New Paper that Addresses Historical & Doctrinal Issues

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

As Clark pointed out, those categories don't exist in real life so good luck finding someone who is willing to box themselves into one. 

I think he found himself as he seemed to use his position to define the progressive view.  I think it unfair to think any one person, though, would fit in with any one of his categories as it goes through the topics. 

[juliann]

25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

 

Ok.  It's ironic that you criticize, but aren't willing to make it better or improve it.   

 

Why. 

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think cv is sort of criticizing from two POV, the first is saying if someone assumes Reel's work is useful contribution, they could contribute to making it better for its purpose as there is room for much improvement and having multiple contributors is one way.

But his view is it is a faulty approach in the first place, so even though things could be done to make it better, in the end it is detrimental to understanding and relationships, so he has no interest in making it better.  Think of an extreme analogy of being able to recognize technical errors in the construction of a bomb while holding the viewpoint that the bomb's stated purpose of maintaining peace will not be well served by the use of it.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it is ironic.

Ok, I can see that.  I'm sure there are some who wouldn't want to help with this if they don't believe it's a paper that is useful to begin with.  Makes sense...

[juliann]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

  I read it as being a kind of middle ground tone between the CES letter and FAIR, where both sides have valuable points of view but are very strident and divisive.  

CFR that FM is "very strident."  

[JulieM]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well you could read multiple things including what FAIR puts out. Her choices was this or the "CES letter" but the latter doesn't exactly give multiple points of view either.

Not true.  I never stated those were the only 2 choices (I stated "the CES letter, for example").  It was just an example of other things people could find as a source if they're searching for answers.

I actually thought of the CES letter since this has just happened in my family.  (And, I told them they should go to the Fair website and I hope they do.  We'll see...they were pretty worked up .)

Edited May 2, 2017 by JulieM

[Ouagadougou]

42 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll grant you the church's essays are only given a limited view. I don't think FAIR is sweeping issues under the rug although I don't always agree with what they've written. I don't think this work is any more objective than FAIR and sweeps a lot under the rug as well. In particular it's very distortive of what's orthodox. I'd say it's more or less a work of apologetic for the position he calls the "progressive."

The churches essays are extremely limited/narrow and really don't even focus on anything, IMO.  The church can't even admit that denying the blacks the priesthood was DOCTRINE and not just some "theory."  

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

FYI- I missed it for many pages until I came back this morning to all of the lamenting that no one has addressed your edited post. I have attempted to respond so hopefully that refrain is over  

My obsessive nature requires me to point out "lamenting" is the wrong word.

While I enjoy pats on the back for my posts greatly (Rev's above actually brought tears to my eyes, it is wonderful to be appreciated in this manner) and I really enjoy thoughtful engagement with my comments, I don't need people to respond to them and in fact given the history of my posting I anticipate in many situations that my more substantive posts will be ignored, especially if this has already happened to others in a thread.  Some posters appear to feel little need to respond to substance but feel more inclined (or so I am guessing based on actual behaviour) to respond to shorter, highly critical posts..I get the need to defend oneself, don't understand not engaging with thoughtful posts at the same time though.

However, I do take issue when posters complain about the lack of quality in a thread, complain about alleged ad homs, etc. without any recognition of thoughtful, substantive posts and when that happens and happens repeatedly, I will often make an effort to point out where they are wrong, either my own work or others.

I do think those posters who jump to trashing others as having ad hom or overly defensive posts before engaging, if they ever do, substantive on point to the discussion posts discourage on point to the discussion, substantive points.

Why would anyone seeing the lack of response to thoughtful posts be inclined to attempt their own given it can take significant time and effort to make one?

Anyone who complains generically about the low quality of posts does not do so from a credible position, imo, unless they have first made a determined effort to at least recognize and hopefully engage with substantive posts in the thread they are trashing.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

The churches essays are extremely limited/narrow and really don't even focus on anything, IMO.  The church can't even admit that denying the blacks the priesthood was DOCTRINE and not just some "theory."  

It says, "In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

And, "Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban."

It seems pretty clear that the denial was doctrine and policy and that the theories were the ideas of why that those were doctrines. So I think you're being at best disingenuous. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ok, I can see that.  I'm sure there are some who wouldn't want to help with this if they don't believe it's a paper that is useful to begin with.  Makes sense...

I was avoiding saying too much about the paper itself; it is primarily the approach that I do not find useful. It's not an approach I find useful.

Now if asked, as far as the paper itself goes, I think it undermines its credibility on a number of fronts, but in a way that at least keeps it internally consistent for those who are too unable or uncommitted to take either a spiritual or scholarly approach to faith-related questions. But that is the nature of engaging in controversy.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

My obsessive nature requires me to point out "lamenting" is the wrong word.

