The November policy change was reaffirmed as revelation in the Oct. Ensign

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting that the Brethren wanted to provide cover for members of the Church to retain racist views ("room to disregard the disavowal")?  If so, how do you square that with Pres. Hinckley's 2006 remarks quoted above?  We also have a September 2000 Ensign article, "'No More Strangers'" by Elder Morrison of the Seventy, with a subtitle "Racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil’s hands."  The entire article condemns racism in unequivocal terms.  And then there are condemnations of racism on the Church's website here (1995), here (2015), here (2016), here (2016) and here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Note that Rongo said "disregard the disavowal" not, "disregard that racism is bad".

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

They also haven't dated them.  Anonymous and undated essays are easier to revise.

I didn't know this..not dated??  How convenient.

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah, those outfits.
I'm feeling nostaligic.

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Note that Rongo said "disregard the disavowal" not, "disregard that racism is bad".

I still don't understand.  Let me lay out what I think I am seeing:

1. Church leaders have previously made statements about the priesthood ban (and about race generally) which are or can reasonably be construed as justifying/rationalizing "racism."

2. The Church has, in recent years, unequivocally denounced racism, including past problematic statements by leaders of the Church.  These denouncements include various statements in General Conference and in officially published sources (the Ensign) by the Presiding High Priest (Pres. Hinckley), and also by apostles and seventies (Elder Maxwell, Elder Oaks, Elder Morrison, etc.).  The Church's instructional materials also condemn racism.

3. More recently, the Church has published a series of "Gospel Topics Essays," one of which specifically and unequivocally condemns and disavows racism.  This essay, along with all of the others, have been published to the world, and have been specifically designated as "approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."

4. Notwithstanding items 2 and 3 above, Rongo is now publicly accusing the leaders of having the present intent of tacitly encouraging or allowing the members of the Church to retain racist sensibilities:

Quote

So, why not attach their names to it? Why never talk about the issues in them? I would much prefer that a disavowal of what past presidents and apostles have taught come from current presidents and apostles directly. Actually, the anonymous essay does leave people room to disregard the disavowal, and I think that is one of the intended uses.

5. Rongo has presented these public accusations on an LDS message board, and hence appears to be intending to offend and insult the members of the Church on this board.

6. Rongo has reached the conclusion underlying the above accusation because the essays - despite being publicly and specifically designated as "approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" - are not signed by or appearing above the names of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  (I also note that including the names of the Brethren could easily be construed as a claim of authorship, which would be problematic since the Brethren have said they "approved" the essays, and have not claimed to have authored them.)

Am I offtrack here?  Or do the above points pretty much sum up what is going on in this thread?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I still don't understand.  Let me lay out what I think I am seeing:

1. Church leaders have previously made statements about the priesthood ban (and about race generally) which are or can reasonably be construed as justifying/rationalizing "racism."

2. The Church has, in recent years, unequivocally denounced racism, including past problematic statements by leaders of the Church.  These denouncements include various statements in General Conference and in officially published sources (the Ensign) by the Presiding High Priest (Pres. Hinckley), and also by apostles and seventies (Elder Maxwell, Elder Oaks, Elder Morrison, etc.).  The Church's instructional materials also condemn racism.

3. More recently, the Church has published a series of "Gospel Topics Essays," one of which specifically and unequivocally condemns and disavows racism.  This essay, along with all of the others, have been published to the world, and have been specifically designated as "approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."

4. Notwithstanding items 2 and 3 above, Rongo is now publicly accusing the leaders of having the present intent of tacitly encouraging or allowing the members of the Church to retain racist sensibilities:

5. Rongo has presented these public accusations on an LDS message board, and hence appears to be intending to offend and insult the members of the Church on this board.

6. Rongo has reached the conclusion underlying the above accusation because the essays - despite being publicly and specifically designated as "approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" - are not signed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Am I offtrack here?  Or do the above points pretty much sum up what is going on in this thread?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think you are incorrect on item #4 (which is pivotal to your argument).

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think you are incorrect on item #4 (which is pivotal to your argument).

Okay.  I am certainly open to that.  Let's review that one:

Quote

Notwithstanding items 2 and 3 above, Rongo is now publicly accusing the leaders of having the present intent of tacitly encouraging or allowing the members of the Church to retain racist sensibilities:

Quote

So, why not attach their names to it? Why never talk about the issues in them? I would much prefer that a disavowal of what past presidents and apostles have taught come from current presidents and apostles directly. Actually, the anonymous essay does leave people room to disregard the disavowal, and I think that is one of the intended uses.

