wtrdog Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 It is amazing that they demand every instance of revelation while ignoring the revelation we have and not seeking their ownWhat's amazing is how poor your reading comprehension is. That or you're trolling.
wtrdog Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) reference please? That blacks were officially denied membership? Not rumor.You do know who elder martins was, I hope?Yes, I know who Helvecio Martins was. And he joined in 70s, not 60s or before. And you'll note my mention of a bishop that had blessings revoked. The enforcement of "the ban" was very inconsistent. When missionaries are using color cards as the basis to decide who's got African blood or not it's not hard to imagine how inconsistent that would be. Over time this caused pressure to mount for obvious reasons. The man I know, who I'm not going to out, but you'd know his name guaranteed, actually had a part in easing the ban somewhat in the late 60s. He counseled with Spencer Kimball about problems they were having and Kimball gave him permission to start baptizing people. The history is quite interesting. Anyway, if you do the appropriate leg work this is all easily confirmed. There was a time when people who were too dark were not allowed to be baptized, period. Edited February 13, 2015 by wtrdog
Thinking Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 For what it may be worth, it has been my experience that distrust of institutional revelation is inversely proportional to the experience of personal revelation. Now we need a poll to find out how many people know what inversely proportional means! 1
CV75 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 In the parable of the sown wheat it doesn't say that the heat will scorch the plants without root right away. Many see the gospel the same way they see propositions like "exercise is good for you" or "hard work is often rewarded". It is something that seems to work. Then when something comes up opposing it they only have their intellectual conviction which can be torn down by intellectual doubts. To be clear these are not terrible people looking for an excuse to leave. Many of them are probably better at living the principles of the gospel then I am but they would be better if they sought the witness they need. To be fair I could do better by emulating their living the principles of the gospel. If my apostasy comes it will probably not come from disbelieving the gospel. It will be because I find it too difficult or, worse, decide that the plan is too cruel and too risky and that God is not who I hoped He was.I agree, these are certainly not terrible people. It wouldn't even take a terrible person to decide that the plan is too cruel and too risky, and that God isn't who he hopes He is (parable of the talents, kind of). But I would think even those conclusions could be offset with a spiritual solution if so desired.
Mystery Meat Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 6 And it came to pass that after I had received strength I spake unto my brethren, desiring to know of them the cause of their disputations. 7 And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of theolive tree, and also concerning the Gentiles. 8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord? 9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.
wtrdog Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) For what it may be worth, it has been my experience that distrust of institutional revelation is inversely proportional to the experience of personal revelation.My experience is exactly the opposite. See George A Hicks, Helmuth Hubener, and Lowry Nelson for examples. Distrusting institutional revelation isn't the problem as such a thing would require that institutional revelation existed to begin with. There hasn't been an "institutional revelation" since 1978 and I don't think anybody distrusts that it was inspired. Quite the opposite, members were overjoyed that leaders had finally received the light that most lay members had received many decades earlier.Indeed. No doubt amongst others, I would add the following:Action/obedience. .... Saints who are living below their privileges seem to me to be the first to presume that the prophets of God have been living below theirs."blame the victim" or "shoot the messenger" arguments like this are so tired, not to mention that famous logical fallacy that internet debaters like to toss around because latin makes them sound more educated. Oh, you don't agree with me, it's because you're a sinner! If you think it was wrong for Joseph Smith to bed other men's wives, that bothers you, well, that's because you're a sinner and you simply haven't put your faith into practice. If you think institutional racism and banning blacks was never an inspired practice, you prayed and got the answer "never was inspired," well, it's because you're a sinner... even though church admits the same now, lol.Really? This is your argument? People who are troubled by things like this are only troubled because they fail to put their faith into action? Exactly the opposite is true. The few members who actually do put their faith into action are MORE LIKELY to struggle with these things. And this is proven by the fact that most members don't even know about them. Saints who put their faith into action are the ones that are studying and always trying to improve themselves. And it's horrifying to be confronted with the behavior of so many prophets. Saints who put their faith into action are the ones that actually venture outside their LDS bubble and socialize with non-members. A leader in my stake recently gave a talk about living in the world but not of the world. He talked about how at work he's the only conservative