Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Climbing Our Temporal Rameumptoms


Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

 

I largely agree with you, but it's worth pointing out that church policies for disciplinary councils instruct leaders to consider a members' position in the church as a relevant factor for deciding the appropriate sanction for an offense.  In other words, a bishop who has an affair is very likely to receive a harsher punishment than an assistant scoutmaster.  My understanding for why this is so is: (i) an offense by a higher profile member is more damaging to the church's image and (ii) someone who is entrusted with more church responsibility is held to a higher standard. 

 

In my personal judgment, if a member of the church were to be interviewed by the press and in the interview they expressed the view that blacks were less valient in the pre-existence (a teaching the church disavows), the reaction of the church to that event would be harsher if the person were a stake president than if he were a sunday school teacher.  Likewise, the fact that Brigham or other church presidents taught racist ideologies may be viewed more seriously than if the same things had been taught by Joe pioneer. 

Posted

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

Oh, so sorry.  We only do business by mail.  :(  However, send your check or money order for $19.95 to

 

Holy Stand

P O Box 7890

Stamford CT 06780.

Posted (edited)

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.

You misunderstand, which misunderstanding I'm glad to lay at my own feet for my apparent inability to express myself adequately.

I take the key word in your above statement as "arrogant." I have no problem in judging the actions of those of the past. In fact, I agree with your statement 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." The key is to be very, very careful that we don't do it arrogantly.

You see, you rightly (in my opinion) include the qualifiers that I would make. I believe Brigham Young (or 99% of the other folks who lived in his century) would be considered racist if they lived today. I have no problem with that; I have no problem judging them by today's standards if they live, temporally, under those standards.

What I have problems with is categorically stating that "Brigham Young [or any other person from a past era] was a racist." There is no allowance for charity in so stating, there is only blanket condemnation. And, along with that condemnation goes—all too often—dismissal. As the saying goes, we stand upon the shoulders of giants, but we seem to lose sight of that in denigrating those giants when it suits our purposes.

Fact of the matter is, Brigham Young (used as a surrogate here for any other person you want to pick from that era) was not a racist by the mores or morals of his day. (I use "mores" and "morals" interchangeably, with a head nod to the Wikipedia article that Ben highlighted earlier in this thread.) Yet, folks like Jana Riess feel justified in making blanket statements that "Yes, Brigham Young was clearly a racist."

There is no grace in such statements. There is no charity in such statements. There is no mercy in such statements. There is only the specter of judge, jury, and executioner.

We want the Lord to overlook our weaknesses and to extend mercy to us. Yet, we are very quick to mount our high horses (or Rameumptoms, if you prefer) and condemn those of past eras who don't measure up to our ideas of moral rectitude.

They were people who saw through a glass darkly. We may think that we see through that glass more clearly and, perhaps, we do. But to judge and label them because they were "racist" in a society where that was the norm doesn't help anyone see more clearly because it blinds us to our own shortcomings and sets us up as moral arbiters. It also sets us up for the fall when our descendents reject our norms and consider us guilty of whatever they accept, at that time, as normal.

I believe that Christ taught something that is applicable here when talking to the scribes and Pharisees who said "had we lived in that previous day, we would not have stoned the prophets." In other words, they claimed that they would not have chosen as their fathers did. (See, among others, Matthew 23:29-33.) I fear that people who unconditionally condemn those from past eras as if they would have chosen any different fall under the same condemnation. Fact is, they *wouldn't* have chosen different had they lived then. And because they wouldn't have chosen differently, it is hard for me to see how there is any valid claim of inherent moral superiority on the part of the accusers.

If we want to have claim on mercy, we must show mercy. Including to those who lived in different times and places.

 

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.

Yes, I am willing to extend the same courtesy.

Edited by awyatt
Posted

You see, you rightly (in my opinion) include the qualifiers that I would make. I believe Brigham Young (or 99% of the other folks who lived in his century) would be considered racist if they lived today. I have no problem with that; I have no problem judging them by today's standards if they live, temporally, under those standards.