 

Rongo's statement is the embedded quote above.  Here are my questions:

1. What did Rongo mean when he said "the anonymous essay does leave people room to disregard the disavowal?"
2. What "disavowal" is Rongo referencing here?  As I see it, he is referencing the disavowal in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay of racism and racist statements.
3. Who does Rongo suggest is the actor(s) who is/are "leav{ing} people room to disregard the disavowal?"  As I see it, Rongo's remarks were in response to my post which pointed out that the essays "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," so it looks like he is making reference here to . . . "the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."
4. Who does Rongo suggest formed the "intended uses" of the essays, one of which is to "leave people room to disregard the disavowal {of racism and of prior racist statements by Church leaders}?"  Again, Rongo's remarks were in response to my post which pointed out that the essays "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," so it looks like he is making reference here to . . . "the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" as having the "intent" of "leav{ing} people room to disregard the disavowal."

It looks like Rongo is  accusing the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of some pretty horrible things.  And he is doing so publicly.  And on an LDS message board which he knows has a large cadre of believing Latter-day Saints who read it.  

So where am I going wrong here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 6, 2016 by smac97

[ksfisher]

43 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I didn't know this..not dated??  How convenient.

Why are you disappointed?  No date means that they represent the viewpoint of the church today, right now, the instant that you are reading them.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why are you disappointed?  No date means that they represent the viewpoint of the church today, right now, the instant that you are reading them.

I am not disappointed...just that it is not good record keeping..and so easy to change.  Actually...it is not a bad thing.

[rongo]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting that the Brethren wanted to provide cover for members of the Church to retain racist views ("room to disregard the disavowal")?

Not at all, and you would have done better to have quoted my actual verbiage instead of what you represented (I said nothing about the Brethren wanting to provide cover to retain racist views).

Quote

 

 If so, how do you square that with Pres. Hinckley's 2006 remarks quoted above?  We also have a September 2000 Ensign article, "'No More Strangers'" by Elder Morrison of the Seventy, with a subtitle "Racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil’s hands."  The entire article condemns racism in unequivocal terms.  And then there are condemnations of racism on the Church's website here(1995), here (2015), here (2016), here (2016) and here:

Everything you cited here is non-controversial and agreed on by everyone all over the spectrum. Church leaders have consistently exhorted against racist speech and actions. That is, the above discusses our daily walk and conversation. That is a completely separate issue from discussing what has been taught about the priesthood ban. I don't believe that the priesthood ban itself or what was taught about it was racist. I know that you, and others, believe that it was racist on its face, and that is an "agree to disagree" item. But the above counsel on daily walk and conversation does not at all address the priesthood ban and teachings about it. These are two separate issues.

Quote

 

1. Church leaders have previously made statements about the priesthood ban (and about race generally) which are or can reasonably be construed as justifying/rationalizing "racism."

That is a matter of opinion, and open to interpretation and disagreement.

Quote

 

2. The Church has, in recent years, unequivocally denounced racism, including past problematic statements by leaders of the Church.  These denouncements include various statements in General Conference and in officially published sources (the Ensign) by the Presiding High Priest (Pres. Hinckley), and also by apostles and seventies (Elder Maxwell, Elder Oaks, Elder Morrison, etc.).  The Church's instructional materials also condemn racism.

See above. I completely agree with the teachings and counsel in these items. 

Quote

 

3. More recently, the Church has published a series of "Gospel Topics Essays," one of which specifically and unequivocally condemns and disavows racism.  This essay, along with all of the others, have been published to the world, and have been specifically designated as "approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."

Why do you think that these essays were released anonymously, with administrative approval, instead of directly from the Brethren? What was the reason it wasn't released in a manner similar to the Proclamation on the Family? Would you mind answering that for me? Thanks!

Quote

 

4. Notwithstanding items 2 and 3 above, Rongo is now publicly accusing the leaders of having the present intent of tacitly encouraging or allowing the members of the Church to retain racist sensibilities:

I categorically reject this statement. I spoke of allowing room for individual members to "disavow the disavowals." That is, it allows room for people to continue to believe that the ban was from God. The essay notably doesn't disavow the ban itself (it offers no actual explanation for it, and only disavows past explanations for it). I think that's significant. The anonymous essay does about as good a job as can be expected at discussing the issues and making it clear that the Church today does not encourage or condone racism. It is primarily a public relations instrument, and as such, avoids actually addressing the question of God's involvement with the ban. That is left to the individual, and it leaves room for all interpretations.

