Iron Rod Saints and Liahona Saints

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/30/2017 at 3:09 PM, Calm said:

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

Why does it automatically have to be the Church that is the issue and not the individual or family or local neighborhood dynamics?

There are many who grew up in the Church who are quite open and living "authentic lives".  I can think of half a dozen of the kids in my local neighborhood who by the time they were living on their own informed their parents they no longer believed, there are several youth in our ward where it is well known they have doubts.  There are several couples in our wards where it is known one spouse is a believer and the other isn't.  And I am in semirural Utah Valley, supposedly the deepest, darkest part of the Mormon culture.

Outside the Church I have heard kids say they could never tell their parents _______, heard adults say they can't be open with their spouse out of fear of being left, employees being less than open with employers.

Not living an "authentic life" can happen anywhere, as demonstrated it wasn't a phrase that began first in Mormon culture.  Unless you can demonstrate that it happens with a higher frequency within the general Mormon population, it is wrong to attach it to the Church.

Yes, and sociologist Armand Mauss showed that Mormons in 1967 were no more likely to give "anti-Negro responses than were the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, or Baptists." The survey also shows that the Orthodox Mormons were "consistently less likely to express anti-Negro attitudes" than the doubters of key Church doctrines.  Lester Bush and Armand Mauss, Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church (Signature Books, 1984), 20-23; cf. Mauss, "Mormonism and the Negro: Faith, Folklore, and Civil Rights," Dialogue, 4/4 (Winter 1967):19-39, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V02N04_21.pdf ; Armand L. Mauss, “Mormonism's Worldwide Aspirations and its Changing Conceptions of Race and Lineage,” Dialogue, 34/3&4 (Fall-Winter 2001):103-133, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0304_129.pdf .

Thus, it is precisely the less faithful who are more likely to express racist attitudes.  Why?  Perhaps because they do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As taught by Joseph Smith:

Quote

"Nothing can reclaim the human mind from its ignorance, bigotry, superstition &c but those grand and sublime principles of equal rights and universal freedom to all men."   Minutes of the Council of Fifty

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm confused. It says "poster removed" above, yet Robert Smith has 3 posts after that...?

Me also.  Did someone intercede on my behalf?

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Me also.  Did someone intercede on my behalf?

The Intercession of Saints is real

ETA: St. Isidore of Seville is the patron saint of the internet. Perhaps he prayed for you

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Intercession of Saints is real

ETA: St. Isidore of Seville is the patron saint of the internet. Perhaps he prayed for you

Fascinating.  The article you cite here has him as an author of an etymological encyclopedia.  In fact his very name is a hybrid Greek-Egyptian name:  ῎Ισις, ῎Ισι  Isis + δορή dor “Gift-of-Isis, Given-by-Isis.”  How appropriate that he is the last scholar of antiquity.

You know, Mormons believe in the intercession of the Saints -- we do it by proxy, in temples.

[MiserereNobis]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You know, Mormons believe in the intercession of the Saints -- we do it by proxy, in temples.

Do you mean by this things like proxy baptism? Or is there more involved?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/31/2017 at 9:18 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Do you mean by this things like proxy baptism? Or is there more involved?

Yes, beginning with baptism and confirmation, a whole range of sacraments (including oaths & covenants): washings & anointings, ordination to the priesthood (for males), clothing in the robes of the priesthood for endowments and sealings (including eternal marriage).  It is very symbolic, entails a set liturgy, and is quite ennobling -- for both living and dead.

[Meerkat]

On 7/22/2017 at 4:56 PM, SteveO said:

http://www.zionsbest.com/people.html

Here is the article I'm referencing.

I think depending on the topic, I find myself in both camps.  I don't question church leadership or criticize them.  I think it is a dangerous road to go down.  But I am starting to think more and more that members need different things, and that a rough "customization" is possible.  I really do not like church.  I will straight up skip elder's quorum most Sundays.  I just get emotionally exhausted dealing with fellow members.  I do the church's service projects that I see as valuable, and absolutely refuse to help people when they move.  I struggle with prayers, but love scripture study.  Stuff that I've felt guilty over, but I think I shouldn't have to.

