Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Thank you for letting me know a little more about your perspective of God.  I, as you may already know, believe God is a word we commonly use to refer to our Father in heaven (or any other person who is the same kind of being he is) and that he actually tells us stuff, like factual details about history as well as present day occurrences or even future events.  I realize that not all who think they are hearing from God are hearing from him, our Father, though.  Sometimes Satan tells us or leads us to believe that he is God, which he is, even though he is not the same person we commonly refer to as our Father in heaven.  Sometimes it's just a matter of trying to figure out who we are actually hearing from, or who is giving us thoughts and ideas about things.

I totally understand your belief in God and I'm not trying to change that.  I honor and respect it.  

If we're having a discussion on a message board about evidence that we can both independently verify and acknowledge, like a discussion about what a passage in the NT says, then we have to have actual evidence to support these arguments.  Just saying, that God told you something isn't evidence that can be independently discussed and verified by two parties in any objective sense.  Its a faith claim that belongs in the world of the subjective and religious, and it has its own validity from a personal perspective.  

I don't believe feelings or voices you experience can tell you anything factually accurate about the past, the future, or unknown facts about the present.  If this were true, then we'd have verifiable evidence to support such claims.  It would be simple to develop experiments to test these types of claims and verify their accuracy.  I'm not aware of any claims like this actually holding up to scrutiny. 

This is why I separate the spiritual and religious into a different categories completely.  I do think you can learn things from your spiritual experiences.  The insights you can learn will be life changing and important insights.  They have to do with your relationships, your personal convictions, things like love and family and friends and happiness and pain and all the things that matter a great deal in life.  This is why I still value religion because these are things that can enrich our lives.  This is the realm of poetry and art.  But this is not the realm of science and facts about historically accurate events.  

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an interesting line of thinking.  I think there are some benefits to this way of seeing things, perhaps it helps a person not to overreact to hardships that happen in life.   But I have a question.   If God will right all the wrongs and correct for all the pain and mistakes caused by human errors, then what's the point of us worrying about making good choices or righting wrongs here in mortality.  God's got it covered, so why should I or anyone else want to do good your scenario, if God will clean up the mess, whats to motivate us humans to make this world a better place?  

The point is most of is do care about other people, we want to do right and by trying to do right we nurture that desire.  It is a good thing in and of itself.  And the more we desire to do good, the greater chance we will do it...the less we desire, the more likely we will do harm to ourselves and others.  If we don't care, this world will become a nightmare for all who live on it.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree, but I'm wondering how this fits into the model that Storm Rider articulated, which sounded to me like he was saying its no big deal that the church had the racist priesthood & temple access and teaching history, because God will make up for all that and use it for good in the long run.  

We will naturally responsible beings.  Living in a way that prevents growth will lead to sickness, whether physical or emotional imo.

Do you go out and intentionally break bones just because they can be healed?

Edited June 6, 2018 by Calm

[Ahab]

 

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If we're having a discussion on a message board about evidence that we can both independently verify and acknowledge, like a discussion about what a passage in the NT says, then we have to have actual evidence to support these arguments.  Just saying, that God told you something isn't evidence that can be independently discussed and verified by two parties in any objective sense.  Its a faith claim that belongs in the world of the subjective and religious, and it has its own validity from a personal perspective.  

True, to a point, I think, but we can each arrive at the same understanding by both of us receiving, independently, the same ideas and thoughts from God to us, personally.  I'm not sure if you accept that as true, but I do.

 

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe feelings or voices you experience can tell you anything factually accurate about the past, the future, or unknown facts about the present.  If this were true, then we'd have verifiable evidence to support such claims.  It would be simple to develop experiments to test these types of claims and verify their accuracy.  I'm not aware of any claims like this actually holding up to scrutiny. 

Then let's do it!  Let's pick a simple experiment where both of us can come to agree with each other, personally and independently.  I'm sure we can find something in the past or present to verify as something that is true, something we can both "feel" sure about, verified to each of us, individually, by the still small voice of God.

