So many threads that blame the Church for human failing; why?

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

This is such an excuse.
SOME errors may have crept in, but most items that we'd like to think were errors (Adam-God, Blood Atonement etc) were repeated numerous times and by more than just Brigham.

I have yet to see an error presented in any JOD discourse that changed a core Brigham Young teaching on a subject.

I am referring to some of the more outlandish short remarks he is supposed to have said, like A man who mixes his seed with the blood of Cain should be killed on the spot, or being justified putting a javelin through the heart of your brother and your wife if found in bed. Remarks like that could have been easily misunderstood or recorded incorrectly.  For those general doctrinal concepts like blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, Adam/God, blood atonement, etc. we have to apply the line upon line concept on how we receive doctrines from God as we are ready for them. But we still have to have confidence and faith in our latter-day prophets, fallible though they may be, otherwise what's the alternative? 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I am referring to some of the more outlandish short remarks he is supposed to have said, like A man who mixes his seed with the blood of Cain should be killed on the spot, or being justified putting a javelin through the heart of your brother and your wife if found in bed. Remarks like that could have been easily misunderstood or recorded incorrectly. 

That's funny actually.  You really think the person taking notes or transcribing BY's words, would just add the "javelin through the heart" part or would have misunderstood it?  From what I have read about Brigham Young, he would not have taken kindly to someone attributing those words to him if he hadn't spoken them!  

.

Edited March 31, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I am referring to some of the more outlandish short remarks he is supposed to have said, like A man who mixes his seed with the blood of Cain should be killed on the spot, or being justified putting a javelin through the heart of your brother and your wife if found in bed. Remarks like that could have been easily misunderstood or recorded incorrectly.  For those general doctrinal concepts like blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, Adam/God, blood atonement, etc. we have to apply the line upon line concept on how we receive doctrines from God as we are ready for them. But we still have to have confidence and faith in our latter-day prophets, fallible though they may be, otherwise what's the alternative? 

Why would those remarks be more likely to have been misunderstood than any others?

Edited March 31, 2016 by Gray

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You mean like this:
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.

Or does that not rip the early prophets to shreds enough for you?  Not enough to disavow and condemn their teachings, they must be publicly eviscerated for being wrong on those teachings.  Right?

Glad God doesn't work that way.

No, that isn't enough...all that says is the church's stance today.  Great, the church no longer supports racist doctrine today, but where do they condem any of the leaders (prophets), who for 150 years, taught extremly racist doctrine?  From Joseph Smith/Brigham Young until Spencer W. Kimball, numerous prophets/leaders made tons of outrageous statements (yes I can CFR some of these statements if you like, but I'm pretty sure most are familiar already).   

Further, are we to believe that God didn't want those of a darken skin to enjoy the fruits of the gospel (for 150 years)...and then just changed his mind in 1978?

Either:

1. The doctrine on race (e.g., blacks and the curse of Cain) the church taught for 150 years was false and not of God (my opinion).

2. God wanted to curse an entire race of people (based on skin color) and then changed his mind in 1978.  

If you support number 2, then you believe in a God that promotes/warrants racist doctrine.  If the church can't admit it taught false doctrine on race, it, in no way, can repent and reconcile its past, IMO.  

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Keq82 said:

No, that isn't enough...all that says is the church's stance today.  Great, the church no longer supports racist doctrine today, but where do they condem any of the leaders (prophets), who for 150 years, taught extremly racist doctrine?  

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Where is the forgiveness?

Forgiveness cames after we pass through the entire reprentance process.  I think we are making progress, but we still have a long way to go.  

This is a great piece on condeming our racist past in the church:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/shouldering-the-cross

• "Admit a past of Mormon racism. That’s the first step: acknowledge that it is there and don’t pretend like it never happened because, as Brother Perkins says, we tend to be the last to recognize that."

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Keq82

[Keq82]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

One sentence for 150 years of discrimination?  

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, sdc999 said:

IMO, part of the 'blame the church' stems from the talks from the pulpit.  It is easy on the church side to disassociate from those talks as they are just members verbalizing their own beliefs.  Who knows what may come out of their mouths?  I didn't do this all the time, but on occasion, I did get up and walk out on someone who began their talk with, "I put off preparing until midnight last night but I was able to throw something together".  My wife would get mad. I viewed it as a complete disrespecting of my time and a disrespecting of the Lord's time. I could and would read my scriptures in the car or the hallway.  

I can understand this POV, but I have also heard so many well-prepared talks by some very thoughtful members that I try to be understanding of the occasional miscreant.  I have never heard someone declare that they just threw something together at midnight for Sacrament mtg.  Even if true, it seems the height of vulgarity to admit it.  And you are right, it is disrespectful.  However, being so atypical, how can that be the basis for a "blame the church" syndrome?

