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

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nah, as I already stated, I think he's exactly right.

The Church IS out of order and will be set in order.  And most of the ways in which we are out of order have come from the feelings and demands of the membership.  Just as they always have (see Moses and the Children of Israel for another example of this).

Or maybe the Church is out of order by the direction that comes--kinda like the race issues of the past.  The direction was from on top just as much from anywhere else as it was.  JS and BY were not free from being racist.  It's not as if God saw them as not racist but was so mad at the membership he let them promote racist teachings to the detriment of the members.  Well I guess that could have happened but if it did, then why are we even listening to the leaders?  It's likely we too are so bad God has to punish us by letting his leaders teach us things they don't really believe.  What a mess that would be. 

 

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

And yet if someone is insisting that we condemn our leaders, I find it hard not to see it as an attempt to condemn rather than instruct (especially when I see some gaps in knowledge that I would expect to see in someone extremely concerned with an issue and wanting to instruct others on it).

I think we should be less concerned about whether someone is filling in each gap in knowledge and more concerned about instruction and ideas we can glean from each other. 

I get the impression he's worked up because he's realizing people aren't getting that there is a valuable lesson in all of this that we need to be much more willing to hear and accept. 

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I love how members today like to paint racism in the Church as starting with Brigham Young.
Joseph Smith made several racist statements and teachings.
He may or may not have established the ban on blacks being ordained to the priesthood, but he made plenty of other racial statements that members today ignore in favor of the old "Blame Brother Brigham" game.

Pointing out that the ban started with BY (which is clear with the latest scholarship imo) is not the same thing as painting racism in the Church starting with BY or claiming that Joseph Smith wasn't racist.  

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Then again, Brigham is probably wrong.  

Why?  

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Or maybe the Church is out of order by the direction that comes--kinda like the race issues of the past.  The direction was from on top just as much from anywhere else as it was.  JS and BY were not free from being racist.  It's not as if God saw them as not racist but was so mad at the membership he let them promote racist teachings to the detriment of the members.  Well I guess that could have happened but if it did, then why are we even listening to the leaders?  It's likely we too are so bad God has to punish us by letting his leaders teach us things they don't really believe.  What a mess that would be. 

 

 

Many members were treating blacks as if the ban existed even before it did from what I have read.  Our leaders come from among our members.  If our leaders are making errors, chances are imo the same error is widely present in the membership.

There are pluses and minuses by having leadership be from lay members that share the same issues as the general population.  Perhaps one of the greatest benefits is when we see change for the better in a leader, we can easier accept that we too can change.  Another is there is a strong connection for community when our leaders are our neighbours, family and friends...I think we become more prone to think our efforts are needed rather than relying on someone we see as fundamentally different which may lead us to think we do not need to get involved.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pointing out that the ban started with BY (which is clear with the latest scholarship imo) is not the same thing as painting racism in the Church starting with BY or claiming that Joseph Smith wasn't racist.

Agreed.  The "official ban" started with Brigham to be sure.

But then you start seeing quotes about how Joseph would have done this or that and would never have done what Brigham did.
You see the same thing with United Order, polygamy, the temple, women and the priesthood, Adam-God, blood atonement, and so many other things landed straight at Brigham's feet.

I think that is poor scholarship in my opinion.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think we should be less concerned about whether someone is filling in each gap in knowledge and more concerned about instruction and ideas we can glean from each other. 

I get the impression he's worked up because he's realizing people aren't getting that there is a valuable lesson in all of this that we need to be much more willing to hear and accept. 

But that is not why I am concerned about his lack of knowledge.  He has chosen here to focus on requiring an institutional condemnation of leaders because if I understand him correctly he does not believe significant changes are being made, but he is unaware of actual efforts to make change on many levels and is dismissive of change he is aware of (such as the Gospel Topic essay).  It is beginning to come across as he is more committed to his efforts to get leadership condemned than to have our society change.  Someone who cares about change and wants to influence people needs to know what has gone on and is going on.  