Quote

 

5. Rongo has presented these public accusations on an LDS message board, and hence appears to be intending to offend and insult the members of the Church on this board.

This is demagoguery, Spencer. I'm doing no such thing, and I think that even posters I don't agree with on this issue would disagree that my sharing my thoughts on this is "intending to offend and insult the members of the Church on this board." Good grief!

Quote

 

6. Rongo has reached the conclusion underlying the above accusation because the essays - despite being publicly and specifically designated as "approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" - are not signed by or appearing above the names of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  (I also note that including the names of the Brethren could easily be construed as a claim of authorship, which would be problematic since the Brethren have said they "approved" the essays, and have not claimed to have authored them.)

Why was the authoring of the essays outsourced to scholars, historians, and academics, with the draft to merely be approved by the Brethren? Why do you think that the Brethren themselves didn't issue a statement themselves that they came up with?

Quote

 

Am I offtrack here?  Or do the above points pretty much sum up what is going on in this thread?

Well, I think you are off track, and I don't think your rewording of what I wrote "pretty much sum up" what I wrote.  

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by rongo

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Rongo's statement is the embedded quote above.  Here are my questions:

1. What did Rongo mean when he said "the anonymous essay does leave people room to disregard the disavowal?"

I think I just addressed this in what I just posted. Let me know if you need me to clarify.

 What "disavowal" is Rongo referencing here?  As I see it, he is referencing the disavowal in the

"Race and the Priesthood" essay of racism and racist statements.

Specifically, the disavowal in the essays of certain past explanations for the priesthood ban. 

Who does Rongo suggest is the actor(s) who is/are "leav{ing} people room to disregard the disavowal?"  As I see it, Rongo's remarks were in response to

my post which pointed out that the essays "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," so it looks like he is making reference here to . . . "the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."

The Brethren didn't write the essay; they approved the draft for publication on lds.org. Yes, this means that the essay was administratively approved by them. The "actors" would be primarily the author(s) of the essay, and secondarily the Brethren who approved it. 

Who does Rongo suggest formed the "intended uses" of the essays, one of which is to "leave people room to disregard the disavowal {of racism and of prior racist statements by Church leaders}?"  Again, Rongo's remarks were in response to

my post which pointed out that the essays "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," so it looks like he is making reference here to . . . "the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" as having the "intent" of "leav{ing} people room to disregard the disavowal."

I merely meant by this that the essay is very carefully written, and it leaves room for people who want to believe that the priesthood ban and it's timing were God's will (just as it leaves room for people to believe that the ban was not God's will, was a colossal mistake, etc.). You might not think that it does, but that's just how you see it. 

It looks like Rongo is  accusing the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of some pretty horrible things.  And he is doing so publicly.  And on an LDS message board which he knows has a large cadre of believing Latter-day Saints who read it.  

So where am I going wrong here?

Where are you going wrong? From where I'm sitting, "it looks like smac97 is  accusing rongo of some pretty horrible things.  And he is doing so publicly.  And on an LDS message board which he knows has a large cadre of believing Latter-day Saints who read it."

Connect the dots for me, Spencer. What "pretty horrible things" am I "accusing the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" of? I've merely expressed my wish that they, themselves, shared their thoughts and feelings on this, not what was produced for their approval. Is that "pretty horrible?"

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I am certainly open to that.  Let's review that one:

Rongo's statement is the embedded quote above.  Here are my questions:

1. What did Rongo mean when he said "the anonymous essay does leave people room to disregard the disavowal?"
2. What "disavowal" is Rongo referencing here?  As I see it, he is referencing the disavowal in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay of racism and racist statements.
3. Who does Rongo suggest is the actor(s) who is/are "leav{ing} people room to disregard the disavowal?"  As I see it, Rongo's remarks were in response to my post which pointed out that the essays "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," so it looks like he is making reference here to . . . "the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."
4. Who does Rongo suggest formed the "intended uses" of the essays, one of which is to "leave people room to disregard the disavowal {of racism and of prior racist statements by Church leaders}?"  Again, Rongo's remarks were in response to my post which pointed out that the essays "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," so it looks like he is making reference here to . . . "the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" as having the "intent" of "leav{ing} people room to disregard the disavowal."

