Bishop Dismisses Sunday School Teacher For Using Essay.

[Buckeye]

My comment was to BookofMormonLuvr.

 

And what I said was not just a guess. His blog reflects that he is a disaffected Community of Christ member with loose Restorationist branch leanings. He is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Your statement was premised on his belief about the ban, not his personal narrative on his blog. That's why I jumped in to point out that LDS members can view the ban itself as error.

[Buckeye]

One would hope that some clarification would be forthcoming for a topic that causes such consternation both out, and in, the church.

Would it be so hard to say, "Sometimes we get things wrong."

 

Actually, that is hard, but we're beginning to say it. Consider recent remarks from President Uchtdorf. That said, the real rub is defining "things." Does "things" include scripture, doctrine, and signed FP statements?

[ERayR]

You can't be literally serious. Members make all kinds of declarations the church has not made - weather reports, statements to police officers, etc.

 

I would agree that members should not try to speak on the church's behalf if they lack authority. I think most everyone here agrees with that. However, that doesn't mean members should not state their own personal beliefs, so long as it is understood that they are speaking for themselves. Heck, church leaders do that all the time. As one example, Elder Faust gave his opinion that women should not engage in boxing. He made it clear that was just his opinion. I can't image you would fault Elder Faust for going beyond official church teachings. So why fault other members who state their personal opinion that the ban was not inspired?

 

However, one should not teach their opinion in youth classes especially when you know there is some differences of opinion.

[Gray]

My family heritage includes a lot of bad actions (slavery, breaking family bonds, etc.) At the appropriate age, I teach my children about these actions. Not so that they judge their ancestors, but so they learn how progress takes place. 

 

Each generation receives some measure of evil. The better parts of the generation wrestle with the evil and find ways to hold onto their ancestors without passing the evil on to the future. Emulating Christ, they drink of a bitter cup but don't become bitter themselves. To use racism as an example, my grandparents received a lot of racism and passed only a little to my parents. My parents received that little and passed down none to me. I want my children to understand that their lack of racism is not due to any great effort on my part (or theirs). We're not inherently better than prior generations. Rather, we are blessed to receive the fruits of prior generations' decision to expunge their wrongful traditions.

 

I teach this to my children so that they can properly judge the past, and also so that they are prepared for times in the future when they need to expunge false teachings they have received from my generation.

 

Edit for typos and clarity.

 

Wonderful. I did inherit certain prejudices from my parents that I am trying not to pass down to my child. I am certain I am not a better person than my parents - I just have the perspective gained from the passage of time and history. I'm certain my parents attempted to do the same as I am doing. 

[Gray]

You are begging the question.

 

It's not begging the question to assume that a race based ban is racist. Its tautological and therefore true. Racism is racism. No question need be begged.

 

When, prior to 1978, was there an instance of the president of the Church seeking and receiving clear, revelatory direction on the matter?

 

No prior revelations have been recorded. And that includes any revelation used to institute the ban in the first place

Edited May 6, 2015 by Gray

[Buckeye]

However, one should not teach their opinion in youth classes especially when you know there is some differences of opinion.

 

You may be surprised to learn that I largely agree with you here. Granted, some opinions are fine (vanilla vs. chocolate), but regarding doctrinal things I try to keep my personal views out of church classes with youth. I'll teach my opinion to my own children at home, but I'm careful not to press it on youth at church. If church youth really want to know, I tell them I'm willing to discuss with them and their parents. Keeping the trust of parents is key.

 

 

And to clarify things, I never said that I taught my church youth that I personally believe the ban was in error. I only teach them that that is an acceptable view, along with other views such as that the ban was inspired, but we don't know why.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

My comment was to BookofMormonLuvr.

 

And what I said was not just a guess. His blog reflects that he is a disaffected Community of Christ member with loose Restorationist branch leanings. He is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

WHOAH!! You would think the newspaper guy would have a more keen eye!

I have never been a member of the Community of Christ, ever, never, ever, EVER.

My membership and participation is in a Restoration Branch and participate in a Conference of said Branches where I am on a couple different committees, so I don't know if that fits the definition of "loose".

All that being said, I think for myself, and read the scriptures for myself. I feel absolutely no obligation to tradition and deferring to the "smartest guy in the room" or those with the "button" of "authority".

I believe Hebrew Roots is a movement from God and fill called to work and worship with Latter Day Saints of ALL churches that feel a similar pull towards "the Law".

There is much more to my story, but I hope that clears things up.