and surrounded by all these nasty liberals and he's made it a rule to not talk about anything that isn't work related. Life must be so hard for him, brings a tear to my eye. He then went on to talk about how in his free time he's filled his life with so much church that he literally doesn't know anybody who isn't a member, and this is in a bible belt area where there are very few LDS. He seemed to think this was a virtue, that he manages to keep himself sparkly clean even while living in babylon. He said that he doesn't even know the names of his next door neighbors, people he's lived next to for years. He admitted though that maybe he should at least step that far outside the bubble, he could probably manage to learn their names without getting drug down to hell. He's as TBM as TBM can be. An understanding of history. I have yet to discover/read about a supposedly 'difficult issue in Mormon history' that doesn't just look like a standard bit of real-world historical complexity. I rather suspect that a lack of historical literacy and familiarity with rigorous historical enquiry has made 'history' a convenient vehicle for those who wish to sow seeds of suspicion, but I'm not convinced that people's problems are, at root, historical.Huh? LOL. "Standard bit of real-world historical complexity." Yeah, that's the whole problem. The race/priesthood issue for instance. The raw history is quite typical, looks very standard and is easily explained. It takes quite the imagination to argue that this racist policy was divinely inspired and commanded by God. All the crazy theories prophets conjured up to explain it, even brilliant theories, very complicated narratives about things that happened in the pre-mortal existence. You find all that to be a better explanation than the very plain and obvious answer that the ban was simply moored in racist cultural attitudes? Where did these theories come from? Prophets, who mistakenly thought the ban was inspired, prayerfully sought reasons to explain it and out popped all this fiction. The history is particularly interesting because it demonstrates in great detail, like watching a train wreck in slow motion, how false doctrine begets more false doctrine, how revelation is such a messy process with a profoundly low confidence interval. Instead of simply discerning the simple answer, "ban not inspired, stop being a racist," they believe themselves to be taught these complex fictional narratives about tribes and divisions and battles in the pre-mortal world? It's hilarious! BY was a early 19th century man and believed that blacks were inferior, plain and simple. That's the simple answer. BY was a racist, as were his successors, and the Lord never ever commanded such a thing. No mental gymnastics required to understand this history at all.What's more likely, was OD1 a true revelation or the practical response to pressure from the government? The government is threatening to send in armies to enforce the law of the land that the church is openly defying. Coincidentally the heaven's open up and God counsels with Wilford Woodruff, having a face to face conversation like we are now, and thereby Woodfuff knows without any doubt whatsoever that he's carrying out the Lord's will. It's not him, he's just following orders. That or Woodruff, using his own mind and intellect, looks at the situation unfolding before him and makes a decision? And a very good one at that. Yes, what is the more likely historical interpretation of these events? Well, just ask any non-LDS historian, you know, the ones who aren't engaging in confirmation bias, and let me know what they say. Oh wait, they already have. Yeah, they don't think any of these events demonstrate a pattern that would support the idea that these men were being influenced by anything other than their culture. If Brigham Young had been giving "I have a dream" speeches and leading a moral cause that was ahead of the times, you'd have something. Instead, he said horribly racist things, the church opposed the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s/60s and accused it of being a communist plot to overthrow the world, and then didn't do away with its own institutional racism until nearly two decades after the civil rights movement in 1978 when so much pressure had mounted BYU was on the verge of losing accreditation. The standard historical interpretation is that the church is run by very old men who are influenced by the culture of their upbringing more than anything and this is why it took until 1978 to end the ban. 15 very old men who were born in the 1890s had to unanimously agree to end the ban. Of course it took until 1978!!!! However, because I interpret this in the very plain and obvious way that any honest and rationale person would interpret it, I'm a sinner, and my problems aren't actually historical but rooted in some other dastardly thing that we dare not talk about.What historical journal is it that you edit? The Onion?You are out of the thread for personal insults. -Ares Edited February 13, 2015 by Ares 1
stemelbow Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 reference please? That blacks were officially denied membership? Not rumor. You do know who elder martins was, I hope? http://www.amazon.com/Saints-Slaves-Blacks-Mormonism-Contributions/dp/0313227527 Hi Danzo. The linked book gets into this in the last chapter. As I recall, it became a policy to not teach and convert black people for a while, mostly in the 50s and 60s. Also it was taught that blacks would not receive the priesthood until many years after the 60s. I think it was President McKay himself who suggested that blacks would not receive the priesthood in his life nor in the life of a particular reporter who was interviewing him--that reporter was quite young.
