Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 16 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Earnest question Scott, but do you think this meant McConkie didn't think the fence sitters theology was included in that repudiation? I've never heard the "fence-sitters" theory since 1978, and, in truth, I hadn't heard it seriously expressed for many years prior to then. My recollection is that it had been discredited long before. The effect of the 1978 revelation was to erase the errors of the past, like the define-all + delete function on a computer. The disavowals expressed in the Gospel Topics entry on this subject merely described what had been in place since 1978.
USU78 Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I've never heard the "fence-sitters" theory since 1978, and, in truth, I hadn't heard it seriously expressed for many years prior to then. My recollection is that it had been discredited long before. The effect of the 1978 revelation was to erase the errors of the past, like the define-all + delete function on a computer. The disavowals expressed in the Gospel Topics entry on this subject merely described what had been in place since 1978. My recollection is that fence sitter speculation was expressly disavowed long before 1978. 2
Maestrophil Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) On 7/20/2017 at 11:16 AM, Tacenda said: I do understand why you would think he is negative towards the church, I wholeheartedly agree. I just wish the interview was done by someone else so these people are heard. Maybe Laurie will be interviewed by someone like Doug Fabrizio on Radiowest. I'm not saying John Dehlin hasn't done some good, by helping some stay in the church and by helping people feel like they can deal better with faith crisis. He isn't that fantastic at interviewing, but has the psychology degree which may help. I'm up in the air about him still. I hear he will be interviewing the teacher at BYUI that was recently fired for supporting LGBTQ's on FB. We'll see... Kenngo, I wonder if you could reach out to Laurie, I bet she'd love hearing from you. Do we as members, oops, I guess I'm kind of on the fringe, but should faithful members of the church still show her some love? I think so. As long as Laurie isn't harming anyone. I'll bet her family would like that, so as to not feel ousted or shunned also, because of their father's choice. Or I should say mother's choice. Tacenda - IMO you need to stop placing yourself on the fringes of membership. Unless there is something you are not revealing, your conduct does not seem to be against the covenants you have made (or that I assume you have made). Having doubts and hurt about the church are not against any of the promises you have made to Heavenly Father. He loves you and understands our struggles. If you are doing your best, and obeying the commandments to the best of your abilities - then gues what? You are a part of the 'normal' LDS member club! :-) And of course we should show love to all. If people equate love with allowing people all the privileges of membership without having to adhere to commandments and church policy, they will be sorely disappointed, however. Love has nothing to do with consequences. Edited July 21, 2017 by Maestrophil 1
Maestrophil Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, USU78 said: My recollection is that fence sitter speculation was expressly disavowed long before 1978. I have no hard sources, but antidotally, I was born in '69 and by my youth, it was already spoken of as an 'old' doctrinal speculation. 1
Maestrophil Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 16 hours ago, Tacenda said: Ha, ha good point! Except they really are family. Brigham? Are not we all literally family? When I was a child, I thought of sealing in terms of the family I was born to. But then, I realized, it would not be a 12 year old me in the living room with my 30-something parents for eternity. I think Joseph caught a vision of everyone needing to be sealed to someone, anyone... just so long as they got sealed to someone worthy. Who knows if in his zeal he overstepped, but I think we would do well to look at sealing a a chain in our eternal family rather than an earthly bond alone. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, ALarson said: And, how do you know he had come to that conclusion or belief that far back? And, if he did have those feelings, maybe the Lord knew he could give counsel and help to some members in his stake that needed his perspective or unconditional love and understanding that no one else could give at that time. You are assuming he knew he was not worthy to accept the calling when you absolutely do not know that to be a fact. That's judging someone when you are not in the position to do so and wrong of you to do, IMO. From the article cited in the OP.... Quote In her childhood and teen years as an artistic, sensitive boy in Massachusetts, Hall faced the usual round of taunts, slurs and bullying. Failing to project the standard high school tough guy image, she would go home every night and don girl clothes. "I was desperate to become the young woman my body was telling me I would never be," Hall told "Mormon Stories" podcaster John Dehlin in a Facebook Live interview Tuesday.... At the same time, Hall climbed to ecclesiastical positions. Soon after arriving in the Beehive State, Hall became a Mormon bishop, the lay leader of a congregation in Tooele, and later rose to the area's stake president. Those religious responsibilities, combined with family obligations (during these years the couple adopted a daughter from Ukraine) and a demanding workload, helped to keep Hall's real identity feelings under wraps. But not forever. There was a lot of deception involved over decades including family and church leaders. Please don't resort to shaming to shut down debate. Edited July 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui
JulieM Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: From the article cited in the OP.... There was a lot of deception involved over decades including family and church leaders. Please don't resort to shaming to shut down debate. I agree that it's not your place to pass judgement on whether or not he was worthy at the time he accepted the calling. That even goes against what the leaders currently teach (that a member is worthy to serve if they haven't acted on their feelings). Do you believe the leaders who approved his calling and issued the calling were not inspired to do so? 2
Popular Post Kenngo1969 Posted July 21, 2017 Author Popular Post Posted July 21, 2017 I agree ... with both of you. I agree with what JulieM says (at least by implication) that there's nothing about feelings or about inclinations that should render someone unworthy. I stand by my previous assertion that perhaps then-Bishop Hall and later-President Hall may have seen the fact that each calling was extended to him as a sign of God's continuing favor despite his struggles. I doubt, absent overt sin that could have an impact on one's ability to keep his covenants, on one's standing in the Church of Jesus Christ, or on the good name of the Church, that one has an obligation to confess such inclinations. On the other hand, perhaps the issuance of the calling was an opportunity for him to "come clean" about those struggles, but, again, we're not talking about sin here: "Coming clean" under such circumstances would probably require a level and a kind of courage which few of us possess. "There, but for the grace of God, go I," and "Say not, 'Dear Lord, I thank thee that I am not as other men are,' but, rather, say, 'Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!'" and all that. 6
JLHPROF Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 18 hours ago, JulieM said: I don't believe it was anything related to SSM, but it certainly wasn't like adoption sealings today (child to parent). It was grown men who had wives and children of their own (and legal fathers) being sealed to other grown men with wives and children. That's exactly what it was like. It was a parent child sealing.
clarkgoble Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I've never heard the "fence-sitters" theory since 1978, and, in truth, I hadn't heard it seriously expressed for many years prior to then. My recollection is that it had been discredited long before. The effect of the 1978 revelation was to erase the errors of the past, like the define-all + delete function on a computer. The disavowals expressed in the Gospel Topics entry on this subject merely described what had been in place since 1978. It was pretty prominent in Mormon Doctrine. I definitely heard it as a kid. Quote Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate. I always took McConkie's comments as repudiating that section. As I recall they revised a third edition of Mormon Doctrine after 1978 due to the revelation. My copy is in storage so I can't look it up to see if that section was removed. (I vaguely recall it being so) It's interesting that Deseret Books stopped printing the book in 2010. Edited July 21, 2017 by clarkgoble
clarkgoble Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 59 minutes ago, USU78 said: My recollection is that fence sitter speculation was expressly disavowed long before 1978. Going by the FAIR page it had been disavowed by Brigham Young. However people tried to keep both the "no neutrals" and the fence sitter theology. (McConkie being but one example) 3
ALarson Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: From the article cited in the OP.... There was a lot of deception involved over decades including family and church leaders. Please don't resort to shaming to shut down debate. I'm not sure what you're referring to (shaming????). I simply disagree with you and feel you are not in the position to pass judgement on this man and pretend to know what was in his heart when he accepted the calling. You can disagree (this is a discussion board after-all). As others have pointed out, you are even going against what church leaders currently teach regarding those who are worthy to serve in a calling. 2
cinepro Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 23 hours ago, Alan said: Joining this thread very late. I would just like to respond to the thread title by saying; no your Stake President is not a woman. Alan, "have you gone mad?"