Joseph Smith spoke as a prophet of God, at least one time, in the past, for example..  Is that one too far out of your reach right now?  How about Jesus Christ was born on this Earth as an actual, living, begotten son of God.  Do you have verification of that truth, from the past, yet?

I'm sure we could some up with something that both you and I can agree on, some thing that happened in the past, something that you and I can both honestly say God told us is true and accurate, historically.  What would you like to start with?

 

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is why I separate the spiritual and religious into a different categories completely.  I do think you can learn things from your spiritual experiences.  The insights you can learn will be life changing and important insights.  They have to do with your relationships, your personal convictions, things like love and family and friends and happiness and pain and all the things that matter a great deal in life.  This is why I still value religion because these are things that can enrich our lives.  This is the realm of poetry and art.  But this is not the realm of science and facts about historically accurate events.  

 

 Yeah, well, we disagree on that point, I see.  In my view religion and science are not and never have been mutually exclusive.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree, but I'm wondering how this fits into the model that Storm Rider articulated, which sounded to me like he was saying its no big deal that the church had the racist priesthood & temple access and teaching history, because God will make up for all that and use it for good in the long run.  

We will naturally responsible beings.  Living in a way that prevents growth will lead to sickness, whether physical or emotional imo.

Do you go out and intentionally break bones just because they can be healed?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here about preventing growth and that leading to sickness.  I think the church taking so long to change its ban would fit your example of preventing growth and sickness for the members.  I think that the church's current we don't apologize approach is also causing sickness and preventing growth today.  

Would I intentionally cause bodily harm to someone, just because I have a knowledge about how the human body can heal wounds?  No, absolutely not.  

I think Storm Rider was saying that the racist past in the Mormon church should be ignored and not repented of because we can trust that God will heal those old wounds.  It doesn't sound like you agree with that sentiment.  I don't either.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

True, to a point, I think, but we can each arrive at the same understanding by both of us receiving, independently, the same ideas and thoughts from God to us, personally.  I'm not sure if you accept that as true, but I do.

Honestly, how is this possible?  You have a feeling, I have a feeling.  What do these feelings mean?  Can you measure your feelings with the tools of science and can an independent third party verify that what you interpret your feelings to mean, actually do mean that thing you think they mean.  Everything is filtered through your interpretive map of the world, and that is unique to you.  I don't see how this is possible.  

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Then let's do it!  Let's pick a simple experiment where both of us can come to agree with each other, personally and independently.  I'm sure we can find something in the past or present to verify as something that is true, something we can both "feel" sure about, verified to each of us, individually, by the still small voice of God.

Joseph Smith spoke as a prophet of God, at least one time, in the past, for example..  Is that one too far out of your reach right now?  How about Jesus Christ was born on this Earth as an actual, living, begotten son of God.  Do you have verification of that truth, from the past, yet?

I'm sure we could some up with something that both you and I can agree on, some thing that happened in the past, something that you and I can both honestly say God told us is true and accurate, historically.  What would you like to start with?

The simplest experiment I can think of off the top of my head would be if we got an independent third party to generate a random number and then you and I could try and guess this random number independently of each other and if both of us were able to guess the same number, we could claim to have access to some external intelligence.  

 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly, how is this possible?  You have a feeling, I have a feeling.  What do these feelings mean?  Can you measure your feelings with the tools of science and can an independent third party verify that what you interpret your feelings to mean, actually do mean that thing you think they mean.  Everything is filtered through your interpretive map of the world, and that is unique to you.  I don't see how this is possible.  

Realize that the goal is to arrive at the same understanding of something.  Not everything, but just something.  You might understand more or less than the common level of understanding between us, or vice versa, but we both understand the same thing about an issue on some level.  That's the goal, and with God helping us both to arrive at the same understanding that he is trying to share with us, as well as possibly the rest of the world, try asking what there is or might be that would possibly prevent that from happening.

 

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The simplest experiment I can think of off the top of my head would be if we got an independent third party to generate a random number and then you and I could try and guess this random number independently of each other and if both of us were able to guess the same number, we could claim to have access to some external intelligence.  

 

Bleh, what kind of reward would that be.  We both thought of the same number.  Big deal (he says sarcastically). 

