Bishop Dismisses Sunday School Teacher For Using Essay.

[Calm]

"Anything regarding black history before 1978 is irrelevant," Dawson recalls his bishop saying, "and a moot point."

 

I wonder if this is a result of confusion on someone's part of an application of what BRM stated, as in meaning something along the lines of 'we should reject any teachings on blacks (their spiritual state in general) made prior to 1978 as the revelation makes any distinction of race meaningless' getting interpreted to mean 'we should ignore blacks in the Church prior to 1978'.  The "and a moot point" seems awkward and out of place when talking about history itself as opposed to the issue of discarded teachings:

 

Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas/Neutral_in_%22war_in_heaven%22#cite_note-7

[ttribe]

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?

I can see why he is upset. Just because frequent users of this board are familiar with that particular rhetorical tactic doesn't mean everyone is and the average search bot certainly doesn't make any distinction. Ultimately, it's probably harmless but certainly in very poor taste.

[Buckeye]

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.

 

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.

 

The bold part is where we disagree. I believe the church, through the essay, has acknowledged that it is acceptable to view the ban itself as a mistake. That's why I teach that it is allowed.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

 

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

Just a hunch, but I think President Uchtdorf might object to his words being twisted into meaning something he did not say.

 

By the way, you not only spelled the name right, but you got the title right ("President" as opposed to "Elder"). Congratulations.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

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?

 

Or perhaps we could just honor Canard's wishes. Seriously, whether of not the phrase is common is not the point. The use of the phrase by Nehor was not particularly germane to this thread. Canard found it offensive. The phrase should be removed. It's really that simple.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can see why he is upset. Just because frequent users of this board are familiar with that particular rhetorical tactic doesn't mean everyone is and the average search bot certainly doesn't make any distinction. Ultimately, it's probably harmless but certainly in very poor taste.

Perhaps.

 

I'm going to back away from this as being a hill not worth dying on.

 

(Or is that stock analogy offensive as well? Hills and battles and war and death and such. Pretty morbid when you think about it.)

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

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

No. Stop. Don't. Help! There's a peck here with an acorn pointed at me!

If you feel the need to report an obvious reference to a common fallacy as being aimed at your personal character then you gotta do what you've gotta do.

[Scott Lloyd]

Or perhaps we could just honor Canard's wishes. Seriously, whether of not the phrase is common is not the point. The use of the phrase by Nehor was not particularly germane to this thread. Canard found it offensive. The phrase should be removed. It's really that simple.

OK.

 

Shall I remove my analogy about fighting and dying on a hill not worth dying over?

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The bold part is where we disagree. I believe the church, through the essay, has acknowledged that it is acceptable to view the ban itself as a mistake. That's why I teach that it is allowed.

I see that as an unjustifiable stretch in reasoning on your part.

 

Why not use calmoriah's approach? It does not assume facts not in evidence.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[BookofMormonLuvr]

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."

First, I have no idea what they believe about the issue, because they won't just come out and say it- so I have no idea whether I agree with them or not.

Second, you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of what I believe- but you are fond of making assumptions- which your complete misrepresentation of my website ably shows..

[Scott Lloyd]

First, I have no idea what they believe about the issue, because they won't just come out and say it- so I have no idea whether I agree with them or not.

Second, you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of what I believe- but you are fond of making assumptions- which your complete misrepresentation of my website ably shows..

How did I misrepresent your website? You have even acknowledged  you are not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

I'll go back and look. Perhaps I misremembered what I read about your religious background.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here's what I found:

 

I am not trying to start a new church in the Restoration Movement. I am just trying to provide a place where those with an interest in a more Hebraic approach to their worship can come to learn and fellowship together. I personally pay my tithing to the Joint Conference of Restoration Branches (JCRB) to assist the Seventy in their missionary work and work and associate with the Restoration Branches in the Independence District.

 

I guess I got the impression you are disaffected Community of Christ member, because most people in the "Restoration Branches" are. That, in fact, is how they got started: as a schimatic movement of those who did not like the new direction the RLDS/Community of Christ is taking.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

OK.