So what are your opinions?  Where do you fall?  Is there a way to "customize" the gospel to fit specific needs?  Does any of this sound familiar to our interactions on this board?Thoughts?  

 

PS:  And for goodness sake DO NOT turn this into a thread on the church's stance on homosexuality!!!  Please and thank you  

I have a wonderful testimony of this Gospel.  Even so, I share the mantra of my late Father, "Lord, I believe.  Help thou mine unbelief." Christ says if I do the thing, I'll know the doctrine.  So I try to do the things I can do such as mourning with those who mourn, and encouraging people in a variety of ways, such as  bringing a handicapped friend to Church on Sunday. (Please try to disregard the self serving nature of the last sentence. It's just part of a covenant I made a long time ago that brings me a lot of contentment and strengthens my faith.)

Attending Priesthood meeting and dealing with other mortals as bad as me can be a chore, potentially.  I get that.  I'm just glad they put up with me.  Frequently, I pick up a nugget in class that is so valuable it keeps me going all week.  Those, as the Scriptures say, are like "apples of gold in pictures of silver" to me.  

I understand the Church's position that we try to avoid moving projects in order to avoid injury.  My limbs aren't what they used to be, so you won't find me loading up many trucks any more. But my heart is with them, especially the young family who can't afford to move by themselves.  That was me back in the day.  

I understand not wanting to feel guilty for things I do or don't do.  But philosophically, I have found guilt to be an asset not to be ignored. The guidance I receive from those small nudgings tend to keep me in the path of peace.  I probably fall into the "Liahona" camp on that one, by your article's definition.  I appreciate your honesty and vulnerability SteveO, outlining your struggles with the Church and it's members.  If I were honest, I would also need to admit that I have been frustrated and felt overburdened from time to time serving, etc., above what I felt able.  The value I have gleaned from those experiences is learning what my limits are.  I do need to use my own noggin setting boundaries especially where serving others would interfere with my very real responsibilities to my wife and family.  Sometimes that means ratcheting back some or even many of the things I volunteer for, such as Sealing Team this month, or cleaning the Chapel again. Many members have learned to set those boundaries.  The thing is, the Lord's work needs to get done, and it shouldn't regularly fall upon the shoulders of the few who recognize that need.  We should all be pitching in, imho.

I love the words Iron Rod and Liahona, and feel your author could have chosen better.  His or her use of those words in this instance seems akin to appropriating words that are beloved and meaningful in a culture and attributing a meaning that detracts from their traditional beauty and influence.  I believe that the common meaning of those two descriptors would tend to engender empathy, mutual understanding, friendship and even cooperation which are opposite of the thesis of your article.  No offense intended.  Just an observation.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Meerkat

[readstoomuch]

The article is a classic and describes a natural tension that exists.  No one is a Liahona or an Iron Rod saint in every measure.  Just as I am fiscally ultraconservative, I am also moderate in most other measures.  There is an occasional item I might consider myself liberal about.  Am I conservative or liberal?  Am I Liahona or Iron Rod in my beliefs?  Depends on what the item is that we are talking about.  I wish all Lds would read the original article.  

[changed]

On 7/22/2017 at 6:56 PM, SteveO said:

http://www.zionsbest.com/people.html

I think depending on the topic, I find myself in both camps.  

I think we all wander between two camps - the humble trusting obedient and yet sheeple camp of not wanting the responsibility of thinking and acting for yourself - let someone else take the blame if something goes wrong, you were just following instructions. ..

the other camp of thinking for yourself and taking personal responsibility often comes off as being prideful and disobedient, but owning your own agency is of course part of it.

The best place is moderation - with lots of careful responsible honest personal decisions, and understanding of the decisions of others.

