Will the church ever abandon the belief that the Book of Abraham is historical scripture?

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I already stated it clearly above, Scott:  The Mormon people themselves were not yet ready to accept the word of the Lord on that subject.  I do not doubt the sincerity and purity of heart of President McKay.  Rather I vividly recall the racist folderol and phobias of many a good Mormon when I was young.  It appalled me then, and I was very happy to see it go by the boards when we were finally ready for it.

If Elder Ballard and Pres Uchtdorf are willing to own up to the fact that LDS leaders are fallible, that's good enough for me.  Of course, Joseph Smith always said as much himself, and it is a major point of LDS doctrine.  I have always deeply appreciated this admonition from Brother Brigham:

 

If the saga of the priesthood restriction has taught us anything, it ought to be understanding the folly of inventing reasons for it when we lack the knowledge to do so. 

But even if the reason you suggest here is true, that does not rule out that it was the will of God that the restriction be implemented and left in place until 1978. 

Furthermore, as I've tried to get across to others here, even acknowledging that Church leaders sometimes err does not mean they frequently do, especially when acting as a body, or that they did so in this instance. 

[Kenngo1969]

At the risk of sending this thread off the rails (as though that hasn't happened anytime in the last 14 pages! ), regardless how one feels about the Priesthood ban (even if one feels that it is simply a holdover from a less enlightened, more racist time), there is another way to look at it.  My understanding of the ban's history is that President McKay was perfectly willing to lift it, and he did everything he could administratively (i.e., extending the Priesthood to non-African blacks) short of lifting it to curtail it, but as for ending it entirely, the Lord essentially told him, "Not yet, and don't ask again."  

If all of the ban's roots extended no further than the idea that the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders were simply reflections of their times, it would have been ended, say, fifteen years sooner than it was.  My thesis for why it was allowed to remain in place is that, at least in part, doing so provided a template for how to resist change that the Lord does not inspire, even when social, legal, and other winds are blowing stiffly in the opposite direction.  Of course, today, fortunately, there are no social, political, or legal issues about which the Church of Jesus Christ must stand firm even when the winds of social, legal, and other change are blowing in the opposite direction, such as Cough-cough-premaritalchastityandmarriage betweenamanandawomanareordainedofGod-cough-cough! (And yes, that extends to the idea that even when the ban was still in place, there always was a contingent of Brethren in the Church of Jesus Christ who said that, one day, it would be lifted, when the Lord said it should be: Not so with the Church's "ban" on gay marriage.)

Edited January 29, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I already stated it clearly above, Scott:  The Mormon people themselves were not yet ready to accept the word of the Lord on that subject.  I do not doubt the sincerity and purity of heart of President McKay.  Rather I vividly recall the racist folderol and phobias of many a good Mormon when I was young.  It appalled me then, and I was very happy to see it go by the boards when we were finally ready for it.

If Elder Ballard and Pres Uchtdorf are willing to own up to the fact that LDS leaders are fallible, that's good enough for me.  Of course, Joseph Smith always said as much himself, and it is a major point of LDS doctrine.  I have always deeply appreciated this admonition from Brother Brigham:

 

To me there are just too many things that we do not know in order to pass judgement on Brigham Young and the prophets that followed him in this case or any other when we have not had a definitive statement. We do know that it was lifted by revelation. Whatever personal culpability that Brigham Young may have had is for the Lord to decide. Yet, if various accounts from some who have claimed to have been visited by Brigham after his death can be believed, Brigham was in pretty good standing with God.

I really believe that it is useless to speculate as to why the Lord did not lift the ban sooner. The very reason that you speculate was the bar to the ban being lifted earlier. i.e. that "Mormon people themselves were not yet ready to accept the word of the Lord on that subject" could just as well could be speculated as the reason the ban was instituted. But I do not actually believe that to be the case. I have been acquainted with several who joined the church despite the ban and all of those who I knew were accepted in their respective wards and branches without any incidents that I was aware of. As far as I know, there have never been any segregated LDS wards or branches in the U.S.

But here I am, speculating again. I am just going to leave it be. Leave it in God's hands. I really have no other choice, do I? 