Popular Post BlueDreams Posted February 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2015 I'm having one of those moments where this current discussion about doctrine, blacks and the priesthood, etc just feels extremely ironic. Because it started off with a quote from Holland stating this: "What conceivable historical or doctrinal or procedural issue that may arise among any group could ever overshadow or negate one’s consuming spiritual conviction regarding the Father’s merciful plan of salvation, His only begotten Son’s birth, mission, atonement and resurrection, the reality of the first vision, the restoration of the priesthood, the receipt of divine revelation both personally and institutionally, the soul shaping spirit and moving power of the Book of Mormon, the awe and majesty of the temple endowment, one’s own personal experience with true miracles, and on and on and on? " This then leads to a discussion on what is trite or the semantics of whether this or that should be considered revelation. Which then leads to an even more narrow of how we can really know whether something is really doctrine or not. Or whether we can really trust these revelations because things like the priesthood ban happened and festers for decades. To an explanation of how basically 2-3 points (ban, polygamy, oddly the Proc, etc) that are being expanded to point out all the mess and how it must, somehow, cast doubt onto the call of prophets, revelation, etc. And now to a discussion about what the ban did or did not entail. ....the irony is just that this seems like the ultimate example of Holland's point. Small things eclipsing the majesty of the overall Gospel and truth of the Restoration. The irony of where this has gone is then further personally enhanced in my day-to-day life. For one I'm half black (so don't say I don't understand the gravity of the topic, wtrdog.....it just ain't gonna end well on that note). And for another, I spent an hour watching a live panel discussion of race and the LDS church by a panel largely comprised of people with African decent. In it, they talked about their exploration and knowledge about the ban and their experience as black/biracial people and their interactions with the church. As well as how race played out in their present experience. 2 were converts and 2 were life-long members. Each one, in some form noted what really made the difference for them: their conversion and faith....this included gaining a testimony of the BoM and strengthening their relationship with Christ, gaining strong witness of the restoration and JS as a prophet, general conversion and certainty of the purpose of the church, etc. This, in the words of one, somehow made the rest "okay" (in the sense of being at greater peace with uncertain things). So you see, this discussion after that just seems so ironic. With luv,BD 8
canard78 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 For what it may be worth, it has been my experience that distrust of institutional revelation is inversely proportional to the experience of personal revelation.Nice slur. Ironically I reached the conclusion that institutional revelation was unreliable and rare while praying in the celestial room of the Preston Temple. 1
bluebell Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Ironically I reached the conclusion that institutional revelation was unreliable and rare while praying in the celestial room of the Preston Temple. You were praying in the temple when you realized that there is absolutely nothing special about temples? 3
wtrdog Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 So you see, this discussion after that just seems so ironic. I see it as evidence of precisely why Holland is wrong. Raising his voice and pounding on the podium doesn't resolve the issues, the very act of which is psychologically driven by his inability to do so. It would seem that all Holland can do is click his heels while screaming "there's no place like home." In a greater sense he also simply doesn't understand these questioners that he speaks of, or the questions that they are asking. Stealing an analogy I saw on another forum, Holland is caught in a positive feedback loop. He also admitted this when he said, "Their irreplaceable centrality in my life, and the realization that I simply could not live. I could not go on without them." Holland is entrenched to a point where he is neither subject to doubt or able to even comprehend it because of the deep social and emotional support he receives from the members. His family, life, anything and everything that is dear to him is wholly dependent on how he perceives the gospel and world around him. Expecting objectivity from Jeffrey R. Holland would be like trying to convert Joseph Goebbels to capitalism.