[Tacenda]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Utah

Bringing this up again, how can God allow the prophet to okay slavery? Aren't we telling the world we have an inside with God in our church? If so, how can slavery be okay with God. This is the dichotomy I have with the church. If the church was not perfect, I could get over it, but we are told the church is perfect not the people, does it always include the prophet? If so why are we taught to follow the prophet? We should only be taught to follow Jesus Christ.

[Danzo]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Utah

Bringing this up again, how can God allow the prophet to okay slavery? Aren't we telling the world we have an inside with God in our church? If so, how can slavery be okay with God. This is the dichotomy I have with the church. If the church was not perfect, I could get over it, but we are told the church is perfect not the people, does it always include the prophet? If so why are we taught to follow the prophet? We should only be taught to follow Jesus Christ.

why don't you start a thread about it?

[Calm]

She can't as she is on limited.  I won't be online much as soon as .I get done reading through threads, but if you want one, Tac, let me know and if someone else hasn't put it up, I will.

[Tacenda]

Maybe I should have someone post this topic, or maybe this fits in well with this thread. If so, I'm sorry if I derailed it.

I've a question for those that care to give input...

When someone you know becomes inactive, have you ever automatically assumed they are inactive because of  wanting to sin in some compacity for some reason, or have you ever approached and asked someone why they quit coming in a nice way?

A lot of inactive or ex-LDS say that no one ever asks them why they quit coming, it's as if they just think you want to sin, because it couldn't be for any other reason.

I ask because it's happened to me. I was active for almost my entire life, inactive for maybe a year or two while single out of high school and then reactivated and got married in the temple and haven't been inactive once until about a year ago. No one in my ward once has asked why I don't come to church. It's the strangest thing! Do they think I just want to sin, or has the bishop/stake president told people that I am struggling. It's very odd to me. 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe I should have someone post this topic, or maybe this fits in well with this thread. If so, I'm sorry if I derailed it.

I've a question for those that care to give input...

When someone you know becomes inactive, have you ever automatically assumed they are inactive because of  wanting to sin in some compacity for some reason, or have you ever approached and asked someone why they quit coming in a nice way?

A lot of inactive or ex-LDS say that no one ever asks them why they quit coming, it's as if they just think you want to sin, because it couldn't be for any other reason.

I ask because it's happened to me. I was active for almost my entire life, inactive for maybe a year or two while single out of high school and then reactivated and got married in the temple and haven't been inactive once until about a year ago. No one in my ward once has asked why I don't come to church. It's the strangest thing! Do they think I just want to sin, or has the bishop/stake president told people that I am struggling. It's very odd to me. 

I’ve rarely, if ever, consciously thought to myself that someone I know went inactive so they could more easily indulge in sin. The thought that usually enters my mind is they have lost a measure of their faith and hope.

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

A lot of inactive or ex-LDS say that no one ever asks them why they quit coming, it's as if they just think you want to sin, because it couldn't be for any other reason.

I suspect for most people it's because asking that would seem impolite or impertinent and liable to offend. Not because they necessarily think it due to sin. While the effects of sin definitely have a place for some people, I think for most people it's assumed the issue is losing their testimony.

Edited January 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Rain]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe I should have someone post this topic, or maybe this fits in well with this thread. If so, I'm sorry if I derailed it.

I've a question for those that care to give input...

When someone you know becomes inactive, have you ever automatically assumed they are inactive because of  wanting to sin in some compacity for some reason, or have you ever approached and asked someone why they quit coming in a nice way?

A lot of inactive or ex-LDS say that no one ever asks them why they quit coming, it's as if they just think you want to sin, because it couldn't be for any other reason.

I ask because it's happened to me. I was active for almost my entire life, inactive for maybe a year or two while single out of high school and then reactivated and got married in the temple and haven't been inactive once until about a year ago. No one in my ward once has asked why I don't come to church. It's the strangest thing! Do they think I just want to sin, or has the bishop/stake president told people that I am struggling. It's very odd to me. 