ALarson Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I agree ... with both of you. I agree with what JulieM says (at least by implication) that there's nothing about feelings or about inclinations that should render someone unworthy. I stand by my previous assertion that perhaps then-Bishop Hall and later-President Hall may have seen the fact that each calling was extended to him as a sign of God's continuing favor despite his struggles. I doubt, absent overt sin that could have an impact on one's ability to keep his covenants, on one's standing in the Church of Jesus Christ, or on the good name of the Church, that one has an obligation to confess such inclinations. On the other hand, perhaps the issuance of the calling was an opportunity for him to "come clean" about those struggles, but, again, we're not talking about sin here: "Coming clean" under such circumstances would probably require a level and a kind of courage which few of us possess. "There, but for the grace of God, go I," and "Say not, 'Dear Lord, I thank thee that I am not as other men are,' but, rather, say, 'Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!'" and all that. Very well stated, Kenngo. Who is without sin or struggles? Does that mean we are not worthy to accept a calling? This man had not decided to become a woman at the time of him being called to be a SP. Those who called him were inspired to do so and he may have touched lives in a way that others weren't able to do as their SP. 2
ALarson Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I've never heard the "fence-sitters" theory since 1978, and, in truth, I hadn't heard it seriously expressed for many years prior to then. My recollection is that it had been discredited long before. I heard more about it being a result of actions in the pre-existence or that they were less valiant. It gets nit picky when you just narrow it down to the teaching that they were "fence-sitters", IMO. There are many statements by past leaders regarding them being less valiant and it was a common belief even after the 1970's (iirc). 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: It was pretty prominent in Mormon Doctrine. I definitely heard it as a kid. I always took McConkie's comments as repudiating that section. As I recall they revised a third edition of Mormon Doctrine after 1978 due to the revelation. My copy is in storage so I can't look it up to see if that section was removed. (I vaguely recall it being so) I have a copy here in front of me, but it is an old one, second edition, 1966, and contains the quote you cited. It makes sense that there would have been a revision after 1978. It's worth noting that the entry also includes this: Quote President Brigham Young and others have taught that in the future eternity worthy and qualified negroes will receive the priesthood and every gospel blessing available to any man. So this is documentation of what I said earlier on this thread, that the conventional wisdom back in the day was that it was only a matter of time before the priesthood would be granted to worthy men of African descent. By contrast, no general Church leader has ever stated or opined that homosexual behavior will one day cease to be sinful or that gay "marriage" will one day stand approved of God. Back to you: Quote It's interesting that Deseret Books stopped printing the book in 2010. Meh. All books have a life span. Though some few last a very long time, most die very quickly after the death of the author, if not before. The remarkable thing is that Mormon Doctrine stayed in print as long as it did. I must correct you on something. The name of the company is Deseret Book, being a shortened form of the name Deseret Book Co. I'm seeing "Deseret Books" from time to time these days, and I wonder about the origin of this error. Edited July 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: I heard more about it being a result of actions in the pre-existence or that they were less valiant. It gets nit picky when you just narrow it down to the teaching that they were "fence-sitters", IMO. There are many statements by past leaders regarding them being less valiant and it was a common belief even after the 1970's (iirc). I can't accept that "it was a common belief even after the 1970s." Not without documentation.
clarkgoble Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I must correct you on something. The name of the company is Deseret Book, being a shortened form of the name Deseret Book Co. I'm seeing "Deseret Books" from time to time these days, and I wonder about the origin of this error. It's natural as they have more than one book. If you don't say "Book Company" which is singular it's natural to use the plural. I didn't even realize I'd done it and I know it's an error. Everyone I know says Deseret Books even though most probably know it's wrong. (I mispronounce most philosophical terms and names too while speaking - my secret shame) 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Meh. All books have a life span. Though some few last a very long time, most die very quickly after the death of the author, if not before. The remarkable thing is that Mormon Doctrine stayed in print as long as it did. It was still selling quite well. Personally I wouldn't be surprised to find out this was a decision of the brethren to limit its influence. A few of the people who worked on the Encyclopedia of Mormonism back in the 90's explicitly said it was the brethren trying to limit the influence of Mormon Doctrine (which then was still extensive). Although truth be told even before DB stopped publishing it I'd rarely hear anyone under 60 quote from it. I think McConkie was a great figure and gets unjustly maligned. But at the same time I think Mormon Doctrine was a mistake to publish and hurt the Church more than it helped. Edited July 21, 2017 by clarkgoble 2