Guest Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 On February 6, 2015, Jeffrey R. Holland spoke in the Salt Lake Tabernacle. Link Near the end of his talk, he gets very animated when talking about those who lose their faith. The quote below begins at 50:50. Is this an indication that the brethren are very concerned about the number of members who are losing their faith?I think they are concerned and it is their calling to leave the 99 and go after the one...this is the calling of all the righteous leaders whom The Lord calls, and every member he gives a testimony. If my me by "animated" which also means emotional, then I would expect this since it is an emotional issue. I would pray that if I left the Church, that my leaders, my home teachers and my friends would be emotional and not just say, "oh well". Also he has always be a very emotional Apostle and speaker...this is why I live him so much. I just wish every GA would follow his lead. I would love to have less polished talks and more sermons that help us feel the Spirit they are feeling at that time. Same with Pews Erying (hope I spelled his name right) who always shows emotion that he can hardly contain his tears and often cannot contain at all. So to answer your question are the GA's concerned...of course they are, as they are called of God. I am a nobody, and I am concerned...I have a heart, can't help it I was born with it and being tender hearted makes me more concerned and emotional.
canard78 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 You were praying in the temple when you realized that there is absolutely nothing special about temples?What are you talking about? I've said nothing about temples. I consider them to be very special places.
Duncan Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 What are you talking about? I've said nothing about temples. I consider them to be very special places. you said you were praying in the Celestial room of the Preston Temple "Ironically I reached the conclusion that institutional revelation was unreliable and rare while praying in the celestial room of the Preston Temple."
Calm Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 "hour watching a live panel discussion of race and the LDS church"Do you know if it was recorded and will be available?
Popular Post BlueDreams Posted February 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2015 I see it as evidence of precisely why Holland is wrong. Raising his voice and pounding on the podium doesn't resolve the issues, the very act of which is psychologically driven by his inability to do so. It would seem that all Holland can do is click his heels while screaming "there's no place like home." In a greater sense he also simply doesn't understand these questioners that he speaks of, or the questions that they are asking. Stealing an analogy I saw on another forum, Holland is caught in a positive feedback loop. He also admitted this when he said, "Their irreplaceable centrality in my life, and the realization that I simply could not live. I could not go on without them." Holland is entrenched to a point where he is neither subject to doubt or able to even comprehend it because of the deep social and emotional support he receives from the members. His family, life, anything and everything that is dear to him is wholly dependent on how he perceives the gospel and world around him. Expecting objectivity from Jeffrey R. Holland would be like trying to convert Joseph Goebbels to capitalism. And this is just plain ridiculous. You've done a fair amount of mind reading for Holland's feelings and motivations. Then make unfounded assertions about a 1-3 minute piece of a talk. Follow by jumping to conclusions (he did not mention social emotional support of members.....he was talking about the core gospel message (ie. Christ) and the restored covenants tied to it). And then assume that I would even expect objectivity from him....or that being "objective" for anyone on earth is actually an obtainable goal (Hint: it's not.....it's really really not). So you can read whatever you like in Holland's words, but just don't pretend that it's coming anywhere near this standard of objectivity or "lack of bias" that you value so much. Also be aware of that's part of the point that I see in Holland's word and my own personal sentiments: We are going to move with a bias, whether we like it or not, make your bias faith and the Gospel fundamentals as the source of your alignment. Personally, I would rather that be my bias than another philosophical bend because of what it has helped me become. With luv,BD 7
BlueDreams Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 "hour watching a live panel discussion of race and the LDS church"Do you know if it was recorded and will be available? I'm not sure. I can ask someone though....I think it might have been recorded.
