Climbing Our Temporal Rameumptoms

[Senator]

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 answered to the higher call than that of the predominant culture.

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

 

Well, for one thing we would probably have a much larger church membership.

[awyatt]

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...

Respectfully, it is not an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem, or "to the man," is saying that a person's arguments should be rejected based upon something totally unrelated to the argument being made. Saying that someone "rejects what today's prophets have to say" because he drives a Ford or because she dyes her hair is ad hominem.

Saying that someone chooses what one will accept based on the person's attitudes is not an example of ad hominem. It is a statement of the all-too human condition. There is a complex interrelation of causes that affect our attitudes, and social influence is one of those. We can reject (or accept) the words of others—including, but not limited to, prophets—based upon our attitudes. It happens every day, and it does have direct bearing on the arguments we choose to make.

-Allen

[The Nehor]

A Rameumpton is best when built with your own hands.

 

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

Meh. Too much work. I have been foreordained to be saved so I guess I do not need one.

[Bernard Gui]

Well, for one thing we would probably have a much larger church membership.

How so?

Consider the events prior to and after the Civil War.

[Bernard Gui]

Meh. Too much work. I have been foreordained to be saved so I guess I do not need one.

That's the way I feel, too.

[Buckeye]

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 answered to the higher call than that of the predominant culture.

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

 

For one thing, we would be pointing to racial issues as evidence for the church being what it claims to be rather than evidence against. 

 

Pure speculation, but I imagine we would also have 10x as many members and be the predominent religion for african americans.  We would have a number of black apostles and likely have had a black president of the church by now.  We would not be so US-centric and, in fact, the center of the church could easily be located in Mexico or somewhere else outside the US.  By leading the vanguard on racial issues, we would also be positioned to lead on gender and other issues as well.  In short, our culture would be follow us, rather than the other way around. 

 

Oh, and Jimmy Carter would be a Mormon.  And BYU would have won 10 NCAA championships between '64 and '75 instead of UCLA.  And the storehouse would offer grits (at the moment I have to can my own). 

 

Edit to add:  On a personal note, my family is from southern US heritage.  If the church had lead on racial issues, most likely the church would have had even poorer results in the south and my family may not have joined the church.  In that case, you would not have me pestering you on this board.   

Edited April 22, 2014 by Buckeye

[awyatt]

Pure speculation, but I imagine we would also have 10x as many members and be the predominent religion for african americans.  We would have a number of black apostles and likely have had a black president of the church by now. ... By leading the vanguard on racial issues, we would also be positioned to lead on gender and other issues as well.  In short, our culture would be follow us, rather than the other way around.

I understand that you are (as you say) speculating, but I don't share your assessment. It certainly hasn't worked out that way for the Communities of Christ who have ordained blacks since day one and have been ordaining women since 1985. They've had neither a black or female prophet as of yet, and there is no evidence that in leading their culture they've experienced 10x growth.

 

Oh, and Jimmy Carter would be a Mormon.  And BYU would have won 10 NCAA championships between '64 and '75 instead of UCLA.  And the storehouse would offer grits (at the moment I have to can my own).

That's funny! ;-)

[Scott Lloyd]

 

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.

 

I like what awyatt had to say in response to this, denying that my comment was an ad hom.

 

To that I would just add a question: If I can allow that the erroneous attitudes of Brigham Young (whom I respect and admire) to some degree stemmed from his social environment, why is it so heinous for me to suppose that the same thing happens today to some extent with people who reject teachings of the prophets?

 

You may regard that as a rhetorical question if you like. I don't insist on a response.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[frank_jessop]

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

I wonder how many on this board triumphed the Blacks and Priesthood essay as showing that the Priesthood ban was born out of racism and that the Church completely rejected all past statements regarding the ban?

[Bernard Gui]

Some interesting reading about what was happening in Missouri regarding Mormons and the slavery issue....

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=f3XzioqxpaMC&pg=PA541&lpg=PA541&dq=the+mormons+tampered+with+the+slaves&source=bl&ots=OQafZoaaES&sig=s8rXRxH3jxBB-VMmeKVPmURjZS0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x9RWU7i8HZKoyAToqYGgBQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=the%20mormons%20tampered%20with%20the%20slaves&f=false

 

IMO, had the Church strongly come out for abolition, baptized and ordained black people, and integrated its congregations, it would have been destroyed and the leaders killed.

 

Hence, it may be that in the economy of the Lord, the mild (my term) racism of many LDS leaders was used by God as a tool to defend the Restoration until the time was ripe, and

America and the members of the Church were ready for the Declaration. 

 

I don't believe the masses of Europeans who stocked the early LDS pews would have been favorably impressed by having former slaves as their missionaries and instructors.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

I wonder how many on this board triumphed the Blacks and Priesthood essay as showing that the Priesthood ban was born out of racism and that the Church completely rejected all past statements regarding the ban?

I don't accept your reading that that the essay says it was "born out of racism."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I like what awyatt had to say in response to this, denying that my comment was an ad hom.

 

To that I would just add a question: If I can allow that the erroneous attitudes of Brigham Young (whom I respect and admire) to some degree stemmed from his social environment, why is it so heinous for me to suppose that the same thing happens today to some extent with people who reject teachings of the prophets?

 

You may regard that as a rhetorical question if you like. I don't insist on a response.

 

Consistency is my key. Would you apply the same reasoning to yourself as well as the prophets of our day when they teach and you accept what might be false doctrine? That is do you allow that your attitudes as well as our current prophets are also shaped by our social environment?

[frank_jessop]

Saying that someone chooses what one will accept based on the person's attitudes is not an example of ad hominem. It is a statement of the all-too human condition. There is a complex interrelation of causes that affect our attitudes, and social influence is one of those. We can reject (or accept) the words of others—including, but not limited to, prophets—based upon our attitudes. It happens every day, and it does have direct bearing on the arguments we choose to make.