While I enjoy pats on the back for my posts greatly (Rev's above actually brought tears to my eyes, it is wonderful to be appreciated in this manner) and I really enjoy thoughtful engagement with my comments, I don't need people to respond to them and in fact given the history of my posting I anticipate in many situations that my more substantive posts will be ignored, especially if this has already happened to others in a thread.  Some posters appear to feel little need to respond to substance but feel more inclined (or so I am guessing based on actual behaviour) to respond to shorter, highly critical posts..I get the need to defend oneself, don't understand not engaging with thoughtful posts at the same time though.

However, I do take issues when posters complain about the lack of quality in a thread, complain about alleged ad homs, etc. without any recognition of thoughtful, substantive posts and when that happens and happens repeatedly, I will often make an effort to point out where they are wrong, either my own work or others.

I do think those posters who jump to trashing others as having ad hom, defensive posts before engaging, if they ever do, substantive on point to the discussion posts discourage on point to the discussion, substantive points.

Why would anyone seeing the lack of response to thoughtful posts be inclined to attempt their own given it can take significant time and effort to make one?

Anyone who complains generically about the low quality of posts does not do so from a credible position, imo, unless they have first made a determined effort to at least recognize and hopefully engage with substantive posts in the thread they are trashing.

Ok. I'll retract "lament" if that makes you feel better, though I still find it somewhat descriptive. I'll replace it with "complain" as there were multiple posts complaining that no one had responded to your edited post. Now I have responded so I'm not sure why you're on this soap box with me. I have not complained about low quality of posts or ad hominem attacks. You seem to be quoting me in your post yet complaining about someone else

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

It says, "In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptismand receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

It seems pretty clear that the denial was doctrine and policy and that the theories were the ideas of why that might be.

Not really true though.  The theories were doctrine and policy.  for instance in 1949 the 1 Presidency issued this statement:

Quote

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency ^[1]

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

This statement, clarifying the position of the Church, quotes Brigham Young ""Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

It also suggests, "that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes."

Both of which were rejected in the more recent essay:

Quote

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.

Thus it seems the more recent essay tells us Church leaders condemn (Unequivocally no less) the past racism which was doctrine. 

 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Ok. I'll retract "lament" if that makes you feel better, though I still find it somewhat descriptive. I'll replace it with "complain" as there were multiple posts complaining that no one had responded to your edited post. Now I have responded so I'm not sure why you're on this soap box with me. I have not complained about low quality of posts or ad hominem attacks. You seem to be quoting me in your post yet complaining about someone else

You are the one suggesting by the use of the term "lament" that there was an emotional component.  I find that it presents a picture contradictory to what was actually happening and that is why I am responding to your posts in this fashion.

I had the intent in pointing in my several posts to my edited first post that those complaining about the lack of addressing the opening post were wrong in that there was indeed at least one post that obviously did that (I think there were more) and had done it from almost the beginning of the thread.  I didn't care if they responded to it, I cared and care if they continued to misrepsent the thread as focusing solely on making improper criticisms and not addressing the OP and dealing with the article rather than attacking the man.  My edited post was the easiest to point to as fulfilling the qualities being looked for/demanded in some cases imo.

[clarkgoble]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not really true though.  The theories were doctrine and policy. 

Note that what I responded to what the claim the church essays denied that the priesthood ban was doctrine. I think I showed that's a false statement.

You're now making a different claim than what I dealt with.

Clearly from the church's perspective what some thought was doctrine wasn't and was just a theory. Much like Brigham Young thought Adam/God was doctrine and was wrong. The whole point of continuing revelation is that false ideas can be overthrown. I'm sure some things we think are doctrinal now will turn out to be mistakes.

The question ends up being what you think the word "doctrinal" means. Does it merely mean what's believed by the community at a certain point or what they should believe? If you're point is just that what people think is doctrine changes, I'll fully agree, but would then say that they were mistaken about doctrine not that it was doctrine. In the same way a scientist in the 19th century believed in aether but were wrong. The laws of nature didn't change. Just that what scientists stated were the laws of nature were wrong.

Now I'll be the first to admit that the word doctrine can be a bit ambiguous. Do we mean it to be what the church teaches or do we mean it in terms of what the ideal church should teach. This is only a problem though if one demands a theology of infallibility. Since we accept continuing doctrine and corrections from God this isn't really a problem theologically. If you demand the church must never be mistaken in doctrine then you'll see it as more of an issue. But then infallibility never was a doctrine of the church. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[DBMormon]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

No one has apparently yet quoted my edited analysis of Reel's article providing a few specific examples of problems.  Instead we get claims the person is attacked rather than his work addressed.  Even my unedited comment was about the nature of his past work, with an example given, not the man.