[CA Steve]

It looks like the next essay the Church needs to produce is one which explains the proper use and interpretation of the essays.

[ERayR]

You may be surprised to learn that I largely agree with you here. Granted, some opinions are fine (vanilla vs. chocolate), but regarding doctrinal things I try to keep my personal views out of church classes with youth. I'll teach my opinion to my own children at home, but I'm careful not to press it on youth at church. If church youth really want to know, I tell them I'm willing to discuss with them and their parents. Keeping the trust of parents is key.

 

 

And to clarify things, I never said that I taught my church youth that I personally believe the ban was in error. I only teach them that that is an acceptable view, along with other views such as that the ban was inspired, but we don't know why.

 

And that is the way it should be.  One caveat would be that if you mention the ban may be in error that the error may have been for other than racist beliefs.

 

My own belief is that there may have been and probably was errors in implementing church policy and practices.  After all God doesn't not micro-manage.  However I do not teach my list of perceived errors publicly.  I mostly only talk about them to my family and maybe a close friend.

[canard78]

Can we discuss Canard78's wife-beating. I know he will try to derail it with trying to cast doubt on the people making the accusations but can we please accept that we do not have all the facts about whether he beats his wife and just assume the story is true and discuss his wife-beating please?

Please delete this comment about me Nehor. I don't care how funny you think your riposte is. Domestic aduse isn't funny and has no place as a debating analogy.

[The Nehor]

Please delete this comment about me Nehor. I don't care how funny you think your riposte is. Domestic aduse isn't funny and has no place as a debating analogy.

Oh, so have you stopped beating your wife?

[Scott Lloyd]

You can't be literally serious.

 

Well, of course I'm serious.

 

Members make all kinds of declarations the church has not made - weather reports, statements to police officers, etc.

 

The context of my statement was declarations about the Church's position on this or that subject. I should think that would have been self-evident.

 

I would agree that members should not try to speak on the church's behalf if they lack authority. I think most everyone here agrees with that. However, that doesn't mean members should not state their own personal beliefs, so long as it is understood that they are speaking for themselves.

 

 

But you spoke of teaching youth that they are "welcome to conclude" the Church was in error. I presume you meant you do this in the capacity of your calling as a leader in the Church. That's what strikes me as out of line. Was I wrong in my assumption about the setting?

 

Heck, church leaders do that all the time. As one example, Elder Faust gave his opinion that women should not engage in boxing. He made it clear that was just his opinion. I can't image you would fault Elder Faust for going beyond official church teachings. So why fault other members who state their personal opinion that the ban was not inspired?

 

I'm not acquainted with that incident. But, if he made it clear he was not speaking in his capacity as a Church leader, and was not articulating the position of the Church, I see that as a different matter than speaking to youth in a formal setting such as a class in priesthood meeting or the Young Women organization.

 

Once again, I reiterate that calmoriah has given us an appropriate model.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your statement was premised on his belief about the ban, not his personal narrative on his blog. That's why I jumped in to point out that LDS members can view the ban itself as error.

I think it makes a great deal of difference in these discussions whether one professes to accept the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as God's authorized servants on earth.

[carbon dioxide]

I'm an active member who believes the ban was wholly man-made and lacks any scriptural justification. I also believe that most church leaders who instituted and promolgated the ban (including Brigham) did so out of ignorance much more than malice. I have no problem sustaining any of them as leaders.

Just because the ban is not supported directly by the scriptures does not automatically mean it was man made.  I do believe that Brigham Young and the rest until 1978 thought it was instituted by God at some level.  David O Mckay petitioned God on the issue to end the ban and from what he said he was told by the Lord is "Not Yet".  So if God did not start it, that suggests to me by the time David O Mckay was around, God was fully on board with it.  Otherwise he would have told ended it then and not waited to 1978. 

Edited May 6, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Buckeye]

...

 

But you spoke of teaching youth that they are "welcome to conclude" the Church was in error. I presume you meant you do this in the capacity of your calling as a leader in the Church. That's what strikes me as out of line. Was I wrong in my assumption about the setting?

 

...

 

Yes, I teach that a member can conclude the ban was an error. In my view the essay clearly allows for that conclusion. If you don't see that possibility, though, then I understand why you think I was out of line. We'll just have to disagree with whether the essays allows the conclusion.

 

I think it makes a great deal of difference in these discussions whether one professes to accept the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as God's authorized servants on earth.

 

It makes a difference for some things but not here. A member can affirm that the FP/Q12 are authorized servants but still believe them capable of significant error, even doctrinal error.