 

Shall I remove my analogy about dying on a hill?

 

Only if someone objects and the removal wouldn't harm the thread.

 

 

I see that as an unjustifiable stretch in reasoning on your part.

 

Why not use calmoriah's approach? It does not assume facts not in evidence.

 

Again, we disagree. That's fine.

 

To answer your question, though, I find it helpful to present this option because many youth already believe this (that the ban was wrong) and the knowledge that their belief is acceptable is reassuring. It can be very damaging to a youth's testimony to force them into essentially the following conundrum: "the church has acknowledged that all the justifications we gave are wrong, but you can't believe the ban itself was wrong; no, you have to keep wrestling until you come up with a better reason than those given by prophets and apostles for 100+ years." I find that kind of challenge to be too much for some youth (and frankly some adults).

[canard78]

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 you've never known anyone who's actually been beaten by their husband then. I don't care what you find suitable as an analogy. Use among yourselves if you want, keep me out of it.

Shall I start asking you questions about child abuse and your daughter next? Amusing? Thought not.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

How did I misrepresent your website? You have even acknowledged  you are not a Church member.

 

I'll go back and look. Perhaps I misremembered what I read about your religious background.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here's what I found:

 

I guess I got the impression you are disaffected Community of Christ member, because most people in the "Restoration Branches" are. That, in fact, is how they got started: as a schimatic movement of those who did not like the new direction the RLDS/Community of Christ is taking.

Here is my religious background (from the beginning):

 

1) LDS

2) Fundamentalist Mormon

3) Restoration Branches (w/ a fiercely independent streak that fits neither "Josephite" nor "Brighamite" camp)

[canard78]

OK.

Shall I remove my analogy about fighting and dying on a hill not worth dying over?

A year or so ago someone made a "drinking the koolaid" reference on here. Calmoriah found it offensive as it was a glib reference to a deeply disturbing moment in recent history. She, quite rightly, pointed out that it was a disrespectful reference. I find Nehor's reference offensive. I find the use of that analogy offensive. It trivialises a very serious issue. If you have personally known anyone who has been a victim of regular and vicious wife beating then you might not use the analogy so glibly.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

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.

I apoloogize for misrepresenting your website. I was going by memory, as I explained in my last post.

[canard78]

No. Stop. Don't. Help! There's a peck here with an acorn pointed at me!

If you feel the need to report an obvious reference to a common fallacy as being aimed at your personal character then you gotta do what you've gotta do.

Have you ever seen a man hit his wife? Have you ever seen a woman's bruised face from a beating?

Feel free to make light of it if you like.

 

Edit: Great Willow reference by the way...

Edited May 6, 2015 by canard78

[Tacenda]

Oh, so have you stopped beating your wife?

I'm glad Canard lives in another country, just saying.

[rongo]

I see that as an unjustifiable stretch in reasoning on your part.

 

 

I don't. It's "acceptable to view the ban itself as a mistake." It's also equally acceptable to view the ban itself as God's will. Everyone should acknowledge, when talking about it, that this is an open question and has not been settled authoritatively by the Church. 

 

There are a number of issues like this, and the reason why many members feel uncomfortable talking about them and feel like they are doing something "bad" by talking about them, is because they are open, unsettled questions. I have found that most members are thrilled to be able to discuss (actually discuss) them in a church setting. Years ago, I was asked to do three firesides in another stake simply answering any questions. I always laid down the ground rules at the beginning (what are and are not official sources of doctrine, and how much of what is interesting and "gets us out of bed in the morning" about the gospel falls outside of official doctrine). As we discussed tons of questions, members really enjoyed being able to discuss things that they wondered about or were interested in, but had thought were "forbidden." In leading discussions about these questions, I always pointed out at the beginning of any open questions that a) none of us are authorized to speak officially for the Church, b) open questions have not been settled by the Brethren, and c) different Brethren equally authoritative have disagreed about these questions. If these ground rules are clearly established, then it's okay to discuss, suggest, wonder, etc. about them aloud. And, with these ground rules clearly in place, anyone can discuss them --- not just "experts."