Those on the inside will often state that the church and the members are separate.  The church (gospel) is true but the members are fallible.  I agree with the latter statement but not the first.  Church members and the gospel are the church.

But, of course, they are very different.  The Gospel (Greek & Hebrew "good news") is the content of the proclamation (kerygma) about the Savior, while the Church is the Body of Christ, i.e., those who make up the membership of the Kingdom of God on Earth.  Any human effort to preach the Gospel will, of course, be fraught with fallible human nature -- which is what Paul is referring to when he compares himself and his fellow apostles to earthenware containing that eternal Gospel treasure.

 When members (and this can include the bishopric as well) get up in front to speak and continue to talk "lore" from the pulpit without correction, then that construes acceptance by the church.  So when a member gets opposing information down the road, they often put themselves in a bad position by defending the lore.  When this goes on long enough and realization and truth set in, the member begins to question what they have learned from the church.  Some will reason things out and stay and some cannot reason things out and leave.

I cannot recall hearing some odd "lore" from the pulpit in recent decades, although I do recall hearing some Three Nephite nonsense from the pulpit when I was a youngster back in the early 1950s (I was baptized in 1950, when George Albert Smith was President).  At the time, I had no idea what to make of the claim, which could have been true for all I know.  After all, the late Gene England blessed his car and it came back to life . . .

  The essays were a good start for the church - although not publicized very much.

Someone on this board (a non-Mormon, Steve Noel) was recently advised by missionaries at Mormon.org to consult those essays, so they may now be getting more play than you imagine.

 My BIL, a former high councilor, had never heard of them.  This is the same HC that educated me on polygamous marriages that were the result of too many men dying on the trek and women needed to be taken care of.

Yeh, I noticed recently that Glenn Beck provides the same misinformation in his personal testimony online.  Very few Mormons actually know a lot about Mormon history, so I suppose that this should be expected. 

So, in the end, I don't think someone leaving the church can be construed as human failing. The church does have some responsibility.   Leaving Christ altogether IS a human failing which falls upon the individual and not the church.  

No church-as-anthropomorphic-entity is responsible for any of that, because that is a major fallacy.  Certainly LDS Church leaders and staff, particularly those who are formally trained members of CES must bear much of the responsibility when and if they fail to write effective manuals, essays, etc.  Knowledgeable members should give them feedback whenever possible.  It is a communal effort.  All of us bear the responsibility. 

 

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

One sentence for 150 years of discrimination?

Make sure you don't read the scriptures.
God is always choosing favored families, favored lineages, and destroying others based not on individual actions, but as entire races and nations.

[Keq82]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Make sure you don't read the scriptures.
God is always choosing favored families, favored lineages, and destroying others based not on individual actions, but as entire races and nations.

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

So does this mean the scriptures contain false doctrine?  Because the "past" would entail the entire past, to include the BoM and Bible?  I don't believe in any God, doctrine, scripture that promotes any form of racism.  

Edited March 31, 2016 by Keq82

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

So many threads that blame the Church for human failing; why?

Because there are simultaneously threads where claims of perfection are being made. There is naturally going to be tension as the two competing views collide.

It seems to me that in the church many people like to have their demi-gods. Of course we don't "worship" those demi-gods, but we do occasionally sing hymns about them specifically (Praise to the Man) and as a general class of ultra special people (Follow the Prophet), or preach about how we should obey them etc. We intellectually recognize they aren't perfect but emotionally we can't let go of the romanticized version of them we have in our minds.

There are still many people in the church who believe the prophet literally sits down with Christ in the temple every week to get instructions about leading the church. Because of that divine participation it is then also assumed that everything the church does is of God.

If that seems unreasonable, think about how many members believe the prophets and apostles have had their calling and election made sure or at least have had a personal visitation from Jesus. While some feel it necessary to lift people up onto a pedestal where prophets and apostles are sure to disappoint at some time in some way, others find the demi-god, pedastailization of prophets and apostles to be harmful and propose an alternate view with ready examples.

 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

Forgiveness cames after we pass through the entire reprentance process.  I think we are making progress, but we still have a long way to go.  

This is a great piece on condeming our racist past in the church:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/shouldering-the-cross

• "Admit a past of Mormon racism. That’s the first step: acknowledge that it is there and don’t pretend like it never happened because, as Brother Perkins says, we tend to be the last to recognize that."

 

 

 

I think you missed my point.  I'm talking about the people who are upset about racism in the past doing the forgiving.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

 

• "Admit a past of Mormon racism. That’s the first step: acknowledge that it is there and don’t pretend like it never happened because, as Brother Perkins says, we tend to be the last to recognize that."

Are you aware of the firesides and such that Brother Perkins is giving throughout the Church for a number of years?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

One sentence for 150 years of discrimination?  