I have only one time thought that way and I was very close to the person and knew his circumstances. 

I rarely ask someone why they are not coming. Most of the time I feel it is too personal. I rarely, if ever, ask when someone IS coming as well why they are coming and I have found a lot of assumptions can be made there as well.

 

[Jeanne]

If one is not asked, for whatever reason, how is it discussed in ward council meetings or in missionary groups without knowing or understanding a situation?  Surely...not just gossip...but with concern..at least ask face to face especially if you are home teachers or visiting teachers...I think it is okay and as for me...I would have loved someone to ask anything..but I was ignored like a contagious person.

[cacheman]

On 7/30/2017 at 9:54 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and sociologist Armand Mauss showed that Mormons in 1967 were no more likely to give "anti-Negro responses than were the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, or Baptists." The survey also shows that the Orthodox Mormons were "consistently less likely to express anti-Negro attitudes" than the doubters of key Church doctrines.  Mauss, "Mormonism and the Negro: Faith, Folklore, and Civil Rights," Dialogue, 4/4 (Winter 1967):19-39, online at  .https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0304_129.pdf .

 

Robert,

Your post here is confusing me.  First,  it's customary to cite the source of material that you copy and paste.  Secondly,  the article that you did include a cite for is not the study you're referring to, although it does discuss it briefly.  Thirdly,  the hyperlink you posted goes to a different paper by the same author. 

A couple of sites (including fairmormon) use the exact same cherry picked, out of context statement about doubters.  

For anyone interested, the study,  titled "Mormonism and Secular Attitudes toward Negroes" can be accessed on Jstor.

On 7/30/2017 at 9:54 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Thus, it is precisely the less faithful who are more likely to express racist attitudes. 

 

This statement is not supported by the study you're referencing. 

-cacheman

Edited January 12, 2018 by cacheman
Spelling

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I’ve rarely, if ever, consciously thought to myself that someone I know went inactive so they could more easily indulge in sin. The thought that usually enters my mind is they have lost a measure of their faith and hope.

If I ever go less active assume hookers and blow are involved.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, cacheman said:

Robert,

Your post here is confusing me.  First,  it's customary to cite the source of material that you copy and paste.  Secondly,  the article that you did include a cite for is not the study you're referring to, although it does discuss it briefly.  Thirdly,  the hyperlink you posted goes to a different paper by the same author. 

A couple of sites (including fairmormon) use the exact same cherry picked, out of context statement about doubters.  

For anyone interested, the study,  titled "Mormonism and Secular Attitudes toward Negroes" can be accessed on Jstor.

This statement is not supported by the study you're referencing. 

-cacheman

Thanks for catching that, cacheman.   I failed to check my sources.   I have corrected that original entry.  The correct source for that was Lester E. Bush and Armand L. Mauss, eds., Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1984), 20-23, which has those quotes.

[cacheman]

On 7/30/2017 at 9:54 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Armand Mauss showed that Mormons in 1967 were no more likely to give "anti-Negro responses than were the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, or Baptists." The survey also shows that the Orthodox Mormons were "consistently less likely to express anti-Negro attitudes" than the doubters of key Church doctrines.

Hi Robert,

The above paragraph in total is what I was referring to.  I believe it is found on Fairmormon /Mormon Voices in their timeline adapted from blacklds. The truncated quotes may be found in the book you reference,  but the above paragraph contains misleading info.....In particular,  the last sentence. 

The Mauss publication I mentioned earlier is the study being discussed. Only the urban 'orthodox' members were less likely to express anti-black attitudes. The sole indicator of orthodoxy in this measure was whether or not they agreed with the church position relative to blacks. The urban group was the smallest subset,  being significantly outnumbered by the rural and small city groups. Only 17 cases of 'doubters' were in this group. 