What I have problems with is categorically stating that "Brigham Young [or any other person from a past era] was a racist." There is no allowance for charity in so stating, there is only blanket condemnation. And, along with that condemnation goes—all too often—dismissal. As the saying goes, we stand upon the shoulders of giants, but we seem to lose sight of that in denigrating those giants when it suits our purposes.

Fact of the matter is, Brigham Young (used as a surrogate here for any other person you want to pick from that era) was not a racist by the mores or morals of his day. (I use "mores" and "morals" interchangeably, with a head nod to the Wikipedia article that Ben highlighted earlier in this thread.) Yet, folks like Jana Riess feel justified in making blanket statements that "Yes, Brigham Young was clearly a racist."

There is no grace in such statements. There is no charity in such statements. There is no mercy in such statements. There is only the specter of judge, jury, and executioner.

I think the problem is that you view Jana's use of the word "racist" as a condemnation of Brigham without grace and without charity. Indeed, when some people apply the term, they do just that. Jana, however, while noting that Brother Brigham meets our current definition of "racist" states:

 

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.

I’m going to close with some wise words from the comments on Monday’s post.

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?

Do you really think that she was judging Brigham with no charity and no mercy?

Posted (edited)

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?

In Missouri the church and its leadership would have been destroyed.

There would have been little or no missionary success in Europe nor in any southern states

nor in many northern states and Canada.

If it survived Missouri, it would not have survived the Civil War or the aftermath.

Just like the rest of the country, it would have been divided by the slavery question.

Along with ordination to the priesthood would have come all the baggage we have grown accustomed

to, but would have been unacceptable except among the most extreme abolitionists. Ordination to

the priesthood would have immediately integrated the church and put slaves in leadership positions

over white people.

 

Neither America nor the church nor any other country at the time would have accepted that.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Posted

In Missouri the church and its leadership would have been destroyed.

There would have been little or no missionary success in Europe.

If it survived Missouri, it would not have survived the Civil War or the aftermath.

If you want to take this view that is fine. The same line of logic could dictate that God has not revealed Gay Marriage yet because if he had, the church would have been destroyed.

 

Elder Pratt recalled the following conversation between Brigham and Joseph:

Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me." Brigham arose and said, "Don't tell me anything that I can't bear, for I don't want to apostatize.

Can you think of anything more likely than Gay Marriage to elicit such a statement? Just saying  ;) 

Posted

Do you really think that she was judging Brigham with no charity and no mercy?

I tend that way, as I find that she exhibits very little of either in her follow-up comments at her RNS blog. In one comment she rejects an offered "gentler interpretation" of some of Young's statements and in another she attributes the priesthood ban to "Brigham Young's racist views of the day."

Posted

If you want to take this view that is fine. The same line of logic could dictate that God has not revealed Gay Marriage yet because if he had, the church would have been destroyed.

 

Elder Pratt recalled the following conversation between Brigham and Joseph:

"Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me." Brigham arose and said, "Don't tell me anything that I can't bear, for I don't want to apostatize."

 

Can you think of anything more likely than Gay Marriage to elicit such a statement? Just saying  ;) 

It is interesting to me that those who suppose they can bear more, or demand to bear more, or speculate what “more” consists of, aren’t any more shielded from apostatizing. That’s simply isn’t how it works. At least Brigham Young had a sense of his limitations, and Joseph Smith had an understanding of human nature and that truth can solicit an apostatizing reaction as much as a lie can, depending on the preparedness of the recipient.

But I think that no matter what can be said that could turn people off to Church leaders and practices past and present, it is our countenance that draws people to the most important things they had and have to offer: the saving keys.

Posted

In Missouri the church and its leadership would have been destroyed.

There would have been little or no missionary success in Europe nor in any southern states

nor in many northern states and Canada.

If it survived Missouri, it would not have survived the Civil War or the aftermath.

Just like the rest of the country, it would have been divided by the slavery question.

Along with ordination to the priesthood would have come all the baggage we have grown accustomed

to, but would have been unacceptable except among the most extreme abolitionists. Ordination to

the priesthood would have immediately integrated the church and put slaves in leadership positions

over white people.

 

Neither America nor the church nor any other country at the time would have accepted that.

