VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 It just seems like Brigham Young got a lot wrong for being a prophet. Blacks banning, Adam-God doctrine, polygamy necessary for exaltation, blood atonement, ordaining 3 of his sons to be apostles while one was 11. At least he got the saints to Utah because some of the stuff he taught was crazy and denounced today. Why was he so wrong?
Russell C McGregor Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 It just seems like Brigham Young got a lot wrong for being a prophet. Blacks banning, Adam-God doctrine, polygamy necessary for exaltation, blood atonement, ordaining 3 of his sons to be apostles while one was 11. At least he got the saints to Utah because some of the stuff he taught was crazy and denounced today. Why was he so wrong? Quaere: have you totalled up all your right and wrong actions to ensure you've got a better batting average than him?
Robert F. Smith Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 ............................................................... But since race and sexual identity are both social constructs, both are subject to changes as society changesSociety does have a heavy influence on sexual identity, or how it is defined, but the heaviest influence is biological -- either the genetic predisposition, or influences in utero. In the nature vs nurture debate, we must not forget our inborn mammalian instincts. Humans may depart from those inborn instincts to some degree through conditioning and habituation, but our basic nature is always there -- as in dogs and cats, which do not tend to experiment with other identities (like Hugh Hefner's experimentation with gay sex, "just for the hell of it"), nor rationalize departure from those basic instincts. That is left to our intellectual and sybaritic side.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Kind of like we let the blacks pass through a trial that made them unpopular.What do you mean "we," white woman?!
halconero Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Society does have a heavy influence on sexual identity, or how it is defined, but the heaviest influence is biological -- either the genetic predisposition, or influences in utero. In the nature vs nurture debate, we must not forget our inborn mammalian instincts. Humans may depart from those inborn instincts to some degree through conditioning and habituation, but our basic nature is always there -- as in dogs and cats, which do not tend to experiment with other identities (like Hugh Hefner's experimentation with gay sex, "just for the hell of it"), nor rationalize departure from those basic instincts. That is left to our intellectual and sybaritic side. I agree, too often we take the term social construct to mean something its not. It doesn't meant that its detached from biology or unreal. It simply means that society constructs norms, values, ethics, institutions, rituals, etc around that concept/biology/thing. Sexuality has a biological and genetic basis. How that plays out in society is the construct, and the construct is real, and has power. Genetic markers denoting skin tone, bone length, body mass etc exist along on a continuum, but can also be mapped along populations and geography. Yet how race plays out in society is what's constructed.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Russell, make me prophet and let's find out what I tell the saints as prophet seer and revelator, then we can compare.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 That's not correct. See footnote 3 from the race and priesthood essay. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=engI stand corrected, and thanks, Happy Jack. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 I agree, too often we take the term social construct to mean something its not. It doesn't meant that its detached from biology or unreal. It simply means that society constructs norms, values, ethics, institutions, rituals, etc around that concept/biology/thing. Sexuality has a biological and genetic basis. How that plays out in society is the construct, and the construct is real, and has power. Genetic markers denoting skin tone, bone length, body mass etc exist along on a continuum, but can also be mapped along populations and geography. Yet how race plays out in society is what's constructed.Yes, I agree completely.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 It just seems like Brigham Young got a lot wrong for being a prophet. Blacks banning, Adam-God doctrine, polygamy necessary for exaltation, blood atonement, ordaining 3 of his sons to be apostles while one was 11. At least he got the saints to Utah because some of the stuff he taught was crazy and denounced today. Why was he so wrong?Brother Brigham had a lot to say, and he wasn't bashful about saying it. Fortunately, he got more right than wrong. Despite any shortcomings, he was the man of the hour. Exactly the sort of man needed at that moment. He established Deseret and the Mormons on a solid foundation, brought in converted immigrants by the boatload, and built temples. Those who killed Joseph thought that they had prevailed. They didn't reckon on his powerful successor. 2
SmileyMcGee Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Why did they believe it for so long though?Maybe the man behind the curtain is really just a man behind a curtain?
SmileyMcGee Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.""Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."Seems pretty clear to me. Can we stop putting forward the false teaching that the brethren are caving to social pressure, or that they really still believe the "lineage of Cain" nonsense?Those aren't really the issues. The issue is that the credibility of the Lord's anointed servants was dealt a severe blow when they mixed asinine views of an entire race of people with the gospel.
Damien the Leper Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Rogues?Compared to whom, exactly?How very humble of you, to assume that anyone who thinks differently than you must be a "troglodyte" and unworthy of respect.Don't be such a drama queen.