That one group was cherry picked from one table to show the one positive stat. When Fairmormon adapted it from the blacklds timeline, they dropped 'urban' from the paragraph making it look like this trend was representative across all orthodox Mormons in the study.  This misrepresents the data and isn't in line with Mauss' conclusions.

Furthermore, the study consisted solely of three wards in the bay area of California.  Mauss did explore the differences between native Californian Mormons and those who moved there. There were some interesting differences. 

In short,  this small survey,  while interesting,  does not show 'that the Orthodox Mormons were "consistently less likely to express anti-Negro attitudes" than the doubters of key Church doctrines.' Thus your followup statement was not supported by the data.

[cacheman]

I've attached a screenshot of the relevant table from the paper. 

Mormonism and Secular Attitudes toward Negroes. Armand L. Mauss. The Pacific Sociological Review. Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1966), pp. 91-99.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388243

 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, cacheman said:

I've attached a screenshot of the relevant table from the paper. 

Mormonism and Secular Attitudes toward Negroes. Armand L. Mauss. The Pacific Sociological Review. Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1966), pp. 91-99.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388243

 

Thanks for that, cacheman.  However, the notion that LDS "orthodoxy" is based solely on "acceptance of the Church's dogma about Negroes" is fraught with self-contradiction, which makes the survey seem nearly valueless since it begs the question.  Since David O. McKay and Hugh B. Brown knew in 1963 that there was no such "dogma," but only a policy preventing ordination of Black African men, it seems absurd to base such a survey on a false premise.  I have never thought of Mauss as that shallow, and I have met the man.

I should have thought that "orthodoxy" in a Mormon context would mean belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and acceptance of the priesthood hierarchy of the LDS Church, and that those accepting those premises would be less likely to believe in the inferiority of negroes.  It likewise stood to reason (in my mind and in the conclusions from the study) that Jack Mormons would be far more likely to hate or despise negroes -- my own personal experience had taught me as much.  I fully expect rural yokels to revel in folklore and ignorant beliefs across the broad range.

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, cacheman said:

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

Furthermore, the study consisted solely of three wards in the bay area of California.  Mauss did explore the differences between native Californian Mormons and those who moved there. There were some interesting differences. 

In short,  this small survey,  while interesting,  does not show 'that the Orthodox Mormons were "consistently less likely to express anti-Negro attitudes" than the doubters of key Church doctrines.' Thus your followup statement was not supported by the data.

I am a native Californian from the SF Bay area, and lived in that area at around the time Mauss was doing his survey.  Wish I had known him then.  As a member then of the Bay Ward of SF Stake, I do recall an influx of young singles from elsewhere,. and all seemed very broad-minded and inclusive (on the surface).  Now I am wondering why Mauss would make such far-reaching statements, if his research did not back it up.

[cacheman]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thanks for that, cacheman.  However, the notion that LDS "orthodoxy" is based solely on "acceptance of the Church's dogma about Negroes" is fraught with self-contradiction, which makes the survey seem nearly valueless since it begs the question.  Since David O. McKay and Hugh B. Brown knew in 1963 that there was no such "dogma," but only a policy preventing ordination of Black African men, it seems absurd to base such a survey on a false premise.  I have never thought of Mauss as that shallow, and I have met the man.

I should have thought that "orthodoxy" in a Mormon context would mean belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and acceptance of the priesthood hierarchy of the LDS Church, and that those accepting those premises would be less likely to believe in the inferiority of negroes.  It likewise stood to reason (in my mind and in the conclusions from the study) that Jack Mormons would be far more likely to hate or despise negroes -- my own personal experience had taught me as much.  I fully expect rural yokels to revel in folklore and ignorant beliefs across the broad range.

Interestingly,  in his paper he used other metrics for orthodoxy in data presented in other graphs.  These results showed no strong correlation, but tended to lightly skew towards more devout members holding more negative views towards blacks.

Apparently,  this is not in line with your anecdotal experience. Also. ..Mauss did not conclude in the study that doubters held more racist views.  That is Fairmormon's misleading interpretation of the study.