You may well be right.

Posted (edited)

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."

 

This simply isn't true, and nor is it doctrinal.  Leaders of any organization are held to a higher standard.  A lowly government beaurocrat gets caught in an extramarital affair, no big deal, no disciplinary action, and no one hears about it.  The POTUS gets caught having an affair, well we already know what happens in this case.  Or a little closer to home, a inactive married priesthood holder, an active LDS woman, and a Stake president all have affairs ( not together :)) do you really believe the ecclesiastical punishment will be the same for each individual?  Where much is given, much is expected...

 

Edit:  I see Buckeye has beat me to my point ;)

Edited by omni
Posted

This simply isn't true, and nor is it doctrinal.  Leaders of any organization are held to a higher standard.  A lowly government beaurocrat gets caught in an extramarital affair, no big deal, no disciplinary action, and no one hears about it.  The POTUS gets caught having an affair, well we already know what happens in this case.  Or a little closer to home, a inactive married priesthood holder, an active LDS woman, and a Stake president all have affairs ( not together :)) do you really believe the ecclesiastical punishment will be the same for each individual?  Where much is given, much is expected...

 

Edit:  I see Buckeye has beat me to my point ;)

Yet all of those refer to being judged by other men. It is true someone in authority is judged more harshly by the public or even Priesthood leaders. I see no evidence that this is the case at the Final Judgment or that God sees it differently.

Posted

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

 

 

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

 

I'm absolutely fine with you not sharing them on this board. I understand people not wanting to share all of their personal, sacred experiences in an environment where some people can be dismissive and scathing. I know I can be that person sometimes.

 

But... can I clarify what you're saying (without asking specifics if possible).

 

Are you saying that you feel you personally know the things that are currently being taught as "doctrine" but that are only manifestations of the leader's cultural bias (as perhaps endogamy was 50-60 years ago)? Do you mean you've already identified the things that you think in another 50-60 years will have been discarded as not doctrinal any more?

Posted

In Missouri the church and its leadership would have been destroyed.

There would have been little or no missionary success in Europe nor in any southern states

nor in many northern states and Canada.

If it survived Missouri, it would not have survived the Civil War or the aftermath.

Just like the rest of the country, it would have been divided by the slavery question.

Along with ordination to the priesthood would have come all the baggage we have grown accustomed

to, but would have been unacceptable except among the most extreme abolitionists. Ordination to

the priesthood would have immediately integrated the church and put slaves in leadership positions

over white people.

 

Neither America nor the church nor any other country at the time would have accepted that.

 

In 1836 Elijah Abel was ordained an Elder. This was three years after WW Phelps' "Free People of Color" editorial lead to the destruction of his printing press (and the prints of the Book of Commandments).

 

Could you show me any evidence of the work slowing in Europe, the Missourians destroying the church etc in response to Abel's ordination?

Posted

I tend that way, as I find that she exhibits very little of either in her follow-up comments at her RNS blog. In one comment she rejects an offered "gentler interpretation" of some of Young's statements and in another she attributes the priesthood ban to "Brigham Young's racist views of the day."

Have you reviewed the thread(s) on this board discussing the essay posted on lds.org discussing the priesthood and race?

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

Was the priesthood ban racist?

Posted

Yet all of those refer to being judged by other men. It is true someone in authority is judged more harshly by the public or even Priesthood leaders. I see no evidence that this is the case at the Final Judgment or that God sees it differently.

 

It thought disciplinary courts and there final punishments (or lack there of) were led by the Spirit?

Posted (edited)

I'm absolutely fine with you not sharing them on this board. I understand people not wanting to share all of their personal, sacred experiences in an environment where some people can be dismissive and scathing. I know I can be that person sometimes.

 

But... can I clarify what you're saying (without asking specifics if possible).

 

Are you saying that you feel you personally know the things that are currently being taught as "doctrine" but that are only manifestations of the leader's cultural bias (as perhaps endogamy was 50-60 years ago)? Do you mean you've already identified the things that you think in another 50-60 years will have been discarded as not doctrinal any more?

