Is Faithful Dissent Possible?

[Teancum]

During Brigham's administration Orson was never excommunicated, never apostatized, served missions, wrote and taught vigorously, was never dropped from his position in the quorum but was demoted to a lower seniority rank years later for his falling out with Joseph in Nauvoo over Josephs alleged, attempted affair with Pratt's wife Sarah. He outlived Brigham and sustained John Taylor as president of the twelve.

 

 

Orson would have been President of the Church but for Brigham's reshuffle. Sure he sustained John Taylor but honestly what choice did he have?

[Tony Frank]

This is worth a look. I am slightly amazed this came from the LDS cheerleader website. It is quite the good read.

 

http://lds.net/blog/faith/gospel-doctrine/what-if-i-disagree-with-the-prophet/

 

At the bottom od the webpage, it states, "LDS.net This website is not owned by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called the Mormon or LDS Church). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of the Church. The views expressed by individual users are the responsibility of those users and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church."

[Five Solas]

It's well written, thanks for posting, Meadowchik.  And I do agree in Protestantism it looks different--someone from a Baptist congregation can join a Presbyterian congregation and it's not that big a thing, differences over infant baptism, etc. notwithstanding (most Presbyterian ministers aren't going to demand parents baptize their infants if they want to wait until their children are old enough to express belief).  Moreover, the emphasis on church-planting and engaging culture is an outlet for those who want to try new things, consistent with core doctrine of course.  

 

It's perhaps a silly example--but I think of the 30 year-old LDS hymn book (as if 1985 was somehow a high-water mark in music).  Most churches I've attended don't even bother--using modern technology, they project the words on the wall or a screen for the congregation to follow.  Helps too when new worship songs are being written all the time. 

 

--Erik

 

[sunstoned]

Maybe, but it is always wrong to be outspoken and vocal critic of the Lord's anointed, even if doctrine/policy later changes to the point the critic was advocating for.

I am really disappointed with the lord's anointed being 30 to 50 behind civil rights issues. Slavery, racial equality, blacks and the priesthood, women's rights, the 1960's civil rights issues, and now LGBT issues.  The church has been on the wrong side of the issues for most of the last one hundred years.  It is almost like the church is being run by very conservative businessmen whose main focus is the bottom line.  Perhaps the focus should shift from making all kinds of money in the real estate sector to being an accepting and charitable organization.

 

For once, I would like to point to my church and say, look here, we were a leader and a first adopter in promoting the freedoms and rights on an oppressed people.  I wait for this day to happen, but being 60 years old I am running out of time.   

Edited November 23, 2015 by sunstoned

[Bobbieaware]

Sounds to me rather than teaching us a lesson, Bro. Joseph was pulling a Paul of Tarsus.1 Cor 14:34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also smith the law.

You have misconstrued what the Prophet Joseph Smith intended to communicate to the brethren in Kevin's quote. The Prophet was simply saying that when one receives sacred revelations and manifestations from God, one should be very careful about disseminating those revealations and manifestations to others who are not spiritually prepared to receive them. Joseph was only restating what the Prophet Alma taught in the Book of Mormon:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command THAT THEY SHALL NOT IMPART only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. (Alma 12)

Edited November 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[sunstoned]

Maybe, but it is always wrong to be outspoken and vocal critic of the Lord's anointed, even if doctrine/policy later changes to the point the critic was advocating for.

Who says it is wrong to offer constructive criticism of the lord's anointed?  Oh ya, that is a quote from one of the lord's anointed.  "It is wrong to criticize us even though we may be wrong".  If you think about that kind of circular reasoning long enough your head will explode.  Maybe if people would have questioned the lord's anointed and even maybe criticised their decisions, we would not have been stuck with the racist priesthood policy for over a hundred years.  

[Five Solas]

I am really disappointed with the lord's anointed being 30 to 50 behind civil rights issues. Slavery, racial equality, blacks and the priesthood, women's rights, the 1960's civil rights issues, and now LGBT issues.  The church has been on the wrong side of the issues for most of the last one hundred years.  It is almost like the church is being run by very conservative businessmen whose main focus is the bottom line.  Perhaps the focus should shift from making all kinds of money in the real estate sector to being an accepting and charitable organization.