I'd rather have somebody smarter than me tell me something valuable that will help me in my life, and that would help you in your life.  Something that would help us both to become smarter, or better people in some way, somehow. 

Trivia and trivial pursuits don't interest or impress me very much.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Realize that the goal is to arrive at the same understanding of something.  Not everything, but just something.  You might understand more or less than the common level of understanding between us, or vice versa, but we both understand the same thing about an issue on some level.  That's the goal, and with God helping us both to arrive at the same understanding that he is trying to share with us, as well as possibly the rest of the world, try asking what there is or might be that would possibly prevent that from happening.

 

Bleh, what kind of reward would that be.  We both thought of the same number.  Big deal (he says sarcastically). 

I'd rather have somebody smarter than me tell me something valuable that will help me in my life, and that would help you in your life.  Something that would help us both to become smarter, or better people in some way, somehow. 

Trivia and trivial pursuits don't interest or impress me very much.

It sounds to me like the test you want to design is one that can’t be objectively answered.  So it would fail to be a valid test.  Is JS a prophet?  How is that objective?  Prophet is not an objectively defined term, the definition varies across time and culture and individual.  I might call him a prophet in one sense but it’s not the same sense you would consider him a prophet.

Your response supports my earlier point about religious experience needing to be in a separate category than the world of the empirical.  

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an interesting line of thinking.  I think there are some benefits to this way of seeing things, perhaps it helps a person not to overreact to hardships that happen in life.   But I have a question.   If God will right all the wrongs and correct for all the pain and mistakes caused by human errors, then what's the point of us worrying about making good choices or righting wrongs here in mortality.  God's got it covered, so why should I or anyone else want to do good your scenario, if God will clean up the mess, whats to motivate us humans to make this world a better place?  

My thoughts do not address our responsibility towards others as disciples of Jesus Christ, but it is focused on those who have harm done to them, who live under oppression, and who do not have an option of redress in mortality. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your response supports my earlier point about religious experience needing to be in a separate category than the world of the empirical.  

Do you have any awareness at all that your devotion to positivism is as faith based as any religious devotion?

My two eyes see different colours. I can look at an object with my left eye, and my brain will interpret it as a golden colour. I can then look at the same object with my right eye, and my brain will interpret it as a colour more like turquoise or even aquamarine. When I look at the same object with both eyes, my brain mixes the two colours into a yellow-green. If we were in a space together, what colour would you see the object as?

Edited June 7, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

My thoughts do not address our responsibility towards others as disciples of Jesus Christ, but it is focused on those who have harm done to them, who live under oppression, and who do not have an option of redress in mortality. 

But do you excuse the church and it’s leaders from any responsibility and accountability?  

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 6/6/2018 at 12:09 AM, hope_for_things said:

The first time I came across this, it was on the old Mormonsandgays.org website, which has since been retired and replaced with Mormonandgay.org.  I'll give both the old quote and the new quote.  

You do realise, I'm assuming, that stating that people don't choose all of their feelings or inclinations is not the same thing as definitively stating that people have been born with a biologically determined sexual identity?

Quote

I'm not an expert or a scientist.  But I'm linking to supportive scientific studies.

And not linking to non-supportive studies. Nor are you linking to the works of queer historians that challenge your beliefs on this topic. All of which would seem to deconstruct your claim about 'all science'...

Edited June 7, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you have any awareness at all that your devotion to positivism is as faith based as any religious devotion?

My two eyes see different colours. I can look at an object with my left eye, and my brain will interpret it as a golden colour. I can then look at the same object with my right eye, and my brain will interpret it as a colour more like turquoise or even aquamarine. When I look at the same object with both eyes, my brain mixes the two colours into a yellow-green. If we were in a space together, what colour would you see the object as?

Your comparison is flawed.  I’m not personally familiar with eye color studies, but this would be an example of something that should be testable and verifiable.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your comparison is flawed.  I’m not personally familiar with eye color studies, but this would be an example of something that should be testable and verifiable.  

And what's the objective evidence for your positivism?

