Parable of the Laborers and Priesthood

[USU78]

In his 2012 conference talk, Elder Holland related the parable of the laborers, where some workers were hired for a whole day, and some for a couple of hours, but each received the same compensation.  He begins:

Quote

When reading this parable, perhaps you, as well as those workers, have felt there was an injustice being done here. Let me speak briefly to that concern.

His response to the concern is given thus:

Quote

As the householder in the parable tells them (and I paraphrase only slightly): “My friends, I am not being unfair to you. You agreed on the wage for the day, a good wage. You were very happy to get the work, and I am very happy with the way you served. You are paid in full. Take your pay and enjoy the blessing. As for the others, surely I am free to do what I like with my own money.” Then this piercing question to anyone then or now who needs to hear it: “Why should you be jealous because I choose to be kind?”

Why is it the business of those to whom no priesthood is given during a certain finite term of years, or those who suffer vicarious offense for them, that G-d should choose to be generous to some individuals and groups?  Why should they be jealous because He chooses to be kind?  Are you or I or anyone really in a position to judge G-d in this?  Or G-d's representatives here?

[bluebell]

I don't really understand how this parable applies to the priesthood ban.

In the parable, everyone worked different amount of hours but got the same wage in the end.  With the priesthood ban, everyone worked the same hours but got different wages in the end.  It seems like the opposite of the parable.

Edited July 28, 2017 by bluebell

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't really understand how this parable applies to the priesthood ban.

In the parable, everyone worked different amount of hours but got the same wage in the end.  With the priesthood ban, everyone worked the same hours but got different wages in the end.  It seems like the opposite of the parable.

I'm not sure I understand your understanding.  How are the wages in the end different?

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't really understand how this parable applies to the priesthood ban.

In the parable, everyone worked different amount of hours but got the same wage in the end.  With the priesthood ban, everyone worked the same hours but got different wages in the end.  It seems like the opposite of the parable.

The longtimers and the shorttimers ended up with the same wage, just as blacks and nonblacks ended up in the same place wrt access to the temple.

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, USU78 said:

In his 2012 conference talk, Elder Holland related the parable of the laborers, where some workers were hired for a whole day, and some for a couple of hours, but each received the same compensation.  He begins:

His response to the concern is given thus:

Why is it the business of those to whom no priesthood is given during a certain finite term of years, or those who suffer vicarious offense for them, that G-d should choose to be generous to some individuals and groups?  Why should they be jealous because He chooses to be kind?  Are you or I or anyone really in a position to judge G-d in this?  Or G-d's representatives here?

Well you have to assume it was God who instituted the ban.  I don't think it was.  There is no revelation for us to see.  So we're just guessing.  Much easier to think God had nothing to do with it. 

I agree with Bluebell, as per the parable, it works against it rather than for it, in my view.

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well you have to assume it was God who instituted the ban.  I don't think it was.  There is no revelation for us to see.  So we're just guessing.  Much easier to think God had nothing to do with it. 

I agree with Bluebell, as per the parable, it works against it rather than for it, in my view.

Only if you a. discount the possibility that somebody you disagree with could possibly be right and b. ignore what the employer in the parable and Elder Holland have to say about G-d's perogatives.

And c. you have to ignore Who composed the parable.

ETA: justice is what the parable is about. Cosmic justice, which the ignorant and arrogant insist on. You cannot find it. It doesn't exist. G-d has His own fish to fry. He has no duty to tell us why He does what He does. "For mine own purpose" He plants what and where He chooses, and if He brings us in on the details of His plan, He does so on His timetable.

Edited July 28, 2017 by USU78

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well you have to assume it was God who instituted the ban.  I don't think it was.  There is no revelation for us to see.  So we're just guessing.  Much easier to think God had nothing to do with it. 

I agree with Bluebell, as per the parable, it works against it rather than for it, in my view.

For the parable to have application I don't think it matters who did or did not institute the ban or how easy it is to believe or not believe something.

If one person faithfully keeps the covenants he made starting at age 8 he receives the same reward as someone who faithfully keeps those same covenants made at age 70.  Same with someone who never had the opportunity to make covenants in this life, but received those covenants by proxy in the next.  The reward, eternal life, is the same for all.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well you have to assume it was God who instituted the ban.  I don't think it was.  There is no revelation for us to see.  So we're just guessing.  Much easier to think God had nothing to do with it. 

