Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Can anyone tell me which apostles claim that the scriptures support a priesthood/temple ban for those of African descent?  I’m curious who I am allegedly claiming superiority over. 

Who here has said that any apostles make such a claim? Not I, surely.

How long are you going to persist with this red herring?

In essence, you are claiming that your understanding of scripture makes you privy to knowledge that the apostles don't claim (i.e. the reason for the pre-1978 priesthood restriction). Thus, you are claiming superiority in understanding of the scriptures.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Or perhaps some evil apostates conclude that no proclaimed one true religions speaks for God, if God is even there. 

I'm referring specifically to those who start new churches or groups that claim that they are the ones with true authority because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has lost its way.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who here has said that any apostles make such a claim. Not I, surely.

How long are you going to persist with this read herring?

In essence, you are claiming that your understanding of scripture makes you privy to knowledge that the apostles don't claim (i.e. the reason for the pre-1978 priesthood restriction). Thus, you are claiming superiority in understanding of the scriptures.

How long are you going to persist in a false claim about me?  I almost never report posts but I’m on the verge of doing it here. 

I wasn’t even baptized pre-1978.  I’ve claimed that the scriptures don’t support the ban.  If that means I am claiming superiority over any current apostle, you’ll need to identify who that is. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, rockpond said:

How long are you going to persist in a false claim about me?  I almost never report posts but I’m on the verge of doing it here. 

I wasn’t even baptized pre-1978.  I’ve claimed that the scriptures don’t support the ban.  If that means I am claiming superiority over any current apostle, you’ll need to identify who that is. 

I've explained multiple times now the reasoning for my conclusion. I said it is not necessary for the scriptures to "support the ban" for it to have been approved of God. Indeed, not everything that comes by way of revelation is included in the scriptures.

By implying that it is necessary, you claim knowledge that that the apostles and prophets themselves don't profess. Thus, in essence, you claim superiority over them in your understanding.

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've explained multiple times now the reasoning for my conclusion. I said it is not necessary for the scriptures to "support the ban" for it to have been approved of God. Indeed, not everything that comes by way of revelation is included in the scriptures.

By implying that it is necessary, you claim knowledge that that the apostles and prophets themselves don't profess. Thus, in essence, you claim superiority over them in your understanding.

 

Except I am not claiming that it is necessary.  I’m not sure why you insist on putting words in my mouth. 

Your claim about me is false.

[Scott Lloyd]

Since he rarely posts here anymore, and since he so eloquently expresses in a nuanced way what I myself feel about this matter, I hereby link to this blog post by Daniel C. Peterson on whether the pre 1978 policy was a mistake or worse:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/06/why-i-cant-simply-dismiss-the-pre-1978-priesthood-ban-as-a-mistake.html

From the blog post:

“I have no theory of its origin to offer, no theological justification to provide for it, no apologetic to make on its behalf.  I simply point to the fact that at least some Church leaders had hoped to rescind it earlier but felt themselves prevented (by the Lord himself) from doing so.”

Edited June 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since he rarely posts here anymore, and since he so eloquently expresses in a nuanced way what I myself feel about this matter, I hereby link to this blog post by Daniel C. Peterson on whether the pre 1978 policy was a mistake it worse:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/06/why-i-cant-simply-dismiss-the-pre-1978-priesthood-ban-as-a-mistake.html

From the blog post:

“I have no theory of its origin to offer, no theological justification to provide for it, no apologetic to make on its behalf.  I simply point to the fact that at least some Church leaders had hoped to rescind it earlier but felt themselves prevented (by the Lord himself) from doing so.”

It’s a good post by Dr. Peterson except I think his conclusion here is not the only possibility:

“That would make the policy seem to be something more than merely the lamentable product of regrettable nineteenth-century racism.”

From Prince’s McKay bio we also know that there wasn’t unanimity among the quorum for such a change.  Since there isn’t known revelation dictating the priesthood/temple restrictions, its therefore quite possible that the Lord couldn’t get rescind the ban because even within a quorum of 15 great men there may still have been too much influence from, as Peterson puts it “the lamentable product of regrettable nineteenth-century racism” and, I would add twentieth-century racism. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/8/2018 at 9:20 AM, Ahab said:

Meaning I do not agree that I have no evidence from the OT to support baptism and that I do see evidence in the OT that supports my idea that people were being baptized in OT times.  Scriptures in the OT that describe what I now know was a baptismal font, for example.  And the fact that you don't agree that was a baptismal font doesn't mean I can't still see that scripture as evidence to support what I'm saying.