I appreciate Hope's engagement with other posts I made.  Perhaps someone else did something besides tell me I was attacking Reel rather than his work, I am sorry if I have forgotten.  Hopefully I responded when I first read it even if I have forgotten already. 45 minutes of sleep last night plays havoc with my memory.

By the way I grant it is not "perfectly" objective nor do I imagine we could arrive at any such thing.  I am happy to hear others note such.  Though it appears from my asking if it is and others responding that they know of nothing more so.... that is is the most unbiased and most fair document that attempts to with the major controversial issues.  As Members of FairMormon would you say Fair's website is more biased or less biased than my document and if my document is more even handed of the issues and the various sides of people arguments than such criticism seems odd and out of place.  

That said I 100% validate that even as the most fair handed and balanced document in existence trying to cover the believer and the critic and spaces in-between on the most controversial issues in Mormonism, my document is not perfect and could always revision to help it to be something more fair and more perfect.  

Also some have mentioned my comment about Orthodox members needing to know every jot and tittle could be replaced with a better example..... white shirts for instance.  I am completely open to making the document more fair and more balanced but in sharing these 4 generalizations it is very likely one generalization will naturally appear weaker and another naturally stronger in the eyes of the reader or even in the document as an absolute.  For instance if we wrote a paper arguing the benefits of using marshmallows as fuel for society and using nuclear power I am guessing one side will naturally seem to be a stronger position and another seem less reasonable.

[DBMormon]

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I skimmed the pages, but I did not find a response yet to Calm's assessment of Bill's proposal - did I miss it?  If not, can we just see the response and forget about all of the "you hurt my feelings" diatribes?

Bill, I thought her comments can easily be viewed as constructive.  You asked for such and it would seem a relatively easy fix.  What do you think?

You are a public personality and you have a body of public work from which individuals can easily draw conclusions.  It is naive to think that those conclusions will be, or even should be, set aside because you have produced something else.  If you are seeking personal opinions, I think the objective of producing a paper that attempts to cover what some think are challenges and to provide a range of typical responses one might hear from four subsets of LDS or those related to the Church in some way.  The difficulty is to portray those separate perspectives in a way that is neutral and without any degree of caricature.  However, you are more than capable of doing so.

I welcome the feedback.  I have taken no offense.  I simply find it odd that there was no positive feedback that this is as fair and balanced a document as exists on the tough issues.  Seems an easy thing to acknowledge even while touting its flaws.  I want people to support their loved ones in a faith deconstruction and I want the people deconstructing to find safer space to stay and if changes can be made that make the document more helpful than I am all for it.  

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I welcome the feedback.  I have taken no offense.  I simply find it odd that there was no positive feedback that this is as fair and balanced a document as exists on the tough issues.  Seems an easy thing to acknowledge even while touting its flaws.  I want people to support their loved ones in a faith deconstruction and I want the people deconstructing to find safer space to stay and if changes can be made that make the document more helpful than I am all for it.  

I think the goal is worthy. I just think the problem is that the non-progressive elements aren't treated fairly. The progressive parts are done reasonably well in the parts I read. It's just that the other parts aren't.

[Calm]

To be explicit to make my point, crap that isn't as bad smelling as all the rest of the piles is still crap.

I find the attempt to be recognized as the best of all of the fundamentally flawed attempts out there to be highly problematic.

'They got the closest to a functional perpetual motion machine that has ever been seen yet' would not be a recommendation to publish a claim for a perpetual motion machine in a scientific journal.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

FM is not attempting to do what your article is doing, imo.  I am not going to compare apples and oranges and argue which one is the best tasting meat.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Calm

[DBMormon]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it is exceptionally hard for a person to recognize their own bias. I'm sure this is just as true for Bill as it is for me. I think the author's voice will always come through in various ways, and that's not all bad, yet it should be recognized.

You made a comment elsewhere that suggested that because the different categories weren't fully accurate, and as Bluebell said, are sometimes "insulting", it seems like future updates could include sections about one particular group that is written by someone who self-identifies with that group. The quest is whether or not orthodox, apologists etc would contribute to the work. Based on some of the vitriol on this thread I am not confident others would engage. For example, Calm, would you be willing to submit a few short summary sections that would replace the ones you find particularly unfair? Would anyone else be willing to do that? Bluebell? Juliann? StormRider?

Bill, would you accept submissions from others who self-identify in these different groups?

