Update Of The Essay Of Race And The Lds Church

[SmileyMcGee]

The key is in "After correction".

I understand that...however, there doesn't appear to be a mechanism for correcting the prophet...or that mechanism has just failed miserably in the past. Aside from excommunication, the "victim of their culture" excuse appears to be selectively applied to prophets, not the rank and file.

Edited October 4, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Robert F. Smith]

It is very traumatizing when you find out one of your prophets was just so wrong and said horrible things while the mouthpiece of God. It takes a lot to recover. I mean I can even get over that he had 55 wives and actually slept with these women but the racism Adam God doctrine blood atonement men living on the sun stuff just all adds up to someone I held to a higher standard. Should I not trust any prophet or hold them to have integrity?

Yes, but I don't hear you saying horrible things about biblical prophets such as Samuel.  And then there was the great prophet Elisha, who sent a couple of bears to slaughter 42 children simply because they had mocked him (II Kings 2:23-24).  When will you condemn him also?  And when will you condemn Father Abraham for sleeping with his plural wives?

 

And I already mentioned in a previous thread that I felt uncomfortable with the gold Moroni statues on top of temples coming out of tithing money.

What about all the other money which the LDS Church spends on its lavish temples?  You are aware of how sumptuously appointed they are, right?  Let's be fair and evenhanded with our condemnations !  And please include the great cathedrals built today and during the Middle Ages by other branches of Christianity.  And don't forget to include all the beautiful Muslim holy places and mosques.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

interesting, you think a prophet today could be excommunicated for false teaching. My point was that leaders and apologists are quick to excuse prophets words and behavior as a result time and culture in which they lived. That doesn't seem to be the case for the rank and file.

I know of no so-called "apologists" who make excuses for prophets who do wrong.  One might rather call it "realism."  One is obligated by simple honesty to tell it like it is, and not to pretend that a prophet is perfect -- as the anti-Mormons frequently do, as part of the straw-man version of Mormonism which they created in order to knock it down.

[SmileyMcGee]

I know of no so-called "apologists" who make excuses for prophets who do wrong. One might rather call it "realism." One is obligated by simple honesty to tell it like it is, and not to pretend that a prophet is perfect -- as the anti-Mormons frequently do, as part of the straw-man version of Mormonism which they created in order to knock it down.

Robert, with all due respect, I believe you are the one creating the straw man. I certainly don't believe prophets should be perfect...I don't even believe in perfection since I don't believe in a standard for perfection. For some reason you think I'm attacking the men being the mistakes. I'm not. My concern is a prophetic process that is unreliable: how could a series of prophets be so wrong about an entire race of people and how do we know that the current prophets are right, and how can the current prophets denounce teachings of past prophets without hurting their own credibility? The typical response "we can know by the spirit." I call BS...that introduces another set of problematic implications.

[thesometimesaint]

I understand that...however, there doesn't appear to be a mechanism for correcting the prophet...or that mechanism has just failed miserably in the past. Aside from excommunication, the "victim of their culture" excuse appears to be selectively applied to prophets, not the rank and file.

 

Yes there is. For it to be doctrine it must be sustained unanimously by the entire Church.

[thesometimesaint]

Robert, with all due respect, I believe you are the one creating the straw man. I certainly don't believe prophets should be perfect...I don't even believe in perfection since I don't believe in a standard for perfection. For some reason you think I'm attacking the men being the mistakes. I'm not. My concern is a prophetic process that is unreliable: how could a series of prophets be so wrong about an entire race of people and how do we know that the current prophets are right, and how can the current prophets denounce teachings of past prophets without hurting their own credibility? The typical response "we can know by the spirit." I call BS...that introduces another set of problematic implications.

 

Articles of Faith #9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[SmileyMcGee]

Yes there is. For it to be doctrine it must be sustained unanimously by the entire Church.

Okay TSS. Keep ignoring the issue.

[SmileyMcGee]

Articles of Faith #9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

You're still avoiding the issue. The prophetic process is undermined by the idea that prophets can Teach falsehoods. I don't care that they do and I don't care that they are imperfect and human. But the system is compromised nonetheless.

Edited October 4, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Russell C McGregor]

Russell, make me prophet and let's find out what I tell the saints as prophet seer and revelator, then we can compare.

 

Ah. So you're demanding a double standard.

 

Got it.

[Russell C McGregor]

If one can take all the baggage out of that word and just apply the simple definition then yes, the priesthood ban was a form of racism.

 

But without the baggage, the word has no rhetorical bite.

 

So I suspect what you really mean is something like this:

 

"If one can take all the baggage out of that word and just apply the simple definition then yes, the priesthood ban was a form of racism. So let's accept that; and now we'll put all the baggage back in again."