I agree with Bluebell, as per the parable, it works against it rather than for it, in my view.

No, we only have to assume that God instituted the priesthood, the field of labor and the wage. Let's say you need the priesthood to labor in the Lord's vineyard and the reward is eternal life. Whatever prevented the laborers (ban, poverty, communications, transportation, tradition, anything) from arriving earlier is of no consequence; they got the same priesthood, worked the same field, and obtained the same eternal reward.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

The longtimers and the shorttimers ended up with the same wage, just as blacks and nonblacks ended up in the same place wrt access to the temple.

The weirdest thing about this argument is that it rests on the claim that the Priesthood and Temple offer no significant benefits to us in this life.

Sure, in the long eternal view of things everyone is great.  A black person born in 1910 who joins the Church and lives his whole life without the Priesthood or Temple blessings ultimately gets to have "everything" in the hereafter.  Great.

But we're not living in the hereafter.  If the Priesthood and Temple blessings are of value to us while we're here on Earth, then they didn't get the same "wage".  Non-black LDS got a wage of "Earthly life with Priesthood and Temple blessings + eternal blessings", whereas black people got a wage of "Eternal blessings only."

That's not the same thing.

If it is the same thing, then the Church is lying to us about how important the Priesthood and Temple are to us in this life, and we're stupid for believing it.  But thankfully we have apologists to explain to us that the Priesthood and Temple aren't of any real value to us during this life.  

 

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Only if you a. discount the possibility that somebody you disagree with could possibly be right and b. ignore what the employer in the parable and Elder Holland have to say about G-d's perogatives.

And c. you have to ignore Who composed the parable.

ETA: justice is what the parable is about. Cosmic justice, which the ignorant and arrogant insist on. You cannot find it. It doesn't exist. G-d has His own fish to fry. He has no duty to tell us why He does what He does. "For mine own purpose" He plants what and where He chooses, and if He brings us in on the details of His plan, He does so on His timetable.

Or more likely, we humans do a terrible job at administrating.  We create policy and doctrine that God does not condone or appreciate.  In this case, it seems clear that's what happened and yet the Church has it that we ought to continue to put this blunder on God, to save face.  Then we get terrible ideas like that posted in the OP as if there is some semblance of reasoning to it.  Sorry I find this line of reasoning to be unsustainable, even if you like it.  Not only, as Cinepro, pointed out is th eholding of priesthood and temple ordinances meant to be a blessing to those who participate, but it also means those who can't participate can't participate in the service that is rendered through priesthood and the temple ordinances.  less people participate, less joint the Church, and less carry the blessings they received here into eternity. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Only if you a. discount the possibility that somebody you disagree with could possibly be right and b. ignore what the employer in the parable and Elder Holland have to say about G-d's perogatives.

And c. you have to ignore Who composed the parable.

ETA: justice is what the parable is about. Cosmic justice, which the ignorant and arrogant insist on. You cannot find it. It doesn't exist. G-d has His own fish to fry. He has no duty to tell us why He does what He does. "For mine own purpose" He plants what and where He chooses, and if He brings us in on the details of His plan, He does so on His timetable.

Did you not read the church essay on the the blacks in the PH ban? Or am I missing something? 

[stemelbow]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, we only have to assume that God instituted the priesthood, the field of labor and the wage. Let's say you need the priesthood to labor in the Lord's vineyard and the reward is eternal life. Whatever prevented the laborers (ban, poverty, communications, transportation, tradition, anything) from arriving earlier is of no consequence; they got the same priesthood, worked the same field, and obtained the same eternal reward.

I'm happy to think God will make up for the ban.  He will find ways to bless those who are mistreated on earth, particulary when the mistreatment came from those who presumed to speak for God.  On that I think I'll agree and move on.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm happy to think God will make up for the ban.  He will find ways to bless those who are mistreated on earth, particulary when the mistreatment came from those who presumed to speak for God.  On that I think I'll agree and move on.

I wonder if those people that were racist get punishment? 

[USU78]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Did you not read the church essay on the the blacks in the PH ban? Or am I missing something? 

Of course. Can't you just see how ignorant and unread I am? 🤣

Edited July 29, 2017 by USU78

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If course. Can't you just see how ignorant and unread I am? 🤣

Well I know plenty that would not read the essays, I've even read that a few thought it just came from men and not God, the essays. I don't know what ball camp that would put you at, but I believe it's very difficult to have your own religion tell you that a prophet of God won't lead you astray, and then find out they did in a few things and that they aren't perfect vessals afterall. 

