Warts And All

[Teancum]

A lot of hate and invective to support your straw man.  You ought to concentrate on dispassionate, factual analysis and allow the chips to fall where they may.  That might have some lasting meaning, and even gain you some respect, canard.

What was hateful about his post?

[Robert F. Smith]

What was hateful about his post?

Post #61??  Maybe we didn't read the same post.  Or maybe the hate is in the eye of the beholder.  I maintain that a disinterested third party would agree with me that it contained hate and invective, but, as Brother Brigham used to say, "No man's opinion is worth a straw."

[PeterPear]

What about it?

 

Let's review the whole sorry sequence of events.

 

Brigham Young introduced the ban, with not even a claim of having received revelation to do so. His justification for the ban was in the form of multiple racist, baseless statements, again, none of which were based on even claimed revelation.

 

John Taylor perpetuated the false idea that "the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness"

Wilford Woodruff spoke in General Conference about the "mark of blackness (that)... rested on Cain (and the) millions of descendants of Cain."

 

The prophets that followed maintained the ban and continued to teach false ideas about the origin and justification for the ban. 

 

By the time a hundred years of the ban had passed, the first presidency, under the prophet, George Albert Smith, were teaching that the ban was not a policy but a "direct commandment from the Lord." The 100-year memory hole created myth upon misconception. Do you believe that "When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking" (source)? 

 

Into the 1950s and 60s and Presidents and Apostles were teaching that the ban was a consequence of pre-mortal conduct. These are all men that are sustained as prophets, seers and revelators by the membership. For 120+ years there was a litany of error and false doctrine being taught about blacks, the ban and its origin and justifaction.

 

Finally after more than a century of God apparently being happy to allow his mouthpieces to teach false doctrine, you get to the question of 1978. 15 men sat in discussion for several days, after wrestling intellectually for much longer to find a resolution. If you've read the piece by Edward Kimball it's clear that there was a very long discussion and consideration and a requirement for all of them to be in full agreement before President Kimball was willing to finally move to have them pray about it. If the model for Mormon prophetic revelation is 100+ years of personal bias followed by agreement in principle by council that is ratified in prayer, then include me in the group who are entirely underwhelmed. I consider the leaders of Mormonism to be well-intentioned, well-meaning men who are trying to give good advice to people they sincerely care about, but the race ban, from start to its overdue 1978 finish is unequivocal evidence that they are no more inspired than the pope, the dalai lama or you and I.

That's why it's more than a wart.

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. The article by Edward Kimball clearly indicates Pres. Kimball spent hours and hours praying and pleading in the Temple. He received the answer on his own then presented it to his counselors then to the Quorum of the Twelve whom had earlier asked to consider the question in unity in prayer and fasting. They all felt in agreement in the matter then there decision was confirmed through revelation to them all. This is how revelation works.

“It is a tremendous thing. It came as a result of great effort and prayer, anxious seeking and pleading. Anyone who does not think that is a part of receiving revelation does not understand the process."

---

The fact that President Kimball agonized over it, sought opinions, council, etc., and hours and hours pleading in prayer, as the article describes to anyone who will read it in it's entirety, as have I, will clearly show that Pres. Kimball was no bigot; nor was this a publicity stunt that CANARD makes it out to be.

---

"A reporter who came from a local television station to the press conference had been somewhat antagonistic to the Church.

When he was told to cover an “extremely important announcement” at Church headquarters, he and a cameraman ran the several blocks to the Church Office Building. Breathless, he received a copy of the announcement from hands shaking in excitement.

He said later, “I felt that I was being a witness to history. I remember being emotional. I sensed a lot of happiness at the Church offices . . . a great burden being lifted. There was a sense of joy; people were genuinely thrilled.” He understood then that the Mormons had not been acting out of bigotry, as he supposed, but out of principle.

“I experienced a change in feelings toward the Church that day.” The exultant reactions of the Public Communications staff members and others he interviewed on the street persuaded him, as years of explanation and protestation had not. He rushed back to his station and personally read on the air the bulletin: “God has spoken to the prophet of the Mormon Church."

---

[Robert F. Smith]

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. The article by Edward Kimball clearly indicates Pres. Kimball spent hours and hours praying and pleading in the Temple. He received the answer on his own then presented it to his counselors then to the Quorum of the Twelve whom had earlier asked to consider the question in unity in prayer and fasting. They all felt in agreement in the matter then there decision was confirmed through revelation to them all. This is how revelation works.

“It is a tremendous thing. It came as a result of great effort and prayer, anxious seeking and pleading. Anyone who does not think that is a part of receiving revelation does not understand the process."