Edited June 7, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But do you excuse the church and it’s leaders from any responsibility and accountability?  

No, I have no control over the actions of others.  Any process of dealing with the challenges of this life that is dependent upon others is both a failure and a non-starter.  More importantly, it is a different topic completely.  

If the topic is making others accountable for their actions then I can understand the allure of that approach.  I would like to hold every stupid person accountable for every stupid action they make.....but the mere thought of trying to do that condemns me and every other human.  The allure lasts only as long as you don't think it through. However, I have known individuals that have spent the majority of their lifetime angry about the actions of others.  Their entire lives were spent embittered.  I don't see the value in that approach to living. 

[CMZ]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The talk by Oaks was specifically about this issue of the priesthood & temple ban, and I thought you were saying that the cause for the ban was not racism and that a deeper understanding of Mormon doctrine explained this point.  I still think the ban was caused by racist ideas of early church leaders.

I think some racist feelings may have affected the matter somewhat but I don't feel it's the full explanation.

[CMZ]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

That connection is not in the NT, thats my point.  The D&C was written in the 19th century.  I'm wondering if there is any ancient evidence for baptisms for the dead being connected to a temple ritual.  

This is one of the reasons why there was a restoration: because some knowledge was lost.

[CMZ]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But do you excuse the church and it’s leaders from any responsibility and accountability?  

No leader alive now created the ban. As far as prior ones go we don't have available all relevant information. We have some, yes, but not all. If we feel like we want to force Brigham Young or whoever else to apologize we may as well also try to pressure Jesus Christ himself for feeling that there was a time, a phase, a period, when the Gospel was only supposed to go to the House of Israel before it could subsequently also go to the Gentiles. He even went so far as to pretty much call a Gentile woman a dog before granting her a blessing belief and faithfulness.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Oaks represented his perspective in this way from the talk.  He didn't say, this is the way I used to view things, and this is the way I view them now.  

False.  Of course he said explicitly that that was the way he used to view things, and that he determined then to simply accept the policies in place (a faith position).

Perhaps I am not understanding what you are alleging here.  Oaks clearly recalled his feelings and actions in the 1960s when he was teaching law in Chicago, and working in Washington, DC.  It was then that he determined that he could find no confirmation of the truth of the various reasons he had heard for the priesthood ban.  This is not a statement on his later views.

He was Pres of BYU when he heard about the June 1978 revelation, and he gave his personal account of weeping on that mound of dirt.  It is as though he never wrote any of that, or his subsequent comments on the public disavowal of the previous "reasons."  The differences you ignore are like night and day.  Why?

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If his views today align with the essay, this is not evident from his talk.  He had every opportunity to use some language from the essay or to clarify that his old way of thinking has changed, but he neglected to do any of that.  You are making an assumption without any evidence to support it. 

If I've passed the same kind of harsh judgment on Oaks could you please show me where I've done that.  I haven't called him names, no ad hominem attacks, no exaggerated claims about what he's saying.  I've been critical, but I've tried to accurately represent him and also acknowledge my uncertainty about my readings of his talk, asking for possible other readings from this board.   I don't think your comparison is at all the same.  

Once again you have missed the main point:  Oaks reflects on his feelings and actions in the 1960s, and there is nothing unusual about those feelings and actions.  Yet you take those feelings and actions in the 60s and expect them to fit the later post-2013 Essay statements.  I still don't understand why you would make that sort of invidious comparison of incommensurables.  It is as though you are unable to separate before and after 1978.  You have yet to address this fatal flaw in your approach.

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

I agree with this, and I would like to think I'd have been appropriately critical of such things in our past.  That is another reason I try to think critically about current events.  But one thing I've learned from history is that the majority of groups go along with bad leadership because this is how we've evolved to behave through evolution.  Many people in Germany didn't speak up or resist the evils perpetuated in their country's past, not because they were evil themselves, but because humans are conditioned to be loyal to the tribe, and it takes outlier personality types to stand up in defiance.  In all honestly, I'm not sure I'm that outlier personality type that would stand up and go against the group.  I'm trying to practice thinking and form habits that get me closer to this ideal, but I don't think I'm there yet.  