[Teancum]

Well, of course, Brigham wasn't executing anyone for such "crimes" -- unlike the Priest Phineas, who stabbed an Israelite man and a Midianite woman in the groin for intermarriage (Numbers 25:8 ), and for which he received the praise of the Lord (Num 25:11).  Unlike the great Prophet Samuel, who personally executed Agag (I Sam 15:11,32-33), and who ordered the slaughter of a whole people, the Amalekites, men, women, and children (I Sam 15:3), which is genocide.  Or unlike John Calvin, who actually burned people at the stake for disagreeing with his theology.  Martin Luther said horrific things about the Jews, and about how their synagogues should all be burned -- which gave great solace to the Nazis on Kristallnacht.   Are you now going to condemn the Bible, Judaism, and the Christian religion in general for these horrific, Satanic acts?  Is it God's fault?

 

Presentists like you have no concept of the things people have believed and practiced in times past.  From our perspective, of course they were wrong, but that is conveniently from our perspective. In the present.

In my experience whenever someone argues presentism they are losing the argument. Prophets claim to speak to God. Gid should be able to set them straight regardless of the time or era. As I have noted you and others, if polygamy was important enough for God to send and angel with a flaming sword he was powerful enough to to correct the priesthood ban error. It didn't need 130 years to fix.

[Russell C McGregor]

In my experience whenever someone argues presentism they are losing the argument. Prophets claim to speak to God. Gid should be able to set them straight regardless of the time or era. As I have noted you and others, if polygamy was important enough for God to send and angel with a flaming sword he was powerful enough to to correct the priesthood ban error. It didn't need 130 years to fix.

 

You're assuming that the Priesthood ban (1) was in error, and (2) was as important to God (or Gid, whoever that may be) as polygamy.

 

Which is another way of saying that you assume that whatever matters to you must necessarily matter equally to God. Or Gid.

 

I'm not sure that that's the case.

[Teancum]

Yes, but I don't hear you saying horrible things about biblical prophets such as Samuel.  And then there was the great prophet Elisha, who sent a couple of bears to slaughter 42 children simply because they had mocked him (II Kings 2:23-24).  When will you condemn him also?  And when will you condemn Father Abraham for sleeping with his plural wives?

 

What about all the other money which the LDS Church spends on its lavish temples?  You are aware of how sumptuously appointed they are, right?  Let's be fair and evenhanded with our condemnations !  And please include the great cathedrals built today and during the Middle Ages by other branches of Christianity.  And don't forget to include all the beautiful Muslim holy places and mosques.

I am happy to criticize them all. Samuel, Elisha, the lavish chapel while beautiful were built on the backs of the poor and benefited the powerful religious kleptocrats. Abraham to though a God did not tell him to do this for exaltation.

[Teancum]

Ah. So you're demanding a double standard.

 

Got it.

How is what mr video said a double standard?

[rockpond]

But without the baggage, the word has no rhetorical bite.

So I suspect what you really mean is something like this:

"If one can take all the baggage out of that word and just apply the simple definition then yes, the priesthood ban was a form of racism. So let's accept that; and now we'll put all the baggage back in again."

Nope, I meant what I said without your incorrect editorializing.

You might have a chance of understanding me better if you didn't re to put a negative spin on everything I write.

[Teancum]

You're assuming that the Priesthood ban (1) was in error, and (2) was as important to God (or Gid, whoever that may be) as polygamy.

 

Which is another way of saying that you assume that whatever matters to you must necessarily matter equally to God. Or Gid.

 

I'm not sure that that's the case.

Oh gee Russel sorry for the typos. Does it make you fell special to be cutsie?

I was talking to Robert who I believer thinks the priesthood ban was a mistake. Who also jumped on VGJ for presentism. Got it? Try to follow along.

Further many apologists have argues theories for the ban that don't play well for polygamy. Things like culture, people were not ready for it, we needed time....and blah, blah, blah.

I feel for you man. When you have to defend stuff that rationally is clearly BS it is a tough road to hoe.

[provoman]

Has anyone done a side-by-side comparison of the essay today and yesterdays?

Race And The Priesthood Dec 2013 webarchive

[provoman]

Oh gee Russel sorry for the typos. Does it make you fell special to be cutsie?

I was talking to Robert who I believer thinks the priesthood ban was a mistake. Who also jumped on VGJ for presentism. Got it? Try to follow along.

Further many apologists have argues theories for the ban that don't play well for polygamy. Things like culture, people were not ready for it, we needed time....and blah, blah, blah.

I feel for you man. When you have to defend stuff that rationally is clearly BS it is a tough road to hoe.