What impression would you have of someone pushing others to get involved in helping humantarian efforts in the Church who wasn't aware of the longterm efforts of the Church that have been able to be found with a few minutes effort of research on the Church's own website?  What level of care is shown when they didn't care enough to take the time to find out what has been done themselves?

An effective leader does not just appeal to emotion or focuses on the sensational aspects of the issues.  They not only take time to study the bad, they study the good as well to see what has worked and what has failed over the years.  They study not only the results, but the causes so they can formulate effective plans of change.  They get involved with others studying to the best of their ability so they can combine their efforts into something stronger instead of standing on the pulpit alone making demands that may end up having the opposite effect of what they intended (something I believed happened with All Enlisted when they changed their tactics to more rigid and aggressive with Women Ordain).

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Many members were treating blacks as if the ban existed even before it did from what I have read.  Our leaders come from among our members.  If our leaders are making errors, chances are imo the same error is widely present in the membership.

I think you're correct.  I don't know if you recall the Lowry Nelson episode of late 1940s.  His views on race matched what we, today, might call appropriate views in contradiction to the leaders' views.  So it seems like even today the views of the leaders and majority may be in gross error on something.

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are pluses and minuses by having leadership be from lay members that share the same issues as the general population.  Perhaps one of the greatest benefits is when we see change for the better in a leader, we can easier accept that we too can change.  Another is there is a strong connection for community when our leaders are our neighbours, family and friends...I think we become more prone to think our efforts are needed rather than relying on someone we see as fundamentally different which may lead us to think we do not need to get involved.

Most of us don't have any personal connection to the top 15.  It'd be nice but we aren't there any more, if ever it was the case that most had such connections. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

But that is not why I am concerned about his lack of knowledge.  He has chosen here to focus on requiring an institutional condemnation of leaders because if I understand him correctly he does not believe significant changes are being made, but he is unaware of actual efforts to make change on many levels and is dismissive of change he is aware of (such as the Gospel Topic essay).  It is beginning to come across as he is more committed to his efforts to get leadership condemned than to have our society change.  Someone who cares about change and wants to influence people needs to know what has gone on and is going on.  

I wouldnt' be so sure about all of this.  But it's likely I've misread him.  Also it's possible I missed way too much as I've been quite busy this past week or week and a half. 

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

What impression would you have of someone pushing others to get involved in helping humantarian efforts in the Church who wasn't aware of the longterm efforts of the Church that have been able to be found with a few minutes effort of research on the Church's own website?  What level of care is shown when they didn't care enough to take the time to find out what has been done themselves?

There is plenty to conclude here.  While it's possible and likely you are right, I see no need to make it an issue in this discussion.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

An effective leader does not just appeal to emotion or focuses on the sensational aspects of the issues.  They not only take time to study the bad, they study the good as well to see what has worked and what has failed over the years.  They study not only the results, but the causes so they can formulate effective plans of change.  They get involved with others studying to the best of their ability so they can combine their efforts into something stronger instead of standing on the pulpit alone making demands that may end up having the opposite effect of what they intended (something I believed happened with All Enlisted when they changed their tactics to more rigid and aggressive with Women Ordain).

I'm not sure I'm concerned about whether a participant here is an effective leader or not, but whether their individual concerns and ideas are worth considering.  From topic to topic I find myself all over the place. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think you're correct.  I don't know if you recall the Lowry Nelson episode of late 1940s.  His views on race matched what we, today, might call appropriate views in contradiction to the leaders' views.  So it seems like even today the views of the leaders and majority may be in gross error on something.

Most of us don't have any personal connection to the top 15.  It'd be nice but we aren't there any more, if ever it was the case that most had such connections. 

However we all have personal connections to our fellow ward members.

And thosw ward members often become youth leaders, bishops, stake presidents amd mission presidents from whom come the General Authorities.  We may never know how our influence may turn out to impact the world.