[Scott Lloyd]

Please delete this comment about me Nehor. I don't care how funny you think your riposte is. Domestic aduse isn't funny and has no place as a debating analogy.

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is perhaps the most common and typical example of the fallacy of the loaded or complex question which is one that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption.

[Buckeye]

Just because the ban is not supported directly by the scriptures does not automatically mean it was man made.  I do believe that Brigham Young and the rest until 1978 thought it was instituted by God at some level.  David O Mckay petitioned God on the issue to end the ban and from what he said he was told by the Lord is "Not Yet".  So if God did not start it, that suggests to me by the time David O Mckay was around, God was fully on board with it.  Otherwise he would have told ended it then and not waited to 1978. 

 

God can tolerate a lot of things without being "fully on board." The "not yet" could be a result of the lack of unanimity in the FP/Q12 on the issue, or the lack of preparation of the church body for the correction. I'm fine with God being patient and allowing a mistake to continue for greater purposes known to him. I'm not fine with God substantively approving of the ban itself. That conflicts with his assurance that He is no respecter of persons.

[rongo]

Please delete this comment about me Nehor. I don't care how funny you think your riposte is. Domestic aduse isn't funny and has no place as a debating analogy.

He's actually making a good point by applying the well-known "have you stopped beating your wife?" analogy. The analogy has its place. Nobody here thinks that you are actually beating your wife (that's what makes it an analogy).

 

This smacks of feigning offense and outrage, canard.

[mormonnewb]

I think it makes a great deal of difference in these discussions whether one professes to accept the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as God's authorized servants on earth.

 

Why?  There are Mormons who accept that the Brethren are the Lord's anointed and still believe that the Brethren make mistakes.  In fact, one of them is in the First Presidency.   His last name is hard to spell, but I think it's Uchtdorf.  You should look him up.

 

 

"And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

 

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes." -- Come Join With Us, October 2013 GC

 

Or is Pres. Uchtdorf not "faithful" enough for your tastes?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think it makes a great deal of difference in these discussions whether one professes to accept the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as God's authorized servants on earth.

Is it OK that I accept Joseph Smith Jr. as the prophet of this last dispensation, and thus...?

Show me where JS, the head of this dispensation, taught any type of Priesthood ban on certain blacks.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I teach that a member can conclude the ban was an error. In my view the essay clearly allows for that conclusion. If you don't see that possibility, though, then I understand why you think I was out of line. We'll just have to disagree with whether the essays allows the conclusion.

 

Personally disagreeing whether it allows for the conclusion is one thing. Teaching youth in a formal Church setting that they are free to conclude the Church erred in this matter, when the Church itself has not acknowledged that, is what I object to.

 

It makes a difference for some things but not here. A member can affirm that the FP/Q12 are authorized servants but still believe them capable of significant error, even doctrinal error.

 

But it is apt to make a difference to a hearer or reader whether one making such an assertion is a member of the Church or not. It becomes a matter of considering the source, which is germane to any discussion.

[rongo]

God can tolerate a lot of things without being "fully on board." 

This is interesting in light of the 19th Century "Does God/the Bible sanction polygamy?" debate (notably the Pratt-Newman debate, but it occurred elsewhere). Anti-Mormons painted themselves in a corner by framing it in terms of "sanction," and Mormons easily demonstrated that it had been commanded and allowed. This led to critics switching to "allowed, but He wasn't happy about it."

 

Which appears to be exactly what LDS critics of the ban argue (i.e., God allowed it, but He wasn't happy with it).   

 

I just find that interesting.

[Scott Lloyd]

He's actually making a good point by applying the well-known "have you stopped beating your wife?" analogy. The analogy has its place. Nobody here thinks that you are actually beating your wife (that's what makes it an analogy).

 

This smacks of feigning offense and outrage, canard.

Perhaps we could take an informal poll: Who here was confused by The Nehor's post into believing that canard78 actually does beat his wife?

[canard78]

Oh, so have you stopped beating your wife?

You can either delete it or I'll report your post. It's not funny and I find it offensive.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is it OK that I accept Joseph Smith Jr. as the prophet of this last dispensation, and thus...?

Show me where JS, the head of this dispensation, taught any type of Priesthood ban on certain blacks.

What a non-member thinks about the position of the Church of Jesus Christ, does not bear as much relevance to the discussion as what a member of the Church thinks. I'm apt to say, "Well, you don't accept the authority of the Church or its leaders in any case, so it's not very remarkable that you disagree with them on this point."