Evil is so banal that it becomes the norm, and is so easily excused by those doing the evil.  All manner of stories are invented to cover evil actions, along with the notion that "everyone else is doing it."  Any of us might be caught up in the mob, without even realizing the implications or consequenses.  Only my family tradition of abolitionism and Underground Railroad work assures me that I can make the decision to be different from the mob.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Here we go again with the inaccurate hyperbole...

Yes, I agree with trying to give fair appraisals, this was stated in my OP, I'm asking for input on my critiques.  I don't think I'm readily finding fault, I have pointed critiques of certain sections of his talk, and the overall tone.  I agree in the section talking about forms of prejudice that the absence of things like LGBT and gender prejudice might have just been an oversight without any intent, but it also might have been intentional.    

Should a leader of a large institution be subject to such scrutiny?  Yes, I think so.  I think we need should scrutinize our leaders and hold them accountable, whether thats government, religious, media, business, any leaders in positions of power should have their actions and their words subject to close scrutiny, absolutely.  Especially in the Mormon church where these leaders are appointed for life and our tradition has toxic ideas like the leaders won't lead us astray.  

I doubt you "detected anything" I freely offered information myself without any prompting that I've been extra critical of Oaks in recent years.   But that criticism I do not characterize as hate or animus.  This is another attempt by yourself to misrepresent me, which seems to be a disrespectful trend from you of late, and I'd appreciate it if that would stop.  

You seem so often to lack the milk of human kindness that it is obvious to me that you are willing to pillory persons you think are too highly placed to allow them any human limitations.  You even allow the false tradition of infallibility to apply (which is indeed a "toxic idea"), without reflecting on just how unfair that is to the flawed men you apply it too.  Why the grandiose expectations?  No one could ever live up to them . . .  Is there no room for kindness and forgiveness?   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2JXAgZybOE ,

 

These times are so uncertain
There's a yearning undefined
People filled with rage
We all need a little tenderness
How can love survive in such a graceless age?
Ah, the trust and self-assurance that lead to happiness
They're the very things we kill, I guess

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

Is the statement you feel is a public disavowal of the previously taught reasons for the ban?

I don't see a statement that is so limited in scope (and limited in delivery) as a public disavowal by the church of the previously taught reasons for the ban.

It speaks to the timing, not the reasoning.  It was delivered by a member of the quorum, not by the prophet.  And, it was given in a BYU devotional, not to the church membership at large (I'll retract this one if someone is aware of it being published somewhere else).

Yes, indeed, and it has been quoted so widely that we could not count the occasions.  It makes little difference to me whether a point is made primarily by an Apostle, or by the chief prophet.  We might take the same approach to the writings and words of past apostles, and say something like, well that is only a statement of St Paul, and St Peter didn't say it, so it is not sufficient.  We can also say that it doesn't matter that Elder McConkie was a direct recipient of that ecstatic revelation which came to the entire Twelve and First Presidency as a body, and that it doesn't matter that McConkie wrote OD2.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, indeed, and it has been quoted so widely that we could not count the occasions.  It makes little difference to me whether a point is made primarily by an Apostle, or by the chief prophet.  We might take the same approach to the writings and words of past apostles, and say something like, well that is only a statement of St Paul, and St Peter didn't say it, so it is not sufficient.  We can also say that it doesn't matter that Elder McConkie was a direct recipient of that ecstatic revelation which came to the entire Twelve and First Presidency as a body, and that it doesn't matter that McConkie wrote OD2.

If it was a public disavowal of the teachings, not just the timing, why did the teachings continue to be believed and repeated by members for decades afterwards?

Why did we have a BYU religion professor in 2012 explaining the origins of the ban to the Washington Post as being the curse of Cain?

Why did my Bishop in 2013 tell me that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence and that the Brethren are just needing to stay quiet about that now because of political correctness in the world?

Why did the gospel topics essay on the subject get so much attention if that disavowal had happened 35 years earlier?  And why did some think it was anti-Mormon material?

If there was a clear public disavowal in 1978, than why did last week’s fake apology cause members to weep with joy?