Does length turn the statement "racism is wrong" into something more meaningful?  Does saying "we condemn" mean "we don't condemn" if followed by a universal qualifier rather than a detailed list of all the specifi instances?

Is it necessary to itemize everyone it is directed to before we can obey the commandment "Love One Another"?

Short and precise is more likely imo to reach people who are eager to learn.  Endless lists won't change the hearts of those who aren't listening in the first place.

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

So does this mean the scriptures contain false doctrine?  Because the "past" would entail the entire past, to include the BoM and Bible?  I don't believe in any God, doctrine, scripture that promotes any form of racism.  

If that makes you happy then sure, why not let the Church statement include scriptures that make people unhappy too.
 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

Well, talking about tough issues isn't negative or bad. For example, you disagree with the policy on not baptizing children of gay couples. It's not mean spirited or negative to say that you disagree and explain why. That's what I'm talking about

But I am not using the Internet and seeking to destroy the testimony of others. The more you look for any fault, on day it is all you see...then as the scripture states, "..amen to the Prieshood of that an". Disagreeing of a policy does not make it wise to throw the baby about with the bath water". When I obtain profection, then I might want to sit in the judgement seat. As it stands right now all one has to do is pretend they are worthy to judge and a keyboard. Then they pat themselves on the back, an feel enlightened looking at others an think they are stupid...then they climb the tower and thank God that they are not like other men. As Procerbs says..."Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Keq82 said:

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

So does this mean the scriptures contain false doctrine?  Because the "past" would entail the entire past, to include the BoM and Bible?  I don't believe in any God, doctrine, scripture that promotes any form of racism.  

So, what god do you believe in?

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, what god do you believe in?

Christ.  

 

[Keq82]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you aware of the firesides and such that Brother Perkins is giving throughout the Church for a number of years?

No.  I just thought it was just the last year or so...that's good for sure. 

[Keq82]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Does length turn the statement "racism is wrong" into something more meaningful?  Does saying "we condemn" mean "we don't condemn" if followed by a universal qualifier rather than a detailed list of all the specifi instances?

Is it necessary to itemize everyone it is directed to before we can obey the commandment "Love One Another"?

Short and precise is more likely imo to reach people who are eager to learn.  Endless lists won't change the hearts of those who aren't listening in the first place.

It's necessary to state that most of our prophets were wrong and were preaching false doctrine...for 150 years.  

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

Christ.  

Which one?  Matt 24:24, Mk 13:22

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

It's necessary to state that most of our prophets were wrong and were preaching false doctrine...for 150 years.  

CFR. You are very good at making wild, blanket statements of condemnation, but you are never able to support them with fact.  This tells us much more about you than about LDS history.

[Keq82]

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

CFR. You are very good at making wild, blanket statements of condemnation, but you are never able to support them with fact.  This tells us much more about you than about LDS history.

I forgot that all you like to do is ask for CFRs...

Here is some LDS history for you:

If it was doctrine to ban the priesthood from blacks from the time of Joseph Smith until Spencer W. Kimball, it would mean that all of those prophets up until 1978 were mistaken and supported/taught false doctrine.  That means the first 11 prophets of the church ("most of our prophets" 11 out of 16) were WRONG. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Moreover, if "church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, PAST, and present, in any form," then that would mean it was FALSE doctrine to ban blacks from the priesthood.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Here are a just a few racists statements previous prophets have made:

"You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham."

Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 56.

"I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life."

Prophet David O. McKay, as quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, Part 2, p. 19.

"It is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness... It has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom His blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them."

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Juvenile Instructor, v. 26, p. 635.

"There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66.

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we come here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less."

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, p. 61.

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Keq82

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Forgiveness cames after we pass through the entire reprentance process.  I think we are making progress, but we still have a long way to go.  

This is a great piece on condeming our racist past in the church:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/shouldering-the-cross

• "Admit a past of Mormon racism. That’s the first step: acknowledge that it is there and don’t pretend like it never happened because, as Brother Perkins says, we tend to be the last to recognize that."

 

 

 

Perhaps you can point in the scriptures where institutional forgivess is taught by this process.

The one I see applying is this one:  

" 7 Nevertheless, he has sinned; but verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death.

 8 My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflictedand sorely chastened.

 9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required toforgive all men."

 

Now most of the leaders who condoned racism policies and teachings are dead.  They have confessed to Christ and asked for forgiveness or he has made other arrangements as his right.

Otoh, we are not given much option here.  We are required to forgive all men, even our leaders, whether or not we know they have gone through the repentance process.

If you yourself feel the need to repent for your past racism, you certainly should go through the process.  I hope it helps you feel better.  

If you see others who haven't repented yet, you (all of us) still are required by commandment to forgive or youwill have sinned just as those who judged others because of their race sinned, isthis not correct according to scripture?

[Calm]

Keq, have you read Paul Reeve A Religion of a Different Colour?