It looks like Rongo is  accusing the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of some pretty horrible things.  And he is doing so publicly.  And on an LDS message board which he knows has a large cadre of believing Latter-day Saints who read it.  

So where am I going wrong here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, #4... I understood Rongo to be saying that members could still disregard the disavowal of past teachings that supported that ban.  I know people, including my own bishop, who think that the Church has only disavowed those teachings out of public pressure but that those teachings (e.g. less valiant in pre-existence) are still true.

I don't think it is universally agreed that the essay is calling past leaders racist and then disavowing them. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Again, #4... I understood Rongo to be saying that members could still disregard the disavowal of past teachings that supported that ban.  I know people, including my own bishop, who think that the Church has only disavowed those teachings out of public pressure but that those teachings (e.g. less valiant in pre-existence) are still true.

I don't think it is universally agreed that the essay is calling past leaders racist and then disavowing them. 

Exactly. 

For the record, I don't believe the less-valiant in the preexistence thing (and never have). I do believe that our pre-mortal development heavily affects mortality. Race is a much less important factor than many others (time in history, geography, family, proclivities and tendencies, etc.). 

It most certainly is not universally agreed that the essay calls past leaders racist and disavows them. It disavows past explanations to allow people to say, "Well, the Church has disavowed that. So, it shouldn't be a concern any more." But it most certainly leaves room for people to believe that the ban was God's will, and given its provenance and publication, there is also room to not get shaken up about the disavowal of the explanations. The Brethren's names are not attached to it, and it's an approved product of scholars and academics. That, too, can easily be disavowed if the need ever arose . . .  The PotF, on the other hand, was issued directly as a product of the FP and Q12. I think that's a lot harder to disavow. 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

  I know people, including my own bishop, who think that the Church has only disavowed those teachings out of public pressure but that those teachings (e.g. less valiant in pre-existence) are still true. 

I think the question is source.

Did the ban come from God?
If not why a removal?
Did the removal come from God?
What was the cause of the removal by God, ie, what about our situation changed?

These questions have been discussed often and most members agree on the responses.

But what about the "teachings"?
Were any of them part of any revelatory source?  Was there any revelation that they were false?  What led to the disavowal?  Do we now have all the doctrine on the subject or is there more to be revealed?
The teachings often take a back seat in our discussions of the ban.

[smac97]

Rongo,

I stand corrected.  My apologies.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why do you think that these essays were released anonymously, with administrative approval, instead of directly from the Brethren? What was the reason it wasn't released in a manner similar to the Proclamation on the Family? Would you mind answering that for me? Thanks!

"It" being an ongoing series of essays?

A series of essays which were not substantively written by the Brethren (perhaps unlike the Proclamation)?

A series of essays which were instead written by a person or persons not publicly known, but entrusted with this assignment by the Brethren?

A series of essays which have been approved/endorsed by the Brethren?

A series of essays which have not been "released anonymously" (we don't know the identities of the specific persons who helped write them, but they have been "released" on the Church website as a publication of the Church, and hence are not reasonably characterized as "released aonymously")?

A series of essays which have been published on the Church's website and referenced over and over again on www.mormonnewsroom.org and elsewhere on LDS.org?

I am not a percipient witness as to the events you describe, so I cannot meaningfully respond to your questions.  

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why was the authoring of the essays outsourced to scholars, historians, and academics, with the draft to merely be approved by the Brethren? Why do you think that the Brethren themselves didn't issue a statement themselves that they came up with?

Again, I was not a percipient witness to these events.  However, I am not sure what you mean by "merely be approved."  Since when is it a bad thing to utilize the training and experience of faithful "scholars, historians, and academics?"

I think the Brethren have a lot on their plates.  I also think the essays reflect a substantial amount of research and expertise.  I see no problem with the Brethren delegating the researching and drafting of these essays to those who have both the time and the training to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the question is source.

Did the ban come from God?
If not why a removal?
Did the removal come from God?
What was the cause of the removal by God, ie, what about our situation changed?

These questions have been discussed often and most members agree on the responses.

But what about the "teachings"?
Were any of them part of any revelatory source?  Was there any revelation that they were false?  What led to the disavowal?  Do we now have all the doctrine on the subject or is there more to be revealed?
The teachings often take a back seat in our discussions of the ban.