---

The fact that President Kimball agonized over it, sought opinions, council, etc., and hours and hours pleading in prayer, as the article describes to anyone who will read it in it's entirety, as have I, will clearly show that Pres. Kimball was no bigot; nor was this a publicity stunt that CANARD makes it out to be.

---

"A reporter who came from a local television station to the press conference had been somewhat antagonistic to the Church.

When he was told to cover an “extremely important announcement” at Church headquarters, he and a cameraman ran the several blocks to the Church Office Building. Breathless, he received a copy of the announcement from hands shaking in excitement.

He said later, “I felt that I was being a witness to history. I remember being emotional. I sensed a lot of happiness at the Church offices . . . a great burden being lifted. There was a sense of joy; people were genuinely thrilled.” He understood then that the Mormons had not been acting out of bigotry, as he supposed, but out of principle.

“I experienced a change in feelings toward the Church that day.” The exultant reactions of the Public Communications staff members and others he interviewed on the street persuaded him, as years of explanation and protestation had not. He rushed back to his station and personally read on the air the bulletin: “God has spoken to the prophet of the Mormon Church."

---

Right on, Brother.

[Tacenda]

As everyone can see, the wart was made plain to see by critics first and then by the church, this is the problem. If they had been shown all along, it would probably just be. But I understand the church leaders that wanted to keep the skeletons in the closet, this was their family. And like a lot of families do, they rewrite history or leave out information, for posterity. But this is not just a family, this is a faith or religion. People give their lives, they may even choose most things based on it, like careers or friends, education etc. and give part of their income and invest their loyalty over family too. Yes, there are people that equate the church with God, and so family is second or third maybe. That's the cruxt, those that lose faith over warts, don't just lose faith, they lose their families as they knew it, friends as they knew it, etc.

[Gray]

What about it?

 

Let's review the whole sorry sequence of events.

 

Brigham Young introduced the ban, with not even a claim of having received revelation to do so. His justification for the ban was in the form of multiple racist, baseless statements, again, none of which were based on even claimed revelation.

 

John Taylor perpetuated the false idea that "the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness"

Wilford Woodruff spoke in General Conference about the "mark of blackness (that)... rested on Cain (and the) millions of descendants of Cain."

 

The prophets that followed maintained the ban and continued to teach false ideas about the origin and justification for the ban. 

 

By the time a hundred years of the ban had passed, the first presidency, under the prophet, George Albert Smith, were teaching that the ban was not a policy but a "direct commandment from the Lord." The 100-year memory hole created myth upon misconception. Do you believe that "When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking" (source)? 

 

Into the 1950s and 60s and Presidents and Apostles were teaching that the ban was a consequence of pre-mortal conduct. These are all men that are sustained as prophets, seers and revelators by the membership. For 120+ years there was a litany of error and false doctrine being taught about blacks, the ban and its origin and justifaction.

 

Finally after more than a century of God apparently being happy to allow his mouthpieces to teach false doctrine, you get to the question of 1978. 15 men sat in discussion for several days, after wrestling intellectually for much longer to find a resolution. If you've read the piece by Edward Kimball it's clear that there was a very long discussion and consideration and a requirement for all of them to be in full agreement before President Kimball was willing to finally move to have them pray about it. If the model for Mormon prophetic revelation is 100+ years of personal bias followed by agreement in principle by council that is ratified in prayer, then include me in the group who are entirely underwhelmed. I consider the leaders of Mormonism to be well-intentioned, well-meaning men who are trying to give good advice to people they sincerely care about, but the race ban, from start to its overdue 1978 finish is unequivocal evidence that they are no more inspired than the pope, the dalai lama or you and I.

That's why it's more than a wart.

 

This is precisely why the fundamentalist model of revelation is untenable. Revelation is NOT messages being passed from God's lips to the prophet's ear. 

[volgadon]

This is precisely why the fundamentalist model of revelation is untenable. Revelation is NOT messages being passed from God's lips to the prophet's ear.

I personally would phrase it as not all revelation is messages being passed from God's lips to the prophet's ear.

[Deborah]

Every man who has accomplished great things has things in his past that we of today find fault with, even though such things at those times were commonplace or accepted. Our Founding Fathers fall into this category, and I am disturbed by how many now are choosing to focus on the negative things in their lives thereby downplaying the great achievements of founding a great nation. It is one thing to present such facts as part of the history and quite another to begin focusing on those to the destruction of the very character of such men. The same applies to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young and countless others.