I would welcome any submitted revision and heavilty consider using it if it makes the document more fair and balanced while not taking away from the issues discussed.

[DBMormon]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

Great questions and I hope some that you named respond.  I love the idea of others contributing.  A representation from each "group" who writes their beliefs is less bias and more accurate.

So, would any of you help Bill with those sections?

I actually found myself NOT in just one group, but could relate to the beliefs of each group depending on the topic or chapter.

I welcome folks contributing but wonder if those who have offered criticisms would be willing to contribute.  It could easily be made into a document that allows suggested edits and I could easily share it with various people.  I welcome such.  

[DBMormon]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I want to hear from the horses mouth (or in Calm's case the mole's mouth) when it comes to what they believe.  It's that simple for me on this.  I don't mind Bill summarizing the positions, but by far a better approach is to get someone else to write for each position that they favor. 

if people were willing and the length of the document and general tone was disturbed I am all for it.

[juliann]

13 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I welcome the feedback.  I have taken no offense.  I simply find it odd that there was no positive feedback that this is as fair and balanced a document as exists on the tough issues.  Seems an easy thing to acknowledge even while touting its flaws.  I want people to support their loved ones in a faith deconstruction and I want the people deconstructing to find safer space to stay and if changes can be made that make the document more helpful than I am all for it.  

This is why it is not productive to engage with you on these type things, Bill. You completely ignore the feedback. This is not a fair and balanced document when you are misrepresenting positions. Since we are the ones holding those positions it probably should mean that what we are saying is as close to accurate as you are likely to get. 

[DBMormon]

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ok I've taken the time to read (Most of it).  What I appreciated was first the time that Bill Reel has taken to produce this work that in and of itself is a daunting task.  I like how he has divided the topic's into the 4 points of view.  Orthodox, Critic, Apologetic and Progressive.  What I found particularly helpful by adopting this format is the contrast between the various points of view.  First we have the Orthodox, the version of historical events we were all taught in Sunday School intended to promote faith and belief in the LDS truth claims, The critic's viewpoint which contrasts with the orthodox in that it removes the faith promoting aspects of the history and exposes it in all of its rawness and flaws. Followed by the apologetic which attempts to justify the faith promoting and finally the progressive viewpoint which attempts to make sense of the other often conflicting points of view through nuance, shading and subtlety in an attempt to maintain faith and belief despite the messiness of it all.

This paper is not intended for the hard core orthodox believer who maintains a traditional POV but the once orthodox believer who has stumbled upon the messiness of Mormon history which conflicts with the traditional Sunday School stories we were all taught and though experiencing doubt in those truth claims is still attempting to hold on to their faith.  I believe that Bill's work is a noble exercise and instead of criticizing him, he should be complimented for his compassionate efforts to bridge the gap between faith and doubt.

As someone who members of this board have "pidgin holed" as a critic, I am actually surprised that so many here are so critical of one of your own, someone who is actually attempting to help those in a faith crisis maintain belief in the church truth claims.  It seems to me as an non-believer that you would all be rallying around Bill offering encouragement and support instead of focusing on the faults you see in this effort. 

I see this work as a breath of fresh air, an honest attempt to help bridge the gap between claimed truth and reality.  If only the church essays had been so honest.

As someone who lost my faith after discovering that the version of events I was taught in Sunday School was less than factual and turned to the apologetic sight FAIR for answers only to have my worst fears confirmed...I wonder what might have been had this work been available then. Would it have been enough to maintain belief, I'll never know, but at least it would have been something

Thank you!!!!

[DBMormon]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

Contrived?  That's not at all true, IMO.  These different ways or levels of belief exist within members of the church.  You might not like the names that Bill has given them, but I doubt he "contrived".

And, members are searching for answers. Wouldn't you rather they read something like this rather than the CES letter, for example?  

You can't just pretend that only faithful answers will be sufficient anymore for many who are searching for truth and help.  There's too many places where they can find the information now.

Would you be willing to help Bill write the sections for where your beliefs are?  That's been suggested and I do like that idea.

"You can't just pretend that only faithful answers will be sufficient anymore"
Amen Julie

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I welcome folks contributing but wonder if those who have offered criticisms would be willing to contribute.  It could easily be made into a document that allows suggested edits and I could easily share it with various people.  I welcome such.  

It's really great that you are so open to listening and responding to feedback, Bill.  I'm impressed!  I haven't listened to your podcasts (just learned more about them today).  But I plan to now.  Thanks for your efforts to help so many who are struggling.

I really do hope some who are critical of your initial paper will help by improving on the areas they find lacking.  I feel there are several here that could do a good job and add their perspective.

Edited May 2, 2017 by JulieM