I'm saying that I've expressed a general principle about personal humility, prayerfulness and seeking spiritual guidance that I don't want to lead into an endless back-and-forth about whether this or that pronouncement, policy or practice was truly inspired.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted

Have you reviewed the thread(s) on this board discussing the essay posted on lds.org discussing the priesthood and race?

Yes, I have. I've heard (and read) everything presented here, and more.

Was the priesthood ban racist?

Are you sure you want to go down that path again? Have you not "reviewed the thread(s) on this board discussing ... priesthood and race?"

Posted

"In climbing the tower we jettison charity and cloak ourselves in pride." That's a nice line, but I don't think Jana Riess and canard78 have "cloaked themselves in pride" by simply noting the racism of past Church leaders. The recent statement on race and the Priesthood declares that "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." I am willing to grant Church members the same privilege.

 

That said, I am sympathetic to your attempt to rescue Brigham Young and other historical figures from what E.P. Thompson once termed "the enormous condescension of posterity." Brigham Young was shaped by his circumstances, as we all are. Had he lived in a different time and place, undoubtedly he would have said and done some things differently. I don't think we should ignore or minimize those views that we would now consider to be in error, but neither should they be given undue prominence. We cannot avoid making judgments, but we should take care to judge righteous judgment.

 

I've always been touched by Winston Churchill's eloquent tribute to Neville Chamberlain, a man "contradicted by events." I quote only a portion here:

 

I'm going to try to make some comments and contributions to this thread. But it is unlikely to be as eloquent or balanced as Nevo. So I'll just start by saying: "I agree with Nevo."

 

(Perhaps that should be my response in most cases)

Posted

I'm saying that I've expressed a general principle about personal humility, prayerfulness and seeking spiritual guidance that I don't want to lead into an endless back-and-forth about whether this or that pronouncement, policy or practice was truly inspired.

 

Thanks for the answer.

 

I suppose my concern with prophets runs deeper. I accept that there's a risk of arrogance and a dismissive nature if one starts to feel it's OK to criticise the brethren for their opinions or prayerfully guided thoughts. I'm not trying to say I know better than them (though I accept it can come across in that way to some readers here).

 

I'm saying that when I look back through conference talks there are times when they teach things that I don't believe were inspired by God. Or at the very least that they teach things that do not apply to me. We are taught time and again to pray about the things our leaders teach. To not  "...blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to think and discover truth for ourselves. We are expected to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth."

 

If, therefore, we're asked to not blindly accept everything we hear, should we not go through the process of listening, considering, praying and either embracing or rejecting.

 

Sometimes it might appear that I am calling out prophets/apostles (tautology? ... an apostle is a prophet) for being wrong. It's not really my intention. I'm instead (usually when pressed) sharing examples of things said that I do not agree with. Sometimes because I've prayed about it and sometimes because it jars with my understanding of the gospel, the nature of God or our purpose on earth.

 

What to do then? If you intermingle with other members who are "absolutists" at church, who take every word from the general conference as unquestionable and concrete doctrine (as if from the very mouth of God) how do you deal with that? If I am not able to have that perspective (while still sustaining them as the organisation's leaders) is my only option to bite my tongue.

 

I ask this sincerely. If you've reached a position of humility to simply set aside certain teachings without the need to publicly rail against them, then that's great. I'm not trying to rail against them either. Instead I'm trying to work out how to be part of a faith-group who (in the majority) see the prophets as speaking "as if God is speaking" when I believe the prophets are speaking as inspired men. Articulating inspired ideas in their own, imperfect and culturally influenced ways.

Posted

If one spends enough time around a large group of people of a different race from their own , a couple of things tend to happen.

1. One begins to form opinions about the group , positive or negative.

2. The group begins to form opinions about the stranger and his people , positive or negative.

This is true even about folks from a town with which one has a fierce sports completion.

As long as the opinions are positive then it is not considered racism, but perhaps it actually is.

I have said this before. If you think that white Americans have a corner on racist thinking, you are sorely mistaken. If the gospel had been restored in Japan in 1830 , I wonder what %age of the church would be black, or white for that matter.

Posted

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.

 

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. Given I've lost full confidence in prophets 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.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...