 

All of us have things in our past that we don't talk about or want broadcast. Hopefully those are things we learned from and caused us to grow. How awful would it be if at our funerals instead of talking about the good we did and the things we accomplished all people did was bring up those actions that make us look poorly. Yet that is what many are choosing to focus on today. It is in fact the worst revisionist history to tear down great men by focusing on their faults rather than the great acts that put them in the history books.

[canard78]

A lot of hate and invective to support your straw man.  You ought to concentrate on dispassionate, factual analysis and allow the chips to fall where they may.  That might have some lasting meaning, and even gain you some respect, canard.

 

"Hate"... "straw man"...

 

"pot"... "kettle".... "black"

 

As usual, and true to form, if you're unable to dismantle the actual issue at hand you go instead after the person.

[Zakuska]

Can we just say that maybe a little "faithful descent" could have prevented the church from making such mistakes as the Priesthood ban etc. etc. etc.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Zakuska

[Calm]

Can we just say that maybe a little "faithful descent" could have prevented the church from making such mistakes as the Priesthood ban etc. etc. etc.

No, we can't because we have no way of knowing if those things you and others claim were mistakes, assuming they were mistakes, were not actually 'dissented' against and we have evidence that dissent did occur on occasion (for example faithful women who rejected the chance to be sealed to a prophet).

 

We know that BY was challenged with "faithful dissent" and yet continued in his preaching of Adam-God.  Since there was extensive discussion multiple times over the Priesthood ban, it would seem required to have some dissent expressed or there would be no discussion whatsoever.

 

Faithful dissent is not some magic wand that waves over behaviour and removes all possibility of error.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Calm

[Thinking]

Every man who has accomplished great things has things in his past that we of today find fault with, even though such things at those times were commonplace or accepted. Our Founding Fathers fall into this category, and I am disturbed by how many now are choosing to focus on the negative things in their lives thereby downplaying the great achievements of founding a great nation. It is one thing to present such facts as part of the history and quite another to begin focusing on those to the destruction of the very character of such men. The same applies to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young and countless others.

 

All of us have things in our past that we don't talk about or want broadcast. Hopefully those are things we learned from and caused us to grow. How awful would it be if at our funerals instead of talking about the good we did and the things we accomplished all people did was bring up those actions that make us look poorly. Yet that is what many are choosing to focus on today. It is in fact the worst revisionist history to tear down great men by focusing on their faults rather than the great acts that put them in the history books.

 

We are not talking about personal imperfections. We are talking about doctrines or policies that were allegedly incorrect. I don't care if Joseph ever lost his temper. I do care that he introduced as doctrine the practice of plural marriage. I don't care if Brigham ever said a swear word. I do care that he said some very racist things in his capacity as prophet of the LDS Church. Please don't act like we're talking about personality flaws when we are talking about warts.

[Robert F. Smith]

Can we just say that maybe a little "faithful descent" could have prevented the church from making such mistakes as the Priesthood ban etc. etc. etc.

No, although faithful decency might be a good thing (not sure what "faithful descent" means).  The "church" did not make a mistake, people who led the LDS Church did, and we can name them -- hint: The Black Priesthood Ban began after the death of Joseph Smith.

 

Indeed, if we fault everyone in history for their flaws, and there are many, what sort of world will we have?  Woodrow Wilson's name is now being removed from a college building because he was a racist.  Next it will be George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, since each of them owned slaves (and Jefferson even had sexual relations and children with his deceased wife's half-sister, who was a slave).  A close look at the Bible will leave hardly anyone unscathed, including God.  Will we have to remove them all, like good presentists, who lack any sense of perspective.

 

Let the witchhunts begin . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

We are not talking about personal imperfections. We are talking about doctrines or policies that were allegedly incorrect. I don't care if Joseph ever lost his temper. I do care that he introduced as doctrine the practice of plural marriage. I don't care if Brigham ever said a swear word. I do care that he said some very racist things in his capacity as prophet of the LDS Church. Please don't act like we're talking about personality flaws when we are talking about warts.

And, after all, anyone of that stature must be infallible, right?  All historical persons and events must be measured by our current cultural norms or standards, and we accept that the future cultural norms and standards will measure us.  Right?  All's fair . . .

[JLHPROF]

This is precisely why the fundamentalist model of revelation is untenable. Revelation is NOT messages being passed from God's lips to the prophet's ear. 

 

Except when it is.  (D&C 13, 110, JSH - First Vision etc).

[BlueDreams]

Can we just say that maybe a little "faithful descent" could have prevented the church from making such mistakes as the Priesthood ban etc. etc. etc.