-Allen

Happens all the time, this board is a great example. This is not a criticism, I think it is good that members can feel comfortable among other members with an apparent "picking and choosing" approach. I think our view of Heaven (various degrees of Glory) support that premise that we are not expected to be exactly on the same page; greater still, is that with the various opinions almost all inherit a Kingdom of Glory in Heaven. Though we should all strive and endure to worthy of the Celestial. Edited April 22, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Ahab]

Meh. Too much work. I have been foreordained to be saved so I guess I do not need one.

But if you had one you could POUND your fist on it and thank GOD that he saved you while telling the sinners to REPENT or go to HELL if they don't.

It's an awful lot of fun, if you haven't tried it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Consistency is my key. Would you apply the same reasoning to yourself as well as the prophets of our day when they teach and you accept what might be false doctrine? That is do you allow that your attitudes as well as our current prophets are also shaped by our social environment?

I think I've already responded to this.

 

I see a far greater likelihood that they are teaching truth and that it is those who are vociferously opposing them who, thus influenced by social environment, are in error.

 

This is due to a great extent to the esteem in which I hold them. I see them as much, much farther advanced in spirituality, wisdom, understanding and experience than I do their most vocal critics.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[frank_jessop]

I don't accept your reading that that the essay says it was "born out of racism."

That is not my reading; though it seems one that some members of the Church accept. Given that, I wonder how many people here do accept that reading of the essay.

[Scott Lloyd]

That is not my reading; though it seems one that some members of the Church accept. Given that, I wonder how many people here do accept that reading of the essay.

Pardon my misunderstanding of your post.

[The Nehor]

But if you had one you could POUND your fist on it and thank GOD that he saved you while telling the sinners to REPENT or go to HELL if they don't.

It's an awful lot of fun, if you haven't tried it.

If I am a Zoramite there is no repentance for them as they are consigned to hell anyways. I am content to wait until they get to hell and then sip margaritas on my pure gold pool chair and laugh at them then when they know how damned they are.

There might be something wrong with me.

[Nevo]

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

The intent of my post was to question Scott's (and Allen's) argument that we should avoid making moral judgments about the prejudiced views against blacks held by past Church leaders—since to judge them by our own standards of right and wrong is to be guilty of arrogant presentism. I basically said that this is all well and good but are you prepared to extend the same courtesy to enemies of the Church? To apply a "no judgment" approach only to revered historical figures seems rather self-serving.

Of course the point I was driving at—by bringing up two notorious individuals whose views Scott would have no trouble condemning—is that it is quite natural and often appropriate to criticize attitudes from the past that any of us would find deplorable were they expressed in the present day.

 

(Then again, I admire historians like Alex Baugh, who, in spite of his inherited biases, was able to extend to Lilburn Boggs exactly the sort of interpretive empathy and charity urged by Scott.)

 

Edited April 22, 2014 by Nevo

[omni]

If BY was a regular member of the church we wouldn't be talking about this.  Prophets are and should be help to a higher standard.  Isn't the very purpose of a living prophet to be a guide in the stormy seas of life?  When the surrounding culture batters our ships with temptation and confusion aren't prophets supposed to direct us to safer seas?  

 

Where were our prophets pre-1978 on this issue?  They weren't leading, they were following.  If a church leader confesses to partaking in alcohol, illegal drugs, fornication, etc., can he excuse himself from disciplinary action simply because these actions are a part of modern culture?

Edited April 22, 2014 by omni

[Scott Lloyd]

Where were our prophets pre-1978 on this issue?  They weren't leading, they were following. 

They were doing what prophets of God do: seeking and receiving divine revelation -- and resisting pressure to act before that revelation was forthcoming.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That is not my reading; though it seems one that some members of the Church accept. Given that, I wonder how many people here do accept that reading of the essay.

I view it as a half step. When the essay came out, many (even some on this board) said the essay didn't say anything new, but was simply restating views expressed before. Dr Greg Smith wrote "This repudiation is not new—various Church leaders have said the same over the years, but it is wonderful to have it on an official webpage approved by the First Presidency." This is false. The priesthood essay was the first time that the church (or any senior leader on public record) specifically identified the doctrine of pre-existent worthiness as a basis for the ban as false. Previous statements merely said we don't know and we shouldn't repeat those things.

 

Similarly, the essay is not explicit on the issue. It is a step in the direction of disavowing the ban itself, but falls short of doing so. If in the future, the Church decides to disavow the ban's divine origins, the church can point to this essay and say that they are not changing their position. They can state that this essay essentially disavowed the ban. If the church decides to reaffirm the divine origin, they can do that too.

Edited April 22, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

If BY was a regular member of the church we wouldn't be talking about this.  Prophets are and should be help to a higher standard.

No, they should not. The path to virtue is the same for them as it is for anyone else. They get no free pass into heaven and they are held to the same standards by God as lay members are. Holding prophets to a higher standard only ensures that God will hold you to whatever arbitrary standard you have chosen for prophets. I commend to you President Uchtdorf's advice: "Stop it."

[Senator]

How so?

Consider the events prior to and after the Civil War.

 

If the church and its leadership had been champions of the black man's cause, how could the church have not seen a much greater influx from that demographic?

[stemelbow]

No, they should not. The path to virtue is the same for them as it is for anyone else. They get no free pass into heaven and they are held to the same standards by God as lay members are. Holding prophets to a higher standard only ensures that God will hold you to whatever arbitrary standard you have chosen for prophets. I commend to you President Uchtdorf's advice: "Stop it."

 

Agreed.  I'm not sure its ever been helpful to argue that prophets should be held to a higher standard.  To do so pretty much argues against the whole plan.