As a nonreligious example, my husband used an example of a friend's research in his enterprenuership class.  One of his students turned out to be doing research and work for a humanitarian effort and got a vision of what could be done with this new invention.  My husband made sure the connection was made between the two and because of his efforts. This invention may be available much sooner and is already saving lives in clinical trials...so well in fact that halfway through thr trial all the test group was cured, so they gave the rest to the control group (they had the needed comparison) with the same success.  A mention of a good work being done and the little effort of introducing two people and my husband has helped change the world for the better.

He has always encouraged his students to be involved in charitable works in the communities they market or get their products from.  And it just so happens some of his students have gone on to become millionaires and a few even billionaires.  And in meeting them, I have gotten the impression they share the same vision of helping people.  My husband may not have started that passion in them, but he fanned the flames.  Lowly college and high school students.  

If we are only concerned with making changes from the top or where it is 'really meaningful', we may be missing a lot of opportunities to actually make an impact.  The more working at grassroots, the more likely the vision will be passed on in the most effective way it can be shared imo to someone who can take it to the next level and all the levels after that.

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

However we all have personal connections to our fellow ward members.

And thosw ward members often become youth leaders, bishops, stake presidents amd mission presidents from whom come the General Authorities.  We may never know how our influence may turn out to impact the world.

As a nonreligious example, my husband used an example of a friend's research in his enterprenuership class.  One of his students turned out to be doing research and work for a humanitarian effort and got a vision of what could be done with this new invention.  My husband made sure the connection was made between the two and because of his efforts. This invention may be available much sooner and is already saving lives in clinical trials...so well in fact that halfway through thr trial all the test group was cured, so they gave the rest to the control group (they had the needed comparison) with the same success.  A mention of a good work being done and the little effort of introducing two people and my husband has helped change the world for the better.

He has always encouraged his students to be involved in charitable works in the communities they market or get their products from.  And it just so happens some of his students have gone on to become millionaires and a few even billionaires.  And in meeting them, I have gotten the impression they share the same vision of helping people.  My husband may not have started that passion in them, but he fanned the flames.  Lowly college and high school students.  

If we are only concerned with making changes from the top or where it is 'really meaningful', we may be missing a lot of opportunities to actually make an impact.  The more working at grassroots, the more likely the vision will be passed on in the most effective way it can be shared imo to someone who can take it to the next level and all the levels after that.

That's cool, Calm. Thanks for sharing. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Keq82 said:

.........................................................  

This means that blacks were banned from the time of JS until SWK (11 out of 16 prophets).  

And finally, if you agree that it was "false doctrine to ban the blacks from the priesthood," then you proved my point.  No more discussion needed. 

Your point was that "it was doctrine to ban the priesthood from blacks from the time of Joseph Smith until Spencer W. Kimball," which is not true.  It was never doctrine to ban blacks from the Priesthood of God.  Pres. McKay carefully researched the matter (as have many scholars) and was unable to find a doctrinal basis for the ban. He concluded that it was merely policy entered into during the Presidency of Brigham Young.  He wanted to end the policy immediately, but was advised by the Pres of the Twelve that he needed to do so via revelation -- which he was unable to obtain.

Your version of this is false and you owe the Mormon people an abject apology for repeatedly lying about that history.  You have shown no interest in being fair or evenhanded on such questions, and there is no reason to believe that you are now or ever have been a Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

In my criticisms of the LDS Church, I have never tried to criticize for purely human failings of the leaders, such as President Monson's deteriorating health.

I have attempted to focus my criticism on a limited number of things:

1. Long-standing, and ongoing, attempts by Church leaders to hide its history from its members.

2. Speaking out of both sides of its mouth--saying one thing to the outside community and another thing to its membership on the same issue.

3. Instituting policies (and later calling them revelation) that not only offend the Spirit of God, but also contradict fundamental doctrines of the LDS Church.

4. Misleading Church members through the use of equivocation.

5. Leaders claiming gifts they do not have by virtue of the offices they hold.

While all these could be classified to some degree as "human failings," I believe such things should not exist in an organization that claims to be led by direct revelation through prophets of God.