And, the scriptural support for the teachings behind the ban (i.e., Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham) are not disavowed, and are not going to be removed from the canon. Much to the chagrin of some, these remain, despite disavowals, and their plain reading is, well, plain. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Exactly. 

For the record, I don't believe the less-valiant in the preexistence thing (and never have). I do believe that our pre-mortal development heavily affects mortality. Race is a much less important factor than many others (time in history, geography, family, proclivities and tendencies, etc.). 

It most certainly is not universally agreed that the essay calls past leaders racist and disavows them. It disavows past explanations to allow people to say, "Well, the Church has disavowed that. So, it shouldn't be a concern any more." But it most certainly leaves room for people to believe that the ban was God's will, and given its provenance and publication, there is also room to not get shaken up about the disavowal of the explanations. The Brethren's names are not attached to it, and it's an approved product of scholars and academics. That, too, can easily be disavowed if the need ever arose . . .  The PotF, on the other hand, was issued directly as a product of the FP and Q12. I think that's a lot harder to disavow. 

I agree with rongo that the essay does indeed leave room for people to believe the ban was God's will (I've never stopped believing that, and nothing in the essay compels me to change my mind).

But I disagree that the essay has to have names attached to it for it to be regarded as having the approval of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

The essays are not official declarations or proclamations or anything in the nature of a document that might be expected to have signatures. They are in the nature of explanatory text, compiled information, study aids, if you will.

 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Rongo,

I stand corrected.  My apologies.

"It" being an ongoing series of essays?

A series of essays which were not substantively written by the Brethren (perhaps unlike the Proclamation)?

A series of essays which were instead written by a person or persons not publicly known, but entrusted with this assignment by the Brethren?

A series of essays which have been approved/endorsed by the Brethren?

A series of essays which have not been "released anonymously" (we don't know the identities of the specific persons who helped write them, but they have been "released" on the Church website as a publication of the Church, and hence are not reasonably characterized as "released aonymously")?

A series of essays which have been published on the Church's website and referenced over and over again on www.mormonnewsroom.org and elsewhere on LDS.org?

I am not a percipient witness as to the events you describe, so I cannot meaningfully respond to your questions.  

Again, I was not a percipient witness to these events.  However, I am not sure what you mean by "merely be approved."  Since when is it a bad thing to utilize the training and experience of faithful "scholars, historians, and academics?"

I think the Brethren have a lot on their plates.  I also think the essays reflect a substantial amount of research and expertise.  I see no problem with the Brethren delegating the researching and drafting of these essays to those who have both the time and the training to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm simply asking for your opinion. Not eyewitness testimony. Why are you hesitant to state your opinion? It wouldn't be for the same reason that you tried to excoriate me for my opinion, would it (i.e., the perils of sharing your thoughts)? 

I also see no problem with the Brethren delegating the research and drafting of these essays, in principle, but when it comes to disavowing past teachings on an important and sometimes divisive issue, I would like to hear from them, themselves, instead of an administratively approved public relations instrument. Especially because it involves the disavowal of past teachings.

Edited October 6, 2016 by rongo

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the question is source.

Did the ban come from God?
If not why a removal?
Did the removal come from God?
What was the cause of the removal by God, ie, what about our situation changed?

These questions have been discussed often and most members agree on the responses.

But what about the "teachings"?
Were any of them part of any revelatory source?  Was there any revelation that they were false?  What led to the disavowal?  Do we now have all the doctrine on the subject or is there more to be revealed?
The teachings often take a back seat in our discussions of the ban.

I disagree that most members agree on the responses to the first four questions.  I don't see that at all.  Not here on these boards and not IRL.

And I agree that your last set of questions needs more attention.

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with rongo that the essay does indeed leave room for people to believe the ban was God's will (I've never stopped believing that, and nothing in the essay compels me to change my mind).

But I disagree that the essay has to have names attached to it for it to be regarded as having the approval of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

The essays are not official declarations or proclamations or anything in the nature of a document that might be expected to have signatures. They are in the nature of explanatory text, compiled information, study aids, if you will.

I agree that the essays don't have to have names attached for them to be regarded as approved by the Brethren. It is obvious that they are approved. 

Again, because of the disavowals of past teachings, I think that it would be more appropriate to have made an official proclamation or declaration. Do you think that it has the form that it does precisely because this topic is a powder keg for people at all points on the spectrum?

Edited October 6, 2016 by rongo

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm simply asking for your opinion. Not eyewitness testimony. Why are you hesitant to state your opinion?