Glenn

Edited January 29, 2017 by Glenn101
spelling

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the saga of the priesthood restriction has taught us anything, it ought to be understanding the folly of inventing reasons for it when we lack the knowledge to do so.

I don't fully agree with this.
The scriptural references that led to the ban remain.  It was misinterpretation of scripture, not invention of doctrine that led to the ban.
The fact that those previous misinterpretations have been disavowed doesn't mean they were invented or made up.

It's the same as with Joseph Smith's teachings on the Holy Ghost in the Kirtland period vs the Nauvoo period.  The way he interpreted scripture was corrected, but the scriptures that led to the incorrect doctrine wasn't invention, but a misreading of scripture and a lack of revelation.
Which I think is what you probably meant by "lack the knowledge" - the missing revelation needed.

[Foreigner]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If Elder Ballard and Pres Uchtdorf are willing to own up to the fact that LDS leaders are fallible, that's good enough for me.  Of course, Joseph Smith always said as much himself, and it is a major point of LDS doctrine.  I have always deeply appreciated this admonition from Brother Brigham:

I am afraid that when Mormons declare their leaders fallibility, that counts for something different.

Mark Bukowski provided in his article untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men  quite a meaningful quote:

A popular joke has more than a hint of truth to it that Catholics espouse papal infallibility, but no Catholic believes in it. Joseph Smith espoused prophetic fallibility, but no Mormon believes in it.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

I am afraid that when Mormons declare their leaders fallibility, that counts for something different.

 

Mark Bukowski provided in his article untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men  quite a meaningful quote:

 

A popular joke has more than a hint of truth to it that Catholics espouse papal infallibility, but no Catholic believes in it. Joseph Smith espoused prophetic fallibility, but no Mormon believes in it.

 

I did not realize that there are no Mormons posting on this board.

Glenn

 

[Foreigner]

54 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I did not realize that there are no Mormons posting on this board.

Glenn

 

Believe or not, but there are also Christians posting on this board.

They call themselves according to Alma 46:15, and do not call themselves in the name of a man because of 3 Nephi 27:7-8.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the saga of the priesthood restriction has taught us anything, it ought to be understanding the folly of inventing reasons for it when we lack the knowledge to do so. 

But even if the reason you suggest here is true, that does not rule out that it was the will of God that the restriction be implemented and left in place until 1978. 

Furthermore, as I've tried to get across to others here, even acknowledging that Church leaders sometimes err does not mean they frequently do, especially when acting as a body, or that they did so in this instance. 

I don't think it productive to try to imagine how often LDS leaders err, nor how monumental those errors may have been from time to time.  Some imagine that they get it wrong most of the time, others that they only very occasionally make mistakes -- whether mistakes of the heart, or deliberate fraud.

The most consistent thing we can do is make a study of the issue, pray about it, and act according to the promptings of the Holy Spirit or according to our conscience -- however we interpret that process.  I always knew that racial prejudice was deeply wrong, even as a child.  I was shocked to find others (including respected adults) who did not take that view.  Racism can warp the thinking of even the nicest people.  I have long tried very hard to be kind and gracious to such people (assuming that they were probably just raised that way), but that doesn't bring back to life the body of young Emmett Till (same age as me).  And I don't blame God for human foibles.  We humans have to carry the weight of that responsibility on our own shoulders.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/emmett-till-lynching-carolyn-bryant-donham.html?_r=0 .

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

To me there are just too many things that we do not know in order to pass judgement on Brigham Young and the prophets that followed him in this case or any other when we have not had a definitive statement. We do know that it was lifted by revelation. Whatever personal culpability that Brigham Young may have had is for the Lord to decide. Yet, if various accounts from some who have claimed to have been visited by Brigham after his death can be believed, Brigham was in pretty good standing with God.

I really believe that it is useless to speculate as to why the Lord did not lift the ban sooner. The very reason that you speculate was the bar to the ban being lifted earlier. i.e. that "Mormon people themselves were not yet ready to accept the word of the Lord on that subject" could just as well could be speculated as the reason the ban was instituted. But I do not actually believe that to be the case. I have been acquainted with several who joined the church despite the ban and all of those who I knew were accepted in their respective wards and branches without any incidents that I was aware of. As far as I know, there have never been any segregated LDS wards or branches in the U.S.