As the Joker said, "I'm just a dog chasing a car..." so are some here. Irrationally perceived critics and out right critics, are the cars; regardless of what a Temple attending individual might say, attacking the perceived critic is priority to some.

[thesometimesaint]

You're still avoiding the issue. The prophetic process is undermined by the idea that prophets can Teach falsehoods. I don't care that they do and I don't care that they are imperfect and human. But the system is compromised nonetheless.

 

No it isn't. The prophetic process in the Church requires that all doctrines be submitted to the Church for sustaining.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[SmileyMcGee]

No it isn't. The prophetic process in the Church requires that all doctrines be submitted to the Church for sustaining.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

So what you're saying is that prophets can basically say whatever they want and that members should know that if it's not approved then they should just know that it is opinion? And you're also saying that approved doctrine is only found in the standard works, AofF, and official declarations and proclamations? So everything outside of those sources is opinion? 

[KevinG]

In my experience whenever someone argues presentism they are losing the argument. Prophets claim to speak to God. Gid should be able to set them straight regardless of the time or era. As I have noted you and others, if polygamy was important enough for God to send and angel with a flaming sword he was powerful enough to to correct the priesthood ban error. It didn't need 130 years to fix.

 

If the people were not ready to change, then supplying the oracular vision to the Prophet would be a waste of time.

[thesometimesaint]

So what you're saying is that prophets can basically say whatever they want and that members should know that if it's not approved then they should just know that it is opinion? And you're also saying that approved doctrine is only found in the standard works, AofF, and official declarations and proclamations? So everything outside of those sources is opinion? 

 

Yes. God doesn't make sock puppets.The Church has a long established process for determining its own doctrine, and single individuals, be they high or low, and/or small groups within the Church don't get to do that. We are to each individually come our own decisions from earnest prayer, scripture reading, and the thoughts of others.  Neither you nor I have the authority to make doctrine for the Church, but each of us is responsible for our own revelation. Be willing to stand by your decisions.

[SmileyMcGee]

Yes. God doesn't make sock puppets.The Church has a long established process for determining its own doctrine, and single individuals, be they high or low, and/or small groups within the Church don't get to do that. We are to each individually come our own decisions from earnest prayer, scripture reading, and the thoughts of others.  Neither you nor I have the authority to make doctrine for the Church, but each of us is responsible for our own revelation. Be willing to stand by your decisions.

So in reality there is no such thing as false doctrine...just opinions and approved doctrine. And the last official revelation, that we are aware of, was 20 years ago when the proclamation was published and everything since if either opinion or reiteration of previous doctrines? Do missionaries teach this now? Also, since this prophecy approval process is not contained in the authoritative works you mentioned previously, can I infer that what you are saying is just your opinion? 

 

Also, do you think most members are aware that when attending General Conference that they should assume first that everything said is opinion until approved by the proper councils (however long it may take for that approval to take place)? Do you not think it would be wise to put a disclaimer on the screen when each speaker stands that says "this is just opinion until approved?" 

Edited October 5, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[thesometimesaint]

So in reality there is no such thing as false doctrine...just opinions and approved doctrine. And the last official revelation, that we are aware of, was 20 years ago when the proclamation was published and everything since if either opinion or reiteration of previous doctrines? Do missionaries teach this now? Also, since this prophecy approval process is not contained in the authoritative works you mentioned previously, can I infer that what you are saying is just your opinion? 

 

Also, do you think most members are aware that when attending General Conference that they should assume first that everything said is opinion until approved by the proper councils (however long it may take for that approval to take place)? Do you not think it would be wise to put a disclaimer on the screen when each speaker stands that says "this is just opinion until approved?" 

 

Of course there is false doctrine, or at least continuing to teaching a false doctrine after correction. In regards to the issue of race. We have ample examples of prophets saying things that were later determined to be false. We also Scriptures that say much the same thing.

 

We're not Sola Scriptura believers. We believe in continuing revelation. I don't see how it could be any other way for a LDS.

 

Common Consent. D&C 26

SEE https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/11-law-common-consent-dc-26

 

I can't speak for anyone but myself. However reading our Scriptures should give even the most tentative of Saints a good understanding of what they claim they believe. I always find some things I disagree with, along side of lots of things I agree with at General Conference. If I have a disagreement about it I ponder, study, and pray about it. So far it has all worked out for me. 

 

I'm not sure as any disclaimer would/should be advisable. Take what is good and discard the rest.

[KevinG]

 

 

I'm not sure as any disclaimer would/should be advisable. Take what is good and discard the rest.

 

That would be worthwhile...  however in criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it is much more exciting to pick the exceptions to the volumes of history and revelation that have worked well, and use them as examples of why we should throw our babies out with the bathwater.