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, USU78 said:

Why is it the business of those to whom no priesthood is given during a certain finite term of years, or those who suffer vicarious offense for them, that G-d should choose to be generous to some individuals and groups?  Why should they be jealous because He chooses to be kind?  Are you or I or anyone really in a position to judge G-d in this?  Or G-d's representatives here?

I would also point out that on this issue, some people seem to have a huge blind-spot about the difference between being "generous to some individuals and groups" and "discriminating against some individuals and groups."

For example, I occasionally buy lunch for all my employees.  Also, I occasionally buy lunch for a specific department when they do well.  When I take a department out to lunch, no one in the other departments really complains.  I'm sure they'd also like to go, but they recognize that department did really well that month and it's a special bonus for them.

But if I brought in lunch today and put it in the breakroom and said that it was for everyone except the black employees, and that they shouldn't complain because they still get paid the same as everyone else, and that this decision has nothing to do with race but it's just a coincidence that all the people I've decided shouldn't get the lunch are also black, do you think people might object?  Would they be justified in doing so?

As for judging God, that's not what's going on here at all.  What is happening is we're judging someone's claim about God.

Suppose I told you I had developed an app for smartphones that was the finest chess-playing app ever made.  It wasn't just good, it was perfect. It has the finest AI ever programmed, and it was impossible to beat.  I just need $100,000 to fully develop it and release it, and then you'll get a 10x return on your money.  You ask to see it, but no, I'm the only one that gets to look at it right now.  

So the only way you can judge my claim is by playing me in chess, and then I use the app.  

We play a game of chess, and I use the app and handily win.  Okay, that's a start, but you're not the greatest chess player.  So you get a grandmaster to play a series of 7 games.  I win 5 out of 7.  I explain to you that while my app is perfect, my phone screen is cracked, and it's hard for me to read some of the output on my app, so some of the moves I made weren't perfect in the games that I lost.  But you can still trust me that the app is 100% perfect even if my ability to use it isn't.  And stop focusing on the 2 games that I lost.  I won 5.  The problem isn't my app, it's that you're just being critical and negative.  Would you give me the $100,000?

So how do you judge the app itself?  You can't because you don't have access to the actual code.  All you have is the "output" as interpreted by me.  So you're not judging the app.  You are judging the system of the app + my interpretation, with no ability to isolate one from the other.

That is the problem with the Priesthood Ban.  The Church leaders make claims about God's perfection, the nature of revelation (and their ability to receive it), discernment etc.  But we can't judge their claim about God in isolation, since we are dependent on their "presentation" of God as well.  It is a system.  So we're not saying where the problem is or "judging G-d in this."  We're simply saying that the system of "God + LDS leaders" does not seem to live up to the claims that the LDS leaders make about that system.  We don't have enough information or ability to test the system to know if the problem is with a racist God, or imperfect leaders.

 

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if those people that were racist get punishment? 

I'm likely to get punishment of some sort, if it's true that God is going to find things we've said or done that we didn't realize were stupid, hurtful and wrong so we didn't repent.  There'd be no escaping his wrath.  Surely some of our scriptures teach us God is that way and things will go down that way.  I'm hoping against it, though.  I can't fathom how the tiered heaven stuff will work in any fair way, so hopefully we have that wrong in some way too.  If the Church is right about this stuff I guess I'll be left trying to make a heaven out of something less, with those whom I love and all that.  Oh well, I feel powerless in trying to understand how this is to work. 

[The Nehor]

uhhhhh.....how do these things relate?

And if you stretch things that far can we get a thread on how Zenos allegory of the Olive Tree explains same sex attraction?

The parable is not about everything being okay in the long run; it is about all the faithful getting the same reward. While "everything being okay in the long run" is a common sentiment expressed by church members and in some cases it is true it is not very helpful. Telling someone like me  who is still single and has given up relationships for the gospel that eventually I will get what I want does not alleviate loneliness and pain. Telling someone who is denied the Priesthood responsibility to serve that eventually you will get it does not remove the hurt now. Telling someone in chronic pain that one day it will go away is probably not effective at making the pain bearable.

In all these cases the limitation or suffering might be temporary and for a good purpose but arguing that God is just being generous to those who find companionship or have access to the Priesthood or who do not live in crippling pain makes God seem like an unfeeling jerk.