stephenpurdy Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 So if a whole litany of prophets were wrong, time after time and year after year how can you have any confidence in anything they say about anything? We're not talking about getting just a little bit wrong but completely in the wrong direction; teaching as doctrine that which has now been disavowed. I posted what we are to do; sound advice was given by the president of the church long ago. We check and see if the teachings are in line with the revelations. Even Brigham said, on an occasion that we shouldn't just accept everything prophets say, but instead seek God for ourselves in order to get answers. The racist teachings of past prophets is such a spectacular own goal that it baffles me how anyone can have any confidence in prophets, seers and revelatory. It utterly undermines the prophetic model that is taught in scripture and church manuals. But they were right about 99.9% of what they said. You are focusing on the 0.1% ... the one thing that they were getting wrong. Gray wrote: Well, these are important questions. I think we've gotten a lot of our notions about what prophets are by taking a fundamentalist reading of old Bible stories. But a prophet is not a fortune teller or a sooth sayer. A prophet is, when acting in his or her best/highest capacity, a wisdom teacher. That's really all there is to it. God is not literally whispering instructions into anyone's ear. This is a good point. Direct revelation of specific instructions about what should be canonized doctrine is very, very rare. Sometimes I think that God allows us to choose poorly , in our lives and in the church, so that we may learn to be humble. -Stephen
Damien the Leper Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Rogues?Compared to whom, exactly?How very humble of you, to assume that anyone who thinks differently than you must be a "troglodyte" and unworthy of respect.If God is against racial prejudice, then it is fitting to describe those who implement and endorse such prejudices as troglodytes. Racial prejudice and it's progenitors are unworthy of respect in that regard. Let's be real. Don't take the bait. Do not disrespect religious leaders.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Here's what prophet, seer, and revelator Brigham Young had to say about interracial marriage. How can a man of God be so far OFF? Prophet Brigham Young (1801 -1877): “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 110 1
BlueDreams Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Here's what prophet, seer, and revelator Brigham Young had to say about interracial marriage. How can a man of God be so far OFF?Prophet Brigham Young (1801 -1877): The bold is your answer. Give space for the past to be really wrong, because I assure you, we probably hold our own set of beliefs that will be "unbelievable" to others 200 years from now. No one is free from living in their time and their own cultural biases. No one. If I can let go of the racism that is describing relationships that bring about people like me can....I assure you, you can too. Men of God can be so far off, because they are still men and no more free from the constraints that entails this than any of us...they are imperfect and inherently flawed. I would like to one day not be judged too harshly. So I figure I can give the same to my predecessors. With luv,BD Edited October 2, 2015 by BlueDreams 2
hagoth7 Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) ...The church should've been leading the way in the world in allowing blacks the priesthood, not being behind the times and waiting til 1978 when the civil rights movement was in the 60s.I take it you're unfamiliar with events in Nauvoo under Joseph. Edited October 2, 2015 by hagoth7
Damien the Leper Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Thank you kind and gallant grammar knight. Getting grammar and punctuation wrong is genuinely far more mortifying for me than discovering that Mormon prophets are no more inspired than you or I. If I have the time or inclination, I'll go back and correct my sloppiness. In the mean time... Have a rep point.Lol. Having written so many papers for school, it becomes a pet peeve. It wasn't a mean spirited attack against you but a request for remedy before scratching out my eyes.
thesometimesaint Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 The thing about the Church is not that prophets are perfect, they're not. Nor are they right even most of the time. They are subject to the same prejudices, faults, foibles, that are common to all men(women). However we do recognize them as prophets because sometimes God chooses to talk to them, and us. 1
Buckeye Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) It would appear I am not the only one a bit asleep. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66130-update-of-the-essay-of-race-and-the-lds-church/?p=120954229 I'm slow to the punch again. Edited October 2, 2015 by Buckeye
HappyJackWagon Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 The thing about the Church is not that prophets are perfect, they're not. Nor are they right even most of the time. They are subject to the same prejudices, faults, foibles, that are common to all men(women). However we do recognize them as prophets because sometimes God chooses to talk to them, and us.But doesn't God speak to most of us at some point and time? At least through the Holy Ghost.So why not cut out the middle man and get personal revelation right from the source? Let the President of the church direct the affairs of the church but leave each member to rely on their own revelation.
thesometimesaint Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 But doesn't God speak to most of us at some point and time? At least through the Holy Ghost.So why not cut out the middle man and get personal revelation right from the source? Let the President of the church direct the affairs of the church but leave each member to rely on their own revelation. I sure hope so. We are to get our own testimony of the gospel and revelation for our own lives and stewardships. I can't get revelation for the whole Church, and the President of the Church can't do my calling as father and patriarch for my family for me. How I fulfill my calling of father and patriarch for my family is between me and God. 1
SmileyMcGee Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) The bold is your answer. Give space for the past to be really wrong, because I assure you, we probably hold our own set of beliefs that will be "unbelievable" to others 200 years from now. No one is free from living in their time and their own cultural biases. No one. If I can let go of the racism that is describing relationships that bring about people like me can....I assure you, you can too. Men of God can be so far off, because they are still men and no more free from the constraints that entails this than any of us...they are imperfect and inherently flawed. I would like to one day not be judged too harshly. So I figure I can give the same to my predecessors. With luv,BDYou're really just restating the problem. How do we know that anything that prophets say is untainted? Because we like the way it sounds? Because we feel nice when we here it? And why do prophets somehow get a pass for teaching atrocious false doctrine when others have been excommunicated for far less? Edited October 2, 2015 by SmileyMcGee
thesometimesaint Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Will a prophet get ex'd for teaching false doctrine after correction? Yes, at least in theory. Will a prophet get ex'd for teaching his own personal ideas about said doctrine? No.
jkwilliams Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 You're really just restating the problem. How do we know that anything that prophets say is untainted? Because we like the way it sounds? Because we feel nice when we here it? And why do prophets somehow get a pass for teaching atrocious false doctrine when others have been excommunicated for far less? I am still wondering what a more correct interpretation is of the references to Cain/Ham/Canaan and black skin in the Pearl of Great Price. The most obvious reading is one that accords quite well with beliefs about black people in Joseph Smith's day. If the church is now saying that interpretation is wrong (and I think they are), how are we meant to interpret it?
Recommended Posts