism is wrong shouldn't future presentism be even worse?

 

And not to detrail the thread, but with all respect to Canard, I'm pretty sure it will be Liverpool FC at the top of the rameumpton this year.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Allen writes:

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.

The problem Allen is that the term negro-phobia is used in context in the 19th century to describe the attitude about "proper relations between blacks and whites". It certainly isn't used in that dictionary sense in the quotes I provided.

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

And what exactly does this mean? I think this is a nit-picky point that doesn't actually work in reality (only in theory). Partly because in any context its about what the language is used to do just as much as it is about the language itself. And what you seem to be denying is that there was a sense of racism in the 19th century - when in fact there are pretty good descriptions of racism that exist that can be found in the 19th century even if they didn't use the word "racism" or share precisely the same definition. The issue of precision is something of a red herring.

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.

Well, all of this may be true - but it avoids something of real consequence. We aren't outside of history. We aren't disinterested observers. If we believe that racism is inherently morally wrong, then we can be justifiably critical of those in the past who were racists. And not only can we be, I think we have an obligation to do so - at least in part so that we don't hold up the past (with out tendency towards nostalgia) as a better time and place. It may have been better for some, but it certainly wasn't better for the blacks. And I think that there is nothing wrong with suggesting that Brigham Young was racist. The notion that we shouldn't judge his behavior on the basis that he may not have known better makes no sense to me at all. Wikipedia actually lays out this argument:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_%28literary_and_historical_analysis%29

 

Let me quote the relevant part:

Presentism is also a factor in the problematic question of history and moral judgments. Among historians, the orthodox view may be that reading modern notions of morality into the past is to commit the error of presentism. To avoid this, some historians restrict themselves to describing what happened, and attempt to refrain from using language that passes judgment. For example, when writing history about slavery in an era when the practice was widely accepted, using language that condemns slavery as wrong or evil would be presentist, and would be avoided.

Critics respond that to avoid moral judgments is to practice moral relativism, a controversial idea. Some religious historians argue that morality is timeless, having been established by God; they say it is not anachronistic to apply timeless standards to the past. (In this view, while mores may change, morality does not.) Others argue that application of religious standards has varied over time as well. Saint Augustine, for example, holds that there exist timeless moral principles, but contends that certain practices (such as polygamy) were acceptable in the past because they were customary, while they are neither customary nor acceptable at present. Others argue that historians as humans cannot truly be objective and so moral judgments will always be a part of their work. David Hackett Fischer, for his part, writes that historians cannot avoid making moral judgments and ought to make them, but that they should be aware of their biases, and write history in such a way that their biases do not create a distorted depiction of the past.

Do you see the problem? You continue by suggesting that "it is wrong to judge them by any standards other than their own." and yet, this is par for the course. Our scriptures, of course, do this regularly (we don't have to look very deep into Moroni's treatment of Ether, right?). On some level, if we assert real morality (and not just relativistic morality) passing judgment based on our understanding of that morality isn't merely optional, it is mandatory. We should be repulsed by certain traditions of the past. We shouldn't simply say, well, it's not a bad thing because they didn't understand it as bad. That is different from saying that they are necessarily accountable for it (a whole different issue).

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

I am not saying that you intend to do this. I am saying that there is a very fine line between saying that we cannot judge their actions because they didn't share our ethical and moral views and justifying their actions for the same reasons. We aren't dealing with a clinical history here, particularly when we talk about the fact that in other places we are judgmental of their actions in that we judge them favorably. Are you willing to stop saying that Brigham did good things as well as bad things? Or are you simply worried about the bad things? The good things are just as problematic from the perspective of presentism.

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.

And I think that you are wrong. I think that if we are to learn from the lessons of the past, we must be prepared to judge. And we must judge both the good and the bad. We cannot simply treat it clinically as if it has no implications for the ways in which we view the world.

 

Finally, and within the context of Mormonism in particular and the racist views that perhaps helped cause the priesthood ban, we are left with the very real problem: if the ban was simply caused by the society in which it was created, and for which we should not judge them, why did it take so long to get changed? Once the term racist comes into existence, and the argument is better articulated, does your argument change? When can we start referring to LDS leaders who held such views as racist? Where do you draw the line Allen?

 

Ben M.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, and if anyone comes to a different conclusion to you, they are by default not humble, prayerful, teachable or receptive to the Spirit? Or do you accept other's viewpoints on topics such as women ordination, or gay marriage as perfectly valid?