The reality is that Elder McConkie disavowed the timing (not the reasoning) to a group of BYU students.  The teachings continued to be widely believed by members.  Since the reasons for the ban had been articulated in First Presidency letters, they ought to have been clearly disavowed by the FP in a similar manner.  There was ample time prior to the gospel topics essay to correct the record on this and they chose not to. 

To now claim that the reasons for the ban were publicly disavowed in 1978 is laughable. 

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

What causes you to believe that? 

Because followers of Jesus or John didn't control the operations within the temple of Jerusalem.

 

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

Do you realize baptism was an ordinance of the religion of the Jews then? What leads you to believe the Jews didn't baptize people in their temple back then?  For both the living and the dead, then?  John the Baptist wasn't doing anything new. Baptism didn't begin with him.  And Aaron and his sons weren't doing anything new in their day either.  Baptism has always been a  part of our religion, which is the correct and restored fullness of what was once the religion of the Jews, or house of Israel, going all the way back to Adam and Eve.  Whether your call it Mormonism or Christianity or Judaism, whatever.  Mormonism today is a  restoration of a very , very old religion that has included baptism, going all the way back to the "beginning".

Of course - mikvah. However, there is no evidence they performed it for the dead, and indeed, it wouldn't have made sense in Jewish theology to perform that ritual for the dead. It was done to make the living ritually pure, it had nothing to do with eternal salvation. The baptism of John had a different political significance (more of a preparation for the eschaton and the expulsion of the Roman occupiers), and the baptism of the later Christians meant something else again.  It's unclear which group exactly was performing baptisms for the dead. But in order for baptism of the dead to make any kind of theological sense, they would have had to have come to view the ritual as a kind of gate-keeping ordinance related to eternal salvation. And that doctrine took time to develop.

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It sounds to me like the test you want to design is one that can’t be objectively answered.  So it would fail to be a valid test.  Is JS a prophet?  How is that objective?  Prophet is not an objectively defined term, the definition varies across time and culture and individual.  I might call him a prophet in one sense but it’s not the same sense you would consider him a prophet.

Your response supports my earlier point about religious experience needing to be in a separate category than the world of the empirical.  

The fact that some people understand words differently doesn't mean they can't arrive at the same understanding.  It may just take more time to come to be able to understand what each person is saying, and what each person means when they say something.

Even if you and I didn't speak the same language, English, and even if we didn't understand at least one definition for each English word that we understand, we could still arrive at the same understanding, on some level, at some point in time, in the real world.

Heh, you seem to be too quick to throw in the towel and say that it can't be done.  You're throwing up road blocks.  And you think it is "I" who has proven "your" theory?  Try just a little bit harder to come to some kind of understanding with me, bro.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But do you excuse the church and it’s leaders from any responsibility and accountability?  

No, I have no control over the actions of others.  Any process of dealing with the challenges of this life that is dependent upon others is both a failure and a non-starter.  More importantly, it is a different topic completely.  

If the topic is making others accountable for their actions then I can understand the allure of that approach.  I would like to hold every stupid person accountable for every stupid action they make.....but the mere thought of trying to do that condemns me and every other human.  The allure lasts only as long as you don't think it through. However, I have known individuals that have spent the majority of their lifetime angry about the actions of others.  Their entire lives were spent embittered.  I don't see the value in that approach to living. 

We all have some degree of control over the groups we are a part of, but for most people this degree of control is very small, but its ultimately a group effort.  This is the very crux of the errors made in the past in our church, and why not only the leaders were accountable but all members as well, those with pioneer ancestors and all of us have a collective interest in righting the wrongs of the past and making our society better today.  

This is why I found your articulation that God is going to right all those wrongs in the long term problematic, along with its accompanying implication that people like you and me in the present shouldn't make efforts to make the world a better place or to improve on our circumstances or to correct the mistakes of the past as best as we can.  

I'm not talking about being consumed by negativity and anger, although I would argue that those emotions have their place and shouldn't be negatively stereotyped, I am talking about being agents for change and taking action.  This is also a bedrock principle of the gospel as I understand it.