 

Adding to what Cal said, there was actually "faithful descent" happening around the time that BY became more strident about a priesthood ban...from Reeve's book, Religion of a Different color:

 

Prat argued that God alone dictated and administered divine 'curses' and that they were particular to a time and place and did not automatically touch all future generations.....Pratt believes individuals should not 'execute the curse of Almighty upon that race [africans] without being commanded to do [so]'...He did not accept young's rationale that servitude was divinely sanctioned and did not consider curses to be multigenerational

 

 

Even Young, previously had statements that conflicted with his later narrative. It wasn't as straightforward as lacking dissenting voices.

 

With luv,

BD

[Deborah]

We are not talking about personal imperfections. We are talking about doctrines or policies that were allegedly incorrect. I don't care if Joseph ever lost his temper. I do care that he introduced as doctrine the practice of plural marriage. I don't care if Brigham ever said a swear word. I do care that he said some very racist things in his capacity as prophet of the LDS Church. Please don't act like we're talking about personality flaws when we are talking about warts.

 

Alleged by whom? You are saying such prophets were racist by saying the policies they introduced were racist, at a time when the majority of the country was saying the same thing and in fact a war was being fought over this issue. I suspect there were reasons that were logical at the time for the ban but not necessarily related to the reasons given. I suspect it was more politically and culturally motivated. The fact that it took so many years for it to be overturned may give credibility to that.

 

Note that prior to the ban being lifted there were blacks who joined the church and were faithful, and one has to ask why they were so humble in accepting this. We also know that there were blacks in Africa begging for missionaries and baptism who patiently importuned the Lord's prophets for when the time might come. One has to ask why they were so patient. What did they know that so many today in judging the church don't know. I admire these people greatly and I think their great faith and patience were vital in getting the revelation to reverse the policy. We were told that the Priesthood would some day be allowed for all eligible men, and perhaps the faith of these people made it finally come to pass when it did.

[Russell C McGregor]

Reminds me of a Mormonad with an ice cream sundae and a dead fly. Seems the church is happy advising their members to take the approach of rejecting the beauty of a picture is it has one single pimple. Perhaps that's why members take a similar approach to the church when they start discovering it also has its own set of problematic pimples/warts/ulcers.

This is actually all a redundant analogy. The church isn't a face. The church is claiming something far more absolute than anything in a painting. The mess around the black ban, its introduction, its perpetuation and its justification is far more than a pimple. Instead the clear absense of revelation is simple proof that the claimed prophetic model of Mormonism simply doesn't work. That's not a pimple, that's a bullet through the heart of foundational Mormon claims.

 

Oh, don't you just wish that it were!

 

And of course, ladies and gentlemen, this demonstrates the real interest -- the sole interest -- that certain people have in LDS historical questions.

[Zakuska]

No, although faithful decency might be a good thing (not sure what "faithful descent" means).  The "church" did not make a mistake, people who led the LDS Church did, and we can name them -- hint: The Black Priesthood Ban began after the death of Joseph Smith.

 

Indeed, if we fault everyone in history for their flaws, and there are many, what sort of world will we have?  Woodrow Wilson's name is now being removed from a college building because he was a racist.  Next it will be George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, since each of them owned slaves (and Jefferson even had sexual relations and children with his deceased wife's half-sister, who was a slave).  A close look at the Bible will leave hardly anyone unscathed, including God.  Will we have to remove them all, like good presentists, who lack any sense of perspective.

 

Let the witchhunts begin . . .

 

God does drop the F bomb in the OT.

Paul used the occasional curse word as well.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Zakuska

[Gray]

Except when it is.  (D&C 13, 110, JSH - First Vision etc).

 

Revelation is an evolutionary process. If we had a divine teacher passing us crib notes for the test, we wouldn't need to struggle like we do. 

[volgadon]

Revelation is an evolutionary process. If we had a divine teacher passing us crib notes for the test, we wouldn't need to struggle like we do.

There is a Lebanese folktale about an illiterate man who pretended to be a great scholar. He impressed people enough to pay him to run a school. As he was unable to read, he beat the elder children if they did not teach the younger. This story reminds me of your analogy, if we believe that God is never directly involved in the learning process.

[Gray]

There is a Lebanese folktale about an illiterate man who pretended to be a great scholar. He impressed people enough to pay him to run a school. As he was unable to read, he beat the elder children if they did not teach the younger. This story reminds me of your analogy, if we believe that God is never directly involved in the learning process.

 

We like to give God credit for scientific discoveries, like vaccines. But God did not see fit to hand the secret formula for vaccination to Moses. We had to work it out through trial and error and reason and luck. That's how revelation really works, IMO.