If this is truly your position, Counselor, then why do you limit it merely to LDS Church leaders?  Virtually all churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations have the very same failings.  Moreover, for the sake of balance, I should think that you'd feel obliged to point out that the religious leaders in the Bible are guilty of the same (and often greater) failings.  Where is the balance in your critique?

Indeed, your final line seems to suggest once again a demand for infallibility, which is nonsense.  This quite aside from many of your more tendentious claims about what the leadership has done, and which we have often discussed separately.  There is an arrogant and a priori judgmental tone to much of your critique, which calls into question your ability to remain evenhanded in your evaluations.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

Joseph Smith also made statements in support of slavery (see http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-april-1836), so he wasn't exactly William Wilberforce.

1836 is not 1844, Nevo.  One can also find Abraham Lincoln of several minds on the matter, even though he is now considered the Great Emancipator.  You need to learn to give credit where it is due, even if you find it distasteful.

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your point was that "it was doctrine to ban the priesthood from blacks from the time of Joseph Smith until Spencer W. Kimball," which is not true.  It was never doctrine to ban blacks from the Priesthood of God.  Pres. McKay carefully researched the matter (as have many scholars) and was unable to find a doctrinal basis for the ban. He concluded that it was merely policy entered into during the Presidency of Brigham Young.  He wanted to end the policy immediately, but was advised by the Pres of the Twelve that he needed to do so via revelation -- which he was unable to obtain.

Your version of this is false and you owe the Mormon people an abject apology for repeatedly lying about that history.  You have shown no interest in being fair or evenhanded on such questions, and there is no reason to believe that you are now or ever have been a Mormon.

 

First of all, I AM a member of the Church, so you have no basis to accuse me of not being a member, simply because of the fact that we don’t see eye-to-eye on some church history.  In fact, I would argue that accusing somebody who IS a member of not being a member is, in fact, “spreading malicious gossip,” which is not allowed by the board guidelines.  Secondly, if you want to believe that banning blacks from the priesthood was never doctrine and just “merely policy,” then you go right ahead and do so.  I’ve provided you with multiple references…and I am of a different opinion--I think it was doctrine…that is my version.  Get over it...I owe nobody an apology for my opinion/belief on this subject.   

So just because of the fact that I don’t have the traditional testimony/opinion you like to you read on this subject, you have to resort to accusing me of being a non-member? Stay classy!  It’s comforting to know that members of the church are so accepting of other members who have different opinions/beliefs on gospel topics. 

Finally, you even admitted that it was “false DOCTRINE to ban the blacks from the priesthood.”  Didn't you mean to say false “policy?”

Edited April 1, 2016 by Keq82

[Keq82]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Of course it was false doctrine to ban blacks from the Priesthood of God.  And racism should always be condemned.

 

I guess you just meant false policy...

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If this is truly your position, Counselor, then why do you limit it merely to LDS Church leaders?  Virtually all churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations have the very same failings.  Moreover, for the sake of balance, I should think that you'd feel obliged to point out that the religious leaders in the Bible are guilty of the same (and often greater) failings.  Where is the balance in your critique?

 

My balance may be a bit focused on the LDS Church due to the fact I have given it 38-years of my life and a substantial amount of treasure. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Keq82 said:

First of all, I AM a member of the Church, so you have no basis to accuse me of not being a member, simply because of the fact that we don’t see eye-to-eye on some church history.  In fact, I would argue that accusing somebody who IS a member of not being a member is, in fact, “spreading malicious gossip,” which is not allowed by the board guidelines.  Secondly, if you want to believe that banning blacks from the priesthood was never doctrine and just “merely policy,” then you go right ahead and do so.  I’ve provided you with multiple references…and I am of a different opinion--I think it was doctrine…that is my version.  Get over it...I owe nobody an apology for my opinion/belief on this subject.   