Edited July 28, 2017 by The Nehor

[USU78]

21 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I would also point out that on this issue, some people seem to have a huge blind-spot about the difference between being "generous to some individuals and groups" and "discriminating against some individuals and groups."

For example, I occasionally buy lunch for all my employees.  Also, I occasionally buy lunch for a specific department when they do well.  When I take a department out to lunch, no one in the other departments really complains.  I'm sure they'd also like to go, but they recognize that department did really well that month and it's a special bonus for them.

But if I brought in lunch today and put it in the breakroom and said that it was for everyone except the black employees, and that they shouldn't complain because they still get paid the same as everyone else, and that this decision has nothing to do with race but it's just a coincidence that all the people I've decided shouldn't get the lunch are also black, do you think people might object?  Would they be justified in doing so?

As for judging God, that's not what's going on here at all.  What is happening is we're judging someone's claim about God.

Suppose I told you I had developed an app for smartphones that was the finest chess-playing app ever made.  It wasn't just good, it was perfect. It has the finest AI ever programmed, and it was impossible to beat.  I just need $100,000 to fully develop it and release it, and then you'll get a 10x return on your money.  You ask to see it, but no, I'm the only one that gets to look at it right now.  

So the only way you can judge my claim is by playing me in chess, and then I use the app.  

We play a game of chess, and I use the app and handily win.  Okay, that's a start, but you're not the greatest chess player.  So you get a grandmaster to play a series of 7 games.  I win 5 out of 7.  I explain to you that while my app is perfect, my phone screen is cracked, and it's hard for me to read some of the output on my app, so some of the moves I made weren't perfect in the games that I lost.  But you can still trust me that the app is 100% perfect even if my ability to use it isn't.  And stop focusing on the 2 games that I lost.  I won 5.  The problem isn't my app, it's that you're just being critical and negative.  Would you give me the $100,000?

So how do you judge the app itself?  You can't because you don't have access to the actual code.  All you have is the "output" as interpreted by me.  So you're not judging the app.  You are judging the system of the app + my interpretation, with no ability to isolate one from the other.

That is the problem with the Priesthood Ban.  The Church leaders make claims about God's perfection, the nature of revelation (and their ability to receive it), discernment etc.  But we can't judge their claim about God in isolation, since we are dependent on their "presentation" of God as well.  It is a system.  So we're not saying where the problem is or "judging G-d in this."  We're simply saying that the system of "God + LDS leaders" does not seem to live up to the claims that the LDS leaders make about that system.  We don't have enough information or ability to test the system to know if the problem is with a racist God, or imperfect leaders.

 

I get it. You don't believe, and you're not required to believe, G-d's prophets and apostles prior to 1978.

Edited July 28, 2017 by USU78

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

 black people got a wage of "Eternal blessings only."

 

 

This isn't enough?  How could someone get more than everything the Father has?

[cinepro]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This isn't enough?  How could someone get more than everything the Father has?

What benefits do we get in this life from having the Priesthood or from the Temple Endowment and Sealings?

If the answer to that question is "nothing", then I agree.

If the answer to that question is anything other than "nothing", then the laborers who weren't denied the Priesthood and Temple blessings did get more than the ones that didn't.

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure I understand your understanding.  How are the wages in the end different?

Relating the parable to the priesthood ban, both the black and white members were expected to live the same kind of life, and both were held to the same standards of conduct, but black people weren't allowed to receive temple blessings, while the white people were.  

Same requirements, different wages earned at the end of the day.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

The longtimers and the shorttimers ended up with the same wage, just as blacks and nonblacks ended up in the same place wrt access to the temple.

There were lots of blacks that died without access to the temple.  And just in case you're about to go there, i disagree that temple blessings are only pertinent after death.  Temple blessings are blessings in this life too.

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This isn't enough?  How could someone get more than everything the Father has?

If what we have in this life does not matter at all can you sign over all your property and assets to me. After all you are in line to get everything the Father has so anything else would be superfluous. Thanks in advance.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Relating the parable to the priesthood ban, both the black and white members were expected to live the same kind of life, and both were held to the same standards of conduct, but black people weren't allowed to receive temple blessings, while the white people were.  

Same requirements, different wages earned at the end of the day.

Hate to be nit picky but someone who has made temple covenants is not held to the same standard as someone who has not.