But here I am, speculating again. I am just going to leave it be. Leave it in God's hands. I really have no other choice, do I? 

Glenn

I agree that Brother Brigham was indeed in good standing with God, as were so many prophets before him, going back thousands of years.  God takes fallible humans as he finds them, and the knee-jerk notion that His prophets do not err does not square with the Scriptural record.

Moreover, unlike other religions, the LDS faith does not put everything in God's hands, but rather places the heavy responsibility of free agency in our hands.  What we do is our own free will and choice.  We need to stop fobbing it off on the will of God -- like some sort of fatalist.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/29/2017 at 11:33 AM, Foreigner said:

I am afraid that when Mormons declare their leaders fallibility, that counts for something different.

 

Mark Bukowski provided in his article untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men  quite a meaningful quote:

 

A popular joke has more than a hint of truth to it that Catholics espouse papal infallibility, but no Catholic believes in it. Joseph Smith espoused prophetic fallibility, but no Mormon believes in it.

 

That's a clever quip (one I've heard before), but it sustains the false dichotomy I have identified here in recent days that one must either regard the prophets and apostles as infallible or untrustworthy.

There's a wide territory between believing they never err and that they are as apt as anybody else to err.

Acknowledging that other than Jesus Christ, no perfect individual has ever walked the earth, I nonetheless trust the prophets and apostles to do and say what is right -- especially when acting as a body. Here are some reasons why I do:

-- They are endowed with the gifts of the Spirit to which their sacred calling entitles them.

-- They are accustomed through many years of experience and divine tutoring to behave in a manner that makes them worthy of those gifts of the Spirit.

-- They have knowledge and information to which the average person is not privy.

-- The council system in Church administration acts as a check on individual error.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's a clever quip (one I've heard before), but it sustains the false dichotomy I have identified here in recent days that one must either regard the prophets and apostles as infallible or untrustworthy.

There's a wide territory between believing they never err and that the are as apt as anybody else to err.

Acknowledging that other than Jesus Christ, no perfect individual has ever walked the earth, I nonetheless trust the prophets and apostles to do and say what is right -- especially when acting as a body. Here are some reasons why I do:

-- They are endowed with the gifts of the Spirit to which their sacred calling entitles them.

-- They are accustomed through many years of experience and divine tutoring to behave in a manner that makes them worthy of those gifts of the Spirit.

-- They have knowledge and information to which the average person is not privy.

-- The council system in Church administration acts as a check on individual error.

The is a difference between personal fallibility and doctrinal fallibility. After all...

Quote

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (OD1)

How fast would the Lord remove a prophet who attempts to lead the church astray?

[Guest]

If they do, it will only happen when the President or Apostles question is asked. It is not very often this is done, that is question Joseph Smith. Even Joseph Smith did not receive a lot of revelation until he asked, or questioned the "status quo". 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's a clever quip (one I've heard before), but it sustains the false dichotomy I have identified here in recent days that one must either regard the prophets and apostles as infallible or untrustworthy.

There's a wide territory between believing they never err and that the are as apt as anybody else to err.

Acknowledging that other than Jesus Christ, no perfect individual has ever walked the earth, I nonetheless trust the prophets and apostles to do and say what is right -- especially when acting as a body. Here are some reasons why I do:

-- They are endowed with the gifts of the Spirit to which their sacred calling entitles them.

-- They are accustomed through many years of experience and divine tutoring to behave in a manner that makes them worthy of those gifts of the Spirit.

-- They have knowledge and information to which the average person is not privy.

-- The council system in Church administration acts as a check on individual error.

I completely agree, Scott, but that just doesn't give us permission to excuse certain mistakes, nor does it get us off the hook for finding fault.  Free agency demands that each of us take responsibility for the actions of our leaders -- that is what Brother Brigham himself meant in the quote I provided, and that is what Joseph tried to convey when he told the Saints:  "If you will bear with my infirmities, I will bear with yours."  That is not the same as knee-jerk denial of infirmities.