So just because of the fact that I don’t have the traditional testimony/opinion you like to you read on this subject, you have to resort to accusing me of being a non-member? Stay classy!  It’s comforting to know that members of the church are so accepting of other members who have different opinions/beliefs on gospel topics. 

I already told you why I don't think that you are a member, and then you proceeded to ignore that, and make up a series of false reasons.  Typical of you.  You are not a member because you actually know nothing about the LDS Church which a regular member would know.  Your understanding is Wikipedia understanding, and most Wikipedia articles on Mormons are lies written by evangelicals.  You are free to use your real name in order to prove that you are a members, but of course you would not dare to do that -- since you are not a member.

Finally, you even admitted that it was “false DOCTRINE to ban the blacks from the priesthood.”  Didn't you mean to say false “policy?”

False doctrine is the antithesis of doctrine.  A policy which masquerades as doctrine is false doctrine.  You need to study the English language.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

My balance may be a bit focused on the LDS Church due to the fact I have given it 38-years of my life and a substantial amount of treasure. 

Does money really make that much difference to you, Counselor?  Based on the unbalanced claims you have made against the LDS Church leadership, I wonder whether it is more a matter of diminished expectations as you have gotten older,  I have read each of your claims carefully, but have found evidence there of a fit of pique more than a set of substantive complaints.  C'mon, Counselor, you already knew that life is not fair.  And yet it has treated you rather well.  Count your blessings, and expect to see everybody over on the other side -- including a surfeit of those you consider beneath you.  We will all be smiling in retrospect.  

[Keq82]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

I was born into the church, baptized at eight, went on a mission, and have been an active member my entire life.  I don't have to prove anything to you or anybody else.  Read the guidelines.  

Here is the CRF:

 

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

I was born into the church, baptized at eight, went on a mission, and have been an active member my entire life.  I don't have to prove anything to you or anybody else.  Read the guidelines.

Don't mind Bob. That's just how he rolls. Last week he accused me of having "deep-seated prejudices against the Mormons." After diagnosing me as a bigot, he proceeded to speculate about whether or not I was a "self-hating Mormon"—akin to an anti-Semitic Jew. But I guess I should be grateful that he at least conceded church membership to me

 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Nevo

[Keq82]

12 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Don't mind Bob. That's just how he rolls. Last week he accused me of having "deep-seated prejudices against the Mormons." After diagnosing me as a bigot, he proceeded to speculate about whether or not I was a "self-hating Mormon"—akin to an anti-Semitic Jew. But I guess I should be grateful that he at least conceded church membership to me

 

Yep, he's nothing but noise.  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Keq82 said:

I was born into the church, baptized at eight, went on a mission, and have been an active member my entire life.  I don't have to prove anything to you or anybody else.  Read the guidelines.  

...............................................................................   

Then how is it possible that you know next to nothing about the LDS Church?  Your ignorance is astonishing.  You've got to be a troll.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Nevo said:

Don't mind Bob. That's just how he rolls. Last week he accused me of having "deep-seated prejudices against the Mormons." After diagnosing me as a bigot, he proceeded to speculate about whether or not I was a "self-hating Mormon"—akin to an anti-Semitic Jew. But I guess I should be grateful that he at least conceded church membership to me

Yeh, Nevo, and you at least know something about the Church, and you are capable of carrying on a substantive discussion.

Stop insulting posters.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Yep, he's nothing but noise.  

No, he is much more than noise and if that is all you see, I would encourage a second look.

Robert, you generally write wonderful posts, very informative.  It is distracting from your work when you wander into personal commentary like the above. It is not necessary either as almost all expose who we are and what we truly value when we write if we write enough (though like the proverbial elephant we may only be exposing a tail or foot, we are much more than the sum of our writings on this board) even when we try and hide it.  The few that can actually create a false identity, they won't bring change or add meaning and are wasting their own lives by such games.  

For those of us who value your willingnees to share knowledge and insight, I for one would so much prefer you sharing your precious time and efforts with us on things that can add to my understanding of history, faith, cultures as you have in the past.