 

For once, I would like to point to my church and say, look here, we were a leader and a first adopter in promoting the freedoms and rights on an oppressed people.  I wait for this day to happen, but being 60 years old I am running out of time.   

In your shoes, I'd reconsider my premise.  Assuming you haven't already & the above was merely for rhetorical effect...

;0)

 

--Erik

[sunstoned]

In your shoes, I'd reconsider my premise.  Assuming you haven't already & the above was merely for rhetorical effect...

;0)

 

--Erik

I am not sure what you mean by this.  But the record stands.  The church has been on the wrong side of every civil rights issue for the last one hundred plus years. When people were risking their lives helping African Americans escape slavery by supporting the underground railroad, Brigham Young was out in Utah in his mansion proclaiming that slavery was a divine institution.  This is not something any member can be proud of.  But hey, don't criticize the brethren even though they might be wrong...really wrong.

Edited November 23, 2015 by sunstoned

[Zakuska]

You have misconstrued what the Prophet Joseph Smith intended to communicate to the brethren in Kevin's quote. The Prophet was simply saying that when one receives sacred revelations and manifestations from God, one should be very careful about disseminating those revealations and manifestations to others who are not spiritually prepared to receive them. Joseph was only restating what the Prophet Alma taught in the Book of Mormon:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command THAT THEY SHALL NOT IMPART only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. (Alma 12)

well I will admit I did misconstrue his quote. But he was essentially saying the same thing I was.

Which was in the last lines of his quote:

However it is up to us to sustain them, through action and sometimes counsel, to help us all move together towards our Salvation in Christ.

Sometimes we do have to speak up and let the bretheren know there's a shakey wheel on the caboos back hear that needs some fixin and we better work together and get it fixed before the whole train flys off the track. Edited November 23, 2015 by Zakuska

[Tacenda]

I am not sure what you mean by this. But the record stands. The church has been on the wrong side of every civil rights issue for the last one hundred plus years. When people were risking their lives helping African Americans escape slavery by supporting the underground railroad, Brigham Young was out in Utah in his mansion proclaiming that slavery was a divine institution. This is not something any member can be proud of. But hey, don't criticize the brethren even though they might be wrong...really wrong.

Oh, it must be a Utah thing or did any of the church leaders in Nauvoo or before that have slaves?

[Zakuska]

Oh, it must be a Utah thing or did any of the church leaders in Nauvoo or before that have slaves?

Well Joseph Smith & Emma had a servant named Jane Elizabeth Manning James. However, She was born free. When JS ran for President he seems to have been outspoken on the whole slavery issue and planned on setting all the slaves free by purchasing their freedom selling public lands. One more powder keg that got him killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elizabeth_Manning_James

Some intresting Joseph Smith Quotes here.

"Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on. Elder Hyde remarked, "Put them on the level, and they will rise above me." I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant? […] Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." (History of the Church, Volume 5, p. 216)

Seems like that Idea is where the "less valiant in the pre-existance" and anti-race mixing might have came from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism

Maybe this can help: Slavery in Missouri.

https://books.google.com/books?id=jzQOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=some+mormons+owned+slaves+in+Missouri&source=bl&ots=AoMYvMpIqv&sig=mYBw8Zau7I7enoDnFKxW333eCQ0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiaubDPoafJAhVM4mMKHbF8DeQQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&q=some%20mormons%20owned%20slaves%20in%20Missouri&f=false

This one has a few documented Mormon Slave Owners in Missouri.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjGoaLgpKfJAhUBxGMKHc2iBOMQFgg-MAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacklds.org%2Fhistory&usg=AFQjCNEfy_ERFm05RiDbBKkJuCUPQuBnNw&sig2=ZgGLCZD6fhzllA0FpDn5UQ

Edited November 23, 2015 by Zakuska

[Tacenda]

Zakuska, love the bite sized history on the last link. As I read it, it appears to have evolved from JS being an advocate for freeing slaves and ordaining black men to a change in the opposite direction later on. I guess a couple of men, one being a Smoot, were going by an entry in a diary, or second hand information to make sure blacks are denied the priesthood.