The LDS conciliar system is indeed excellent, but can also be subject to dangerous group think.  I expect mistakes to be made here and there.  I also expect the leaders to own up to them.

One of the reasons I love Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling is that he tells real LDS history, warts and all.  Yes, there is glory, but there is also ugliness.  We have to face both aspects of our history and try to do better.  The worst thing we can possibly do is to build the youth up to a big let down -- in which they feel betrayed.  You and I might be able to role with the punches, Scott, but many of them cannot.

[Glenn101]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The most consistent thing we can do is make a study of the issue, pray about it, and act according to the promptings of the Holy Spirit or according to our conscience -- however we interpret that process.  I always knew that racial prejudice was deeply wrong, even as a child.  I was shocked to find others (including respected adults) who did not take that view.  Racism can warp the thinking of even the nicest people.  I have long tried very hard to be kind and gracious to such people (assuming that they were probably just raised that way), but that doesn't bring back to life the body of young Emmett Till (same age as me).  And I don't blame God for human foibles.  We humans have to carry the weight of that responsibility on our own shoulders.

I am in agreement with that. We need to spend a lot of time in prayer and meditation, especially on subjects, policies, etc. with which we are uncomfortable. 

Glenn

[stemelbow]

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 1:07 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

If the saga of the priesthood restriction has taught us anything, it ought to be understanding the folly of inventing reasons for it when we lack the knowledge to do so. 

But even if the reason you suggest here is true, that does not rule out that it was the will of God that the restriction be implemented and left in place until 1978. 

Furthermore, as I've tried to get across to others here, even acknowledging that Church leaders sometimes err does not mean they frequently do, especially when acting as a body, or that they did so in this instance. 

There's far more to learn from that whole fiasco.  The main thing is we have to accept that even when leaders say things in an official capacity and claim revelation on matters they can still be wrong.  This world is far less black and white and far more messy than we like to pretend, quite often. 

Oh and one more thing--since we don't know all that they have wrong, we simply can't know that their error rate is any less than any others.

Edited January 30, 2017 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I completely agree, Scott, but that just doesn't give us permission to excuse certain mistakes, nor does it get us off the hook for finding fault.  Free agency demands that each of us take responsibility for the actions of our leaders -- that is what Brother Brigham himself meant in the quote I provided, and that is what Joseph tried to convey when he told the Saints:  "If you will bear with my infirmities, I will bear with yours."  That is not the same as knee-jerk denial of infirmities.

The LDS conciliar system is indeed excellent, but can also be subject to dangerous group think.  I expect mistakes to be made here and there.  I also expect the leaders to own up to them.

One of the reasons I love Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling is that he tells real LDS history, warts and all.  Yes, there is glory, but there is also ugliness.  We have to face both aspects of our history and try to do better.  The worst thing we can possibly do is to build the youth up to a big let down -- in which they feel betrayed.  You and I might be able to role with the punches, Scott, but many of them cannot.

All things considered, I think there is a far greater hazard, given the tenor of the times, that our youth will be misled into ignoring or contradicting wise and divinely directed counsel and instruction from prophets and apostles than there is that they will be set up for a betrayal such as you suggest here.

[Foreigner]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

There's far more to learn from that whole fiasco.  The main thing is we have to accept that even when leaders say things in an official capacity and claim revelation on matters they can still be wrong.  This world is far less black and white and far more messy than we like to pretend, quite often. 

Oh and one more thing--since we don't know all that they have wrong, we simply can't know that their error rate is any less than any others.

O.K. Never too late to get learning, even from priesthood ban fiasco.

Yet why should people wait so long? What about Kirtland bank fiasco, Zion’s Camp fiasco, first temple fiasco, second temple fiasco, war fiasco, candidacy for the US presidency fiasco, third temple fiasco…? Are those fiascos so densely packed that difficult to isolate one for learning?

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

O.K. Never too late to get learning, even from priesthood ban fiasco.