Not fair.

 

I was speaking conceptually. I didn't compare anyone's viewpoints to mine.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Not fair.

I was speaking conceptually. I didn't compare anyone's viewpoints to mine.

My sincere apologies for reading more into your statement than you intended.

[Scott Lloyd]

If the teachings of the current Prophet(s) are more important than those of past Prophets, then it would be much, much more important to recognize the mistakes the current Prophet(s) are making. 

 

It's pretty weak to argue so forcibly that past Prophets were "fallible" and weren't "acting as such", even though Church members at the time didn't recognize it, and then treat modern leaders with kid gloves (in effect, perpetuating the same attitude that past Church members had towards their contemporary leaders). 

 

In other words, the solution to the problem isn't to recognize the error of long-dead leaders in areas that society has moved well past like race-relations.  The solution is to recognize that our modern leaders have the same blind spots and that members shouldn't support them in their error with the hope that future generations will correct them.

I have the sense that our revered leaders of the past taught truth and led people into righteousness and salvation far more frequently than they erred.

 

I see danger in using instances of past errors as justification for cherry picking and rejecting what today's prophets have to say, based on one's own socially influenced attitudes.

 

To put it more concisely there's a far more urgent danger of rejecting what the prophets say that is true than there is of accepting the occasional thing that may be wrong.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

My sincere apologies for reading more into your statement than you intended.

Thanks.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Scott writes:

To put it more concisely there's a far more urgent danger of rejecting what the prophets say that is true than there is of accepting the occasional thing that may be wrong.

 

It's like that statement that paraphrases Mark Twain:

 

"Eat a live frog first thing in the morning and nothing worse will happen the rest of the day."

 

The response, of course, is:

 

"To you, or the frog?"

 

In this situation, this question is also there. Accepting the priesthood ban caused a tremendous amount of pain for black members of the church. It caused very little for the majority of white members. Of course the problem was compounded when members of the church decided that the past views were wrong, and worked to change that perception, and then were called out for not following the prophet (who was expressing his personal and incorrect views in the past). Attempts to silence members by claiming that they must be disloyal or apostate to take a different view from what the prophet has said are also terribly detrimental to the church.

 

The real problem is in simply accepting what the prophets say (right or wrong). We should all strive to have a relationship with the spirit that allows us to receive personal revelation, and then we should act on that personal revelation. We should be aware that there is no past teaching that isn't subject to modification or change in a church that believes in ongoing revelation. And at times we have to try and distinguish between what is revealed truth, and what is simply historical tradition - and to jettison what is merely tradition.

[Buckeye]

I have the sense that our revered leaders of the past taught truth and led people into righteousness and salvation far more frequently than they erred.

 

I see danger in using instances of past errors as justification for cherry picking and rejecting what today's prophets have to say, based on one's own socially influenced attitudes.

 

To put it more concisely there's a far more urgent danger of rejecting what the prophets say that is true than there is of accepting the occasional thing that may be wrong.

 

Scott, I fully agree with your first point.  The problem comes in the hypocrisy of your second.  All through this thread you've expressed the view that we should be charitable to Brigham, et al. and understand them in the context of their surroundings.  I couldn't agree more.  However, you never seem to offer that same charity to your peers.  When people on this board say they disagree with something the prophet says, you judge it as "cherry picking" and ascribe their motives as "socially influenced" rather than sincere.  

 

Why do you judge your peers with such a different standard than you do your leaders?

[CV75]

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

“The Church Today” section of the Race and Priesthood article offers a good model for how the faithful can deal with negative reactions to past practices, leaders, etc. “Today, the Church disavows…” “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn…” “Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future…” “The Church proclaims…”

We all choose how we spend our wherewithal, and I would think that living in the present by the gifts and covenants we have before us and the hope we have in Christ is far more profitable (personally and for the interest of moving the Church forward) than recycling negative feelings and finding reasons to justify or nurture them with a negative critique of dead Church leaders’ lives.

There is plenty of information out there that we can be caught off guard by or choose to be hurt by, but nothing that isn’t more than offset by the healing reality of the Restored Gospel. The same holds true whether the offense (real or imagined) is past or current; Christ truly heals all, whether we get "our just due" (whatever one stipulates that to be) or not.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, I fully agree with your first point.  The problem comes in the hypocrisy of your second.  All through this thread you've expressed the view that we should be charitable to Brigham, et al. and understand them in the context of their surroundings.  I couldn't agree more.  However, you never seem to offer that same charity to your peers.  When people on this board say they disagree with something the prophet says, you judge it as "cherry picking" and ascribe their motives as "socially influenced" rather than sincere.  