ALarson Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I can't accept that "it was a common belief even after the 1970s." Not without documentation. I'd wager that many members (especially older members) still believe this regarding the ban. It's what they were taught by the leaders when they were younger and some aren't aware that it is no longer taught. Remember Randy L. Bott? That took place not that long ago.... But continue believing what you wish as that is your right, of course. I agree it's definitely not as common a belief as it used to be.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) 21 hours ago, ALarson said: I'd wager that many members (especially older members) still believe this regarding the ban. It's what they were taught by the leaders when they were younger and some aren't aware that it is no longer taught. Remember Randy L. Bott? That took place not that long ago.... So I guess you won't be forthcoming with any documentation, then. The erroneous beliefs that some, if any, still harbor and what is authoritatively taught in the Church are different things. I'm not responsible for the persistent ignorance of some members, who are as capable as the next person of learning the truth. Neither is the Church. And as I recall, even Bott, though he spoke unwisely, didn't claim that black people were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence. Quote But continue believing what you wish as that is your right, of course. I agree it's definitely not as common a belief as it used to be. Nor as common as you make it out to be. Edited July 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
california boy Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I have a copy here in front of me, but it is an old one, second edition, 1966, and contains the quote you cited. It makes sense that there would have been a revision after 1978. It's worth noting that the entry also includes this: So this is documentation of what I said earlier on this thread, that the conventional wisdom back in the day was that it was only a matter of time before the priesthood would be granted to worthy men of African descent. Back to you: Meh. All books have a life span. Though some few last a very long time, most die very quickly after the death of the author, if not before. The remarkable thing is that Mormon Doctrine stayed in print as long as it did. I must correct you on something. The name of the company is Deseret Book, being a shortened form of the name Deseret Book Co. I'm seeing "Deseret Books" from time to time these days, and I wonder about the origin of this error. If you and others are relying on the revelation or prophecy by Brigham Young as proof that blacks would one day hold the priesthood, then you can't change that prophecy to refer to the 1978 revelation. Brigham Young was very specific when blacks would receive the priesthood. Quote How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Revising the prophecy to fit what actually happens is once again, your desire to rewrite history. . Edited July 21, 2017 by california boy 2
stemelbow Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I've never heard the "fence-sitters" theory since 1978, and, in truth, I hadn't heard it seriously expressed for many years prior to then. My recollection is that it had been discredited long before. The effect of the 1978 revelation was to erase the errors of the past, like the define-all + delete function on a computer. The disavowals expressed in the Gospel Topics entry on this subject merely described what had been in place since 1978. We know the teaching was official. In an official 1949 statement on Race the 1st Presidency said: Quote 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. While "frence sitters" wasn't used, it is clear they are saying, officially, that the teaching was true. Had the teaching ever been officially rejected, aside from in 2013 when the Race and the Priesthood condemned it? 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 21, 2017 Author Posted July 21, 2017 Welcome to the Priesthood-ban-dynastic-sealings-gay-marriage-priesthood-ban-Bruce-R-McConkie-Mormon-Doctrine-whatever-else-anyone-wants-to-talk-about-thread. And moderating by complaint is working so well! 4
ALarson Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So I guess you won't be forthcoming with any documentation, then. I never claimed to have documentation (not sure that's even possible regarding what members believed or continued believing). If you choose to believe that not many members continued to hold onto the teachings they'd heard from their leaders, that's fine. I'm not even sure when the leaders started correcting these past teachings, but I'd like to see when that was and how strongly they were disavowed (just out of curiosity). I know that the essay covers it.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: It's natural as they have more than one book. If you don't say "Book Company" which is singular it's natural to use the plural. I didn't even realize I'd done it and I know it's an error. Everyone I know says Deseret Books even though most probably know it's wrong. (I mispronounce most philosophical terms and names too while speaking - my secret shame) I don't recall ever seeing or hearing it rendered "Deseret Books" up to a decade ago, and I was born and reared in the Church. If the error is as natural and widespread as you make it out to be, I wonder that it took so long to arrive on the scene. Quote It was still selling quite well. Personally I wouldn't be surprised to find out this was a decision of the brethren to limit its influence. A few of the people who worked on the Encyclopedia of Mormonism back in the 90's explicitly said it was the brethren trying to limit the influence of Mormon Doctrine (which then was still extensive). Although truth be told even before DB stopped publishing it I'd rarely hear anyone under 60 quote from it. If it was still selling quite well, I wonder why people under 60 didn't quote from it. I recall Encyclopedia of Mormonism being an initiative of MacMillan Publishing Co. I suppose it's possible the Brethren elected to cooperate with the project to the extent that they did for the reason you say, but I've never heard that before and, without substantiation, would be inclined to regard it as a rumor. Quote I think McConkie was a great figure and gets unjustly maligned. But at the same time I think Mormon Doctrine was a mistake to publish and hurt the Church more than it helped. I agree with you about Elder McConkie, but would add that there was much that was commendable about Mormon Doctrine.
Recommended Posts