Yet why should people wait so long? What about Kirtland bank fiasco, Zion’s Camp fiasco, first temple fiasco, second temple fiasco, war fiasco, candidacy for the US presidency fiasco, third temple fiasco…? Are those fiascos so densely packed that difficult to isolate one for learning?

I'm not sure what you're saying.  But I will say there is, no doubt, plenty to learn from each of these events. 

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

O.K. Never too late to get learning, even from priesthood ban fiasco.

Yet why should people wait so long? What about Kirtland bank fiasco, Zion’s Camp fiasco, first temple fiasco, second temple fiasco, war fiasco, candidacy for the US presidency fiasco, third temple fiasco…? Are those fiascos so densely packed that difficult to isolate one for learning?

Pick one of them and start a thread.  Could be a good discussion.

[Jeanne]

Let's do the Kirtland Bank...I would love to know more about that.  Probably a lot of things I am not understanding.  First question...why would anyone think they could pull that off?

[Foreigner]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Pick one of them and start a thread.  Could be a good discussion.

Not so desperate.

[Foreigner]

37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Let's do the Kirtland Bank...I would love to know more about that.  Probably a lot of things I am not understanding.  First question...why would anyone think they could pull that off?

Bushman, RSR, page 328. As for me sufficient knowledge. I do not like to be responsible for derailing this thread more. There is still much to say about BoA.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Bushman, RSR, page 328. As for me sufficient knowledge. I do not like to be responsible for derailing this thread more. There is still much to say about BoA.

Thanks for the info.  You are right..apologize for derailing.

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One of the reasons I love Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling is that he tells real LDS history, warts and all.  Yes, there is glory, but there is also ugliness.  We have to face both aspects of our history and try to do better.

After being exposed to Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling recently, I find it not just a change from the old narrative, but to be an inaccurate picture of church history - one that attempts to combine the world's view (accusations, slander, attacks, etc) of Joseph Smith with the Lord's view (a pure, honest, prophet of God). The picture he paints of the Prophet Joseph and the Smith family doesn't match up with what scriptures and words of prophets tell us about them, not just the 'narrative' we've been taught. Bushman's view doesn't just reconstruct the narrative, it attempts to reconstruct how we see the Prophet Joseph - a reconstruction that removes the Lord's opinion and leaves only the secular opinion. We know from D&C that Joseph's name will be "had for good and evil", that "all hell shall rage against him", and that "fools shall have him in derision". We also know that the "wise... will seek blessings and counsel constantly from under his hand"(D&C 122:1-3). Which ones are we? IDK about you, but when the Lord and the world are at odds, I'll take the Lord's side. I noticed several who made comments on the LDS Answers and Joseph Smith Foundation group in a previous discussion of RSR. Looking at their website, I have been quite impressed with the scriptural and evidence based viewpoint they have taken while responding to some of Bushman's claims, specifically these three (which I highly recommend checking out):

http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-sr-a-weak-and-failed-father-a-rough-stone-rolling-response/

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

All things considered, I think there is a far greater hazard, given the tenor of the times, that our youth will be misled into ignoring or contradicting wise and divinely directed counsel and instruction from prophets and apostles than there is that they will be set up for a betrayal such as you suggest here.

A question of judgment, I suppose, you taking one POV, and me another.  I have spent a lifetime looking at this by studying apostate and faithful literature for hints as to what motivates various people.  Like Michael Ash, looking at it independently from me, I see a large group of apostates or near-apostates who not only know nothing about Mormon epistemology (Alma 32, Moroni 10:4-5, James 1:5, etc.), but who have been fed a continuous diet of fake facts about the LDS Church by both well-meaning members and by apostates.  People too often blindly follow one or the other instead of thinking critically (academically and carefully) for themselves -- not exercising free agency, which is a huge responsibility.  The key, Scott, is that people are just not comfortable making their own decisions and then being responsible for them.  They tend to fobb off the responsibility onto someone else, thus confirming their belief in the infallibility of the prophets, or the infallibility of some tweet or internet scam.  Which is the greater hazard?  Probably varies with each person.  The solution:  Active awareness and a commitment to use of the Holy Spirit.