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 I'm having one of those moments where this current discussion about doctrine, blacks and the priesthood, etc just feels extremely ironic. Because it started off with a quote from Holland stating this: "What conceivable historical or doctrinal or procedural issue that may arise among any group could ever overshadow or negate one’s consuming spiritual conviction regarding the Father’s merciful plan of salvation, His only begotten Son’s birth, mission, atonement and resurrection, the reality of the first vision, the restoration of the priesthood, the receipt of divine revelation both personally and institutionally, the soul shaping spirit and moving power of the Book of Mormon, the awe and majesty of the temple endowment, one’s own personal experience with true miracles, and on and on and on? " This then leads to a discussion on what is trite or the semantics of whether this or that should be considered revelation. Which then leads to an even more narrow of how we can really know whether something is really doctrine or not. Or whether we can really trust these revelations because things like the priesthood ban happened and festers for decades. To an explanation of how basically 2-3 points (ban, polygamy, oddly the Proc, etc) that are being expanded to point out all the mess and how it must, somehow, cast doubt onto the call of prophets, revelation, etc. And now to a discussion about what the ban did or did not entail. ....the irony is just that this seems like the ultimate example of Holland's point. Small things eclipsing the majesty of the overall Gospel and truth of the Restoration. The irony of where this has gone is then further personally enhanced in my day-to-day life. For one I'm half black (so don't say I don't understand the gravity of the topic, wtrdog.....it just ain't gonna end well on that note). And for another, I spent an hour watching a live panel discussion of race and the LDS church by a panel largely comprised of people with African decent. In it, they talked about their exploration and knowledge about the ban and their experience as black/biracial people and their interactions with the church. As well as how race played out in their present experience. 2 were converts and 2 were life-long members. Each one, in some form noted what really made the difference for them: their conversion and faith....this included gaining a testimony of the BoM and strengthening their relationship with Christ, gaining strong witness of the restoration and JS as a prophet, general conversion and certainty of the purpose of the church, etc. This, in the words of one, somehow made the rest "okay" (in the sense of being at greater peace with uncertain things). So you see, this discussion after that just seems so ironic. With luv,BDIt is ironic.
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Nice slur. Ironically I reached the conclusion that institutional revelation was unreliable and rare while praying in the celestial room of the Preston Temple.So this was a personal revelation? 1
bluebell Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) What are you talking about? I've said nothing about temples. I consider them to be very special places. Sorry. It's just that temples are the result of 'institutional revelation' which you seemed to imply in the past doesn't exist so that confused me. Edited February 13, 2015 by bluebell 4
Calm Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 I'm not sure. I can ask someone though....I think it might have been recorded. Thanks
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted February 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Yes, what is the more likely historical interpretation of these events? And here is the crux of the matter. As you've acknowledged in your question, historical data do not speak for themselves; rather, they must be interpreted. And the simply reality is that the same data can be slotted into competing interpretations. For example, a person can look at what we know about the beginnings of Latter-day Saint polygamy and fit the data into a narrative that paints Joseph Smith as a lecher. At the same time, another person can look at the same information and fit the data, just as easily, into a narrative that paints Joseph Smith as a prophet who did his mortal best to carry out complex revelation. Which of these two interpretations a person will be inclined to favour is not a function, however, of a superior ability to access the 'truth' of the past. We all face the same limitations in this regard, and you have no more access to the mind of Joseph Smith (or any other prophet) than I do. The pool of data in both cases is identically shallow. So what explains the choices people make when choosing which interpretation they prefer? When I teach first-year history courses (here at Onion University!), we discuss how scholars and others gravitate towards interpretative frameworks that align with the usually unspoken and often unrecognised assumptions they bring to the historical enterprise. In most cases, these assumptions arise from -- and at minimum are informed by -- our personal experiences. And this means that the interpretation a person is inclined to favour tells us far, far more about the personal experiences of the person than it does about the past. Latter-day Saints who recognise their own personal experiences in more 'faithful' historical narratives will feel drawn to embrace those narratives as 'true'. Latter-day Saints who find 'faithful' interpretations alien to their own personal experiences will feel drawn to other, competing narratives. In other words, the 'more likely historical interpretation of these events' is the one that feels most familiar to the individual answering your question. And that's why, as I asserted previously, the Saints who live below their privileges almost inevitably conclude that the prophets of God have been living below theirs. Edited February 13, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan 6
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 And this is just plain ridiculous. You've done a fair amount of mind reading for Holland's feelings and motivations. No, I haven't. You're missing the point. Holland is standing in judgement of others, just as is almost everybody on this forum who's attempting to defend his remarks with their "blame the victim" arguments. 1
Popular Post bluebell Posted February 14, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 14, 2015 No, I haven't. You're missing the point. Holland is standing in judgement of others, just as is almost everybody on this forum who's attempting to defend his remarks with their "blame the victim" arguments. You've judged people on this thread as much as anyone else. But I don't see that that's automatically a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with judging each other, if the judgements are righteous and if we are willing to be judged by the same standard. 5
BlueDreams Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 No, I haven't. You're missing the point. Holland is standing in judgement of others, just as is almost everybody on this forum who's attempting to defend his remarks with their "blame the victim" arguments Huh? ....on second thought, what bluebell said. 2
Recommended Posts