 

(Examples: was Jesus married?, is Jesus the Savior of all worlds, or just ours?, progression between kingdoms, when life begins, etc.)

 

The problem would be, in my mind, when somebody definitively teaches either that the ban was a mistake or God's will. I personally believe that the ban was God's will, but we shouldn't teach that authoritatively. The opposite is also true.

[Scott Lloyd]

A year or so ago someone made a "drinking the koolaid" reference on here. Calmoriah found it offensive as it was a glib reference to a deeply disturbing moment in recent history. She, quite rightly, pointed out that it was a disrespectful reference. I find Nehor's reference offensive. I find the use of that analogy offensive. It trivialises a very serious issue. If you have personally known anyone who has been a victim of regular and vicious wife beating then you might not use the analogy so glibly.

What analogy would you use in its place to make the point?

 

"Are you still embezzling from your company"? Some might find that offensive too.

[rongo]

Shall I start asking you questions about child abuse and your daughter next? Amusing? Thought not.

I wouldn't go all "drama queen" if you did . . .

 

Ooops. Let me re-phrase that . . .

[The Nehor]

Have you ever seen a man hit his wife? Have you ever seen a woman's bruised face from a beating?

Feel free to make light of it if you like.

Okay.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I apoloogize for misrepresenting your website. I was going by memory, as I explained in my last post.

Memory is often an unfaithful mistress.

Apology accepted.

[rongo]

A year or so ago someone made a "drinking the koolaid" reference on here. Calmoriah found it offensive as it was a glib reference to a deeply disturbing moment in recent history. She, quite rightly, pointed out that it was a disrespectful reference. 

I wasn't active on the board around then, and don't remember it. 

 

I find calmoriah's objection to "drinking the koolaid" as an analogous reference to Jonestown to be equally PC on steroids.

 

Oops. Anabolic steroids use is a serious problem afflicting many people. Let me rephrase that . . .

 

You see? The PC police are striving to eliminate any figurative or colorful language from our language in the name of never offending anyone, no matter how trivial their objections.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't. It's "acceptable to view the ban itself as a mistake." It's also equally acceptable to view the ban itself as God's will. Everyone should acknowledge, when talking about it, that this is an open question and has not been settled authoritatively by the Church. 

 

There are a number of issues like this, and the reason why many members feel uncomfortable talking about them and feel like they are doing something "bad" by talking about them, is because they are open, unsettled questions. I have found that most members are thrilled to be able to discuss (actually discuss) them in a church setting. Years ago, I was asked to do three firesides in another stake simply answering any questions. I always laid down the ground rules at the beginning (what are and are not official sources of doctrine, and how much of what is interesting and "gets us out of bed in the morning" about the gospel falls outside of official doctrine). As we discussed tons of questions, members really enjoyed being able to discuss things that they wondered about or were interested in, but had thought were "forbidden." In leading discussions about these questions, I always pointed out at the beginning of any open questions that a) none of us are authorized to speak officially for the Church, b) open questions have not been settled by the Brethren, and c) different Brethren equally authoritative have disagreed about these questions. If these ground rules are clearly established, then it's okay to discuss, suggest, wonder, etc. about them aloud. And, with these ground rules clearly in place, anyone can discuss them --- not just "experts."

 

(Examples: was Jesus married?, is Jesus the Savior of all worlds, or just ours?, progression between kingdoms, when life begins, etc.)

 

The problem would be, in my mind, when somebody definitively teaches either that the ban was a mistake or God's will. I personally believe that the ban was God's will, but we shouldn't teach that authoritatively. The opposite is also true.

I don't see both propositions as having equal validity. The default position was always that the ban was consistent with the will of God. The essay does not remove that assumption from its default position; all it does is repudiate past theoretical and unauthoritative explanations for it.