[KevinG]

Not defending the priesthood ban, or slavery...  which I think were both false traditions.

 

However it is important to remember that one cause of opposition against the Saints lost in the shuffle of polygamy, was the abolitionist stance.  Brigham and other's may have felt it was not worth taking a stand on that issue while the church was already in danger of dissolution over polygamy and other political issues of the day.

[The Nehor]

Who says it is wrong to offer constructive criticism of the lord's anointed?  Oh ya, that is a quote from one of the lord's anointed.  "It is wrong to criticize us even though we may be wrong".  If you think about that kind of circular reasoning long enough your head will explode.  Maybe if people would have questioned the lord's anointed and even maybe criticised their decisions, we would not have been stuck with the racist priesthood policy for over a hundred years.  

 

Bringing the Holy Ghost in the equation ends the circle but then again I suspect that those who like to make these arguments have long since lost access to that source of information and are desperately trying to escape the circle and are lashing out due to their frustration. We should all pray for these tortured souls.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska, love the bite sized history on the last link. As I read it, it appears to have evolved from JS being an advocate for freeing slaves and ordaining black men to a change in the opposite direction later on. I guess a couple of men, one being a Smoot, were going by an entry in a diary, or second hand information to make sure blacks are denied the priesthood.

Heres three more names for you:

Green Flake

Hark Lay

Oscar Crosby

All three of these men where Southern Slaves who's owners joined the church and then made the Migration to Utah.

http://ilovehistory.utah.gov/people/difference/flake.html

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjr9_D92anJAhVFyWMKHfFGDbkQFggsMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhistory.lds.org%2Foverlandtravels%2Fpioneers%2F420%2Fhark-lay&usg=AFQjCNHMEayv3vb17q82f0kLo7YXY28Hnw&sig2=7nMEUxgvWzHltDHrAl3Z3Q

http://ablackmormongirl.blogspot.com/2009/02/welcome-to-black-history-month.html

So slavery didn't start in Utah it was Imported from the South East so I think that answers your question.

[Gray]

Bringing the Holy Ghost in the equation ends the circle but then again I suspect that those who like to make these arguments have long since lost access to that source of information and are desperately trying to escape the circle and are lashing out due to their frustration. We should all pray for these tortured souls.

 

Personally I've found that everyone who disagrees with me has lost access to the Holy Ghost. You can tell because if they had access to the Holy Ghost they'd know I was right. 

 

Edited November 24, 2015 by Gray

[The Nehor]

Personally I've found that everyone who disagrees with me has lost access to the Holy Ghost. You can tell because if they had access to the Holy Ghost they'd know I was right. 

 

 

While I can conclusively say that if you agree with me on all things you do not have the Holy Ghost and are probably a witch.

[Gray]

While I can conclusively say that if you agree with me on all things you do not have the Holy Ghost and are probably a witch.

 

Anyone with red hair is likely to be a witch. My missionary name tag said "Eldrich" rather than Elder.

[Teancum]

Who says it is wrong to offer constructive criticism of the lord's anointed?  Oh ya, that is a quote from one of the lord's anointed.  "It is wrong to criticize us even though we may be wrong".  If you think about that kind of circular reasoning long enough your head will explode.  Maybe if people would have questioned the lord's anointed and even maybe criticised their decisions, we would not have been stuck with the racist priesthood policy for over a hundred years.

Well said.

[Teancum]

Bringing the Holy Ghost in the equation ends the circle but then again I suspect that those who like to make these arguments have long since lost access to that source of information and are desperately trying to escape the circle and are lashing out due to their frustration. We should all pray for these tortured souls.

My guess is those who constantly say what you say likely don't have anymore access to the Holy Ghost than those they criticize. But they are good at fooling themselves into thinking they do.

[The Nehor]

My guess is those who constantly say what you say likely don't have anymore access to the Holy Ghost than those they criticize. But they are good at fooling themselves into thinking they do.

Nope, I just checked. Holy Ghost active. You need a new hypothesis.

[Teancum]

Nope, I just checked. Holy Ghost active. You need a new hypothesis.

I didn't say the Holy Ghost was not active. Just not as active in direct access for some who think he is.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Teancum