 

Why do you judge your peers with such a different standard than you do your leaders?

You seem here to be conflating strong disagreement with judging uncharitably.

 

I don't agree with actions or statements of past leaders that were wrong any more than I accept viewpoints and attitudes of today that to me seem misguided. I see no inconsistency there.

 

And one can be sincere while at the same time having been socially influenced. I daresay it happens much of the time.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

I'm curious to know if you would also apply "enlightened understanding, charity and even a spirit of Christlike forgiveness" to the attitudes and actions of, say, Lilburn Boggs or Thomas Sharp. I'm not opposed to such a generous appraisal of the past but it may be difficult to apply equitably to all parties.

Seriously?  Seriously?  Joseph Smith is Brigham Young is ... Thomas Sharp is Lilburn W. Boggs?  Seriously?  Whatever the imperfections of the former two individuals, I can say pretty confidently (in fact, very confidently) that they never acted with anything less than the utmost welfare of their fellow members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in mind, while, on the other hand, I can say with reasonable certainty that the latter two most certainly did not.  You may disagree, but I don't think that's a particularly controversial (or even debatable) proposition. Having said that, I can certainly extend at least enough charity to the latter two individuals to leave any judgment of them up to the Lord ("I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive ..." and "If ye have not charity, ye are nothing ..." and all that).  I wouldn't be surprised, though, to see ancestors of mine called to testify at their heavenly trial (if there is one) prior to any judgment being rendered against them.

[Bernard Gui]

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'm not sure throwing the good men under the bus for any reason will make the First Vision and Book of Mormon more palatable to the rest of the globe.

[Buckeye]

You seem here to be conflating strong disagreement with judging uncharitably.

 

I don't agree with actions or statements of past leaders that were wrong any more than I accept viewpoints and attitudes of today that to me seem misguided. I see no inconstancy there.

 

And one can be sincere while at the same time having been socially influenced. I daresay it happens much of the time.

 

It's the tone that bothers me. I'm fine with strong disagreement. But using the label "cherry picking" is not disagreement. It is an unfair disparagement of someone's motives. Saying that someone "rejects what today's prophets have to say, based on one's own socially influenced attitudes" is not disagreement. It is an ad hominem attack, and quite a disingenuous one considering that in this thread you've asked others to consider the social influences at play in the mistaken views that Brigham held.

 

FWIW, I am also bothered by the attitude I see sometimes that members can quickly dismiss what our current leaders say because past leaders have been wrong. But in my experience, that view is the exception, not the rule. Most of the members I know who disagree with current leaders on some point or another (i) agree with the vast majority of the current teachings, (ii) minimize the disagreement as much as possible, (iii) avoid trumpeting the disagreement, and (iv) come to the disagreement through a sincere and long-fought wrestle. Their disagreement is anything but "cherry picking" and it comes from a desire to follow truth, not society.

[The Nehor]

I did not get one. Is there someone I should email to get my holy stand?

[Bernard Gui]

In this situation, this question is also there. Accepting the priesthood ban caused a tremendous amount of pain for black members of the church. It caused very little for the majority of white members. Of course the problem was compounded when members of the church decided that the past views were wrong, and worked to change that perception, and then were called out for not following the prophet (who was expressing his personal and incorrect views in the past). Attempts to silence members by claiming that they must be disloyal or apostate to take a different view from what the prophet has said are also terribly detrimental to the church.

 

The real problem is in simply accepting what the prophets say (right or wrong). We should all strive to have a relationship with the spirit that allows us to receive personal revelation, and then we should act on that personal revelation. We should be aware that there is no past teaching that isn't subject to modification or change in a church that believes in ongoing revelation. And at times we have to try and distinguish between what is revealed truth, and what is simply historical tradition - and to jettison what is merely tradition.

Let's say that from 1830 to 2014 the Church became the prophetically inspired vanguard for Emancipation and the civil rights movement.

Let's suppose Joseph, Brigham, and the rest had answered to the higher call than that of the predominant culture.

How would the Restoration and subsequent coming out of obscurity have been different?

Edited April 22, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

I did not get one. Is there someone I should email to get my holy stand?

A Rameumpton is best when built with your own hands.

 

http://ana-white.com/2010/12/helping-tower.html