This is a sensitive and difficult topic.  Sometimes I feel fine with expressing my personal opinions, sometimes I don't.

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

It wouldn't be for the same reason that you tried to excoriate me for my opinion, would it (i.e., the perils of sharing your thoughts)? 

I misunderstood your opinion, and I have apologized for that.

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I also see no problem with the Brethren delegating the research and drafting of these essays, in principle, but when it comes to disavowing past teachings on an important and sometimes divisive issue, I would like to hear from them, themselves, instead of an administratively approved public relations instrument. Especially because it involves the disavowal of past teachings.

Okay.  I understand and respect that perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I agree that the essays don't have to have names attached for them to be regarded as approved by the Brethren. It is obvious that they are approved. 

Again, because of the disavowals of past teachings, I think that it would be more appropriate to have made an official proclamation or declaration. Do you think that it has the form that it does precisely because this topic is a powder keg for people at all points on the spectrum?

I think the powder keg sensitivity exists only for those relatively few poor souls staking their spiritual well-being at the far ends of the spectrum. I think the essay form satisfies the needs of the vast majority along the curve while offering those sitting on a powder keg to get off and “look to the future.”

I don’t think formal disavowal requires an additional official declaration to OD-2 because the Church body sustained it by the common consent of revelation in 1978, and that was that. Every new member since then had nothing to disavow as they are bound to uphold OD-2, as the other scriptures, by covenant. The Church's official disavowal was accomplished through the leaders at that time, leading the Church into a new era. The remaining historical record or personal traditions and beliefs concerning the past theories, teachings and racist attitudes is an individual responsibility to handle in proper context, as President Hinckley reminded us some 30 years later in April 2006 General Conference.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a sensitive and difficult topic.  Sometimes I feel fine with expressing my personal opinions, sometimes I don't.

I misunderstood your opinion, and I have apologized for that.

Okay.  I understand and respect that perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you, and no hard feelings!  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think the powder keg sensitivity exists only for those relatively few poor souls staking their spiritual well-being at the far ends of the spectrum.

I agree that relatively few actually think about the priesthood ban. Even fewer are even aware that the gospel topics essays are there, or have read them. But, I don't think those who are aware of the issue and have strong feelings about it (on either side) are "poor souls."  

I think the essay form satisfies the needs of the vast majority along the curve while offering those sitting on a powder keg to get off and “look to the future.”

I agree with that. For the vast majority, it is just fine or all they will ever need. 

I don’t think formal disavowal requires an additional official declaration to OD-2 because the Church body sustained it by the common consent of revelation in 1978, and that was that.

But that was all in positive terms. Priesthood and temple were now open to all. There was no disavowal at all --- in fact, President Kimball went out of his way to reference the promises made to prophets in the past. Which is the exact opposite of a disavowal of their teachings.  

Every new member since then had nothing to disavow as they are bound to uphold OD-2, as the other scriptures, by covenant. The Church's official disavowal was accomplished through the leaders at that time, leading the Church into a new era.

I disavow that any disavowal took place in 1978, or at any time until the gospel topic essay.  

[CV75]

13 hours ago, rongo said:

I agree that relatively few actually think about the priesthood ban. Even fewer are even aware that the gospel topics essays are there, or have read them. But, I don't think those who are aware of the issue and have strong feelings about it (on either side) are "poor souls."

I agree with that. For the vast majority, it is just fine or all they will ever need.

But that was all in positive terms. Priesthood and temple were now open to all. There was no disavowal at all --- in fact, President Kimball went out of his way to reference the promises made to prophets in the past. Which is the exact opposite of a disavowal of their teachings.

I disavow that any disavowal took place in 1978, or at any time until the gospel topic essay.  

I would consider someone sitting on a powder keg a poor soul. Awareness and strong feelings are something else from my standpoint.

I also think “look to the future” is an effective, faith-oriented approach to resolving strong feelings about the past. I think that is entailed in what Elder was talking about last weekend as it pertains to topics and causes like this one.

Embracing the positive is the disavowal of the negative. By pointing to what the prophets taught that is consistent with OD-2, President Kimball threw out that which was not consistent. The Church membership followed suit by sustaining Official Declaration-2; there are some individuals (“poor souls” even!) that periodically need to be called out as President Hinckley did.

The disavowal did not originate with the essay. “Today,” as in “Today the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past…” began a long time ago, as the article describes the long trajectory culminating in OD-2.