What was John’s baptisms if not Old Testament baptism? The New Testament (fulfilling and ending the Law had not yet happened.)

[Atheist Mormon]

On 6/4/2018 at 1:53 PM, hope_for_things said:

I would like to hear what others thought about President Oaks talk from the Be One event.  There are a few sections that concerned me personally, and I'm wondering how others read these sections, and if there may be a more charitable reading.   Here are the portions I wanted to discuss.  

The language he used here seems like a step back from the language in the Gospel topics essay on Race and the Priesthood.  His reasoning seems to be that the reasons given for the restriction were the problem, and not the restriction itself.  He takes a position that God commanded the restriction, but that we just don't know why it was commanded, and that he will be loyal to leaders by not criticizing the restriction.  I have a big problem with this reasoning.  He seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room that the restriction was formed in the context of racism and racist traditions in broader Christian society, which the essay clearly expounds on, but Oaks ignores.  He seems to be condoning the priesthood ban here.  Thoughts?  

I would like to issue a CFR to President Oaks on this statement.  I see no evidence to support it, so if any of you have a clue what he's talking about with respect to asserting that the reasons for the priesthood ban were promptly and publicly disavowed, I'd love to see it.  These same reasons were taught to me growing up in seminary and in the mission field where I served in the US south.  I'm a generation X person who was too young to know about any of these reasons prior to 1978 because I was only 4 years old at that time.  So all the racist reasoning I learned was from people teaching it too me after 1978.  

Why didn't he mention prejudices based on sexual orientation, or gender, or gender orientation?  Was he intentionally leaving out the LGBT community here?  

The President Nelson statement expressing the goal to "eliminating prejudice of all kinds" would seemingly be a great goal for the church.  But then President Oaks tries to qualify that goal with his statement to "remember that it is not prejudice for the Church to insist on certain rules".  Isn't this just another way of justifying certain prejudices?  Some prejudices are justified because God created these rules, so since God created these rules, then it doesn't count as a prejudice.  This seems like what he's trying to say.  Thoughts?  

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-oaks-remarks-worldwide-priesthood-celebration

*I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders "

Try to run any scientific institution for a day like this...........

 

[Tacenda]

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/road-revelation Just wanted to share this recording, it's very good. Eugene talks about his life after meeting with the missionaries etc. How some members in his ward in Utah, didn't want him attending the Elder's/Priest's class at church, and the bishop had to worry over the few that said they would quit attending if he came. And then when he told his dentist what had happened the dentist who's a bishop told him to attend his ward's priest class. He also mentions that in his opinion Pres. Mcconkie's talk: 1978: Bruce R. McConkie, in an address to CES employees entitled, "All are alike unto god", states:

“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. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.”

Was basically like an apology, and that the church members want to believe it was a revelation that changed it. Anyway you'd have listen, there is a lot discussed here. Intro to the recording on Radiowest is below:

Thursday, we’re wrapping up our series marking the 40th anniversary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lifting its priesthood and temple ban on black members. Historian Greg Prince joins us to talk about the pressure church leaders felt from outside the church as well as from within. There was a lot of maneuvering going on at church headquarters in the years before 1978. We’ll also hear reaction from Eugene Orr, a Latter-day Saint who stayed despite the racism he encountered

Gregory Prince is an independent historian whose books include David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism  [Indiebound|Amazon] and  Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History [Indiebound|Amazon].

Eugene Orr joined the LDS Church in 1978 and was a founding member of Genesis, a group for African-American Mormons.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/9/2018 at 11:50 AM, rockpond said:

Fair enough... your impression and that of Pres. Oaks should not be disregarded.  I guess what is more fair to say is that there is substantial evidence that the “prompt and public disavowal” was not widely known including, even, among church leaders who in 1998 seemed unaware of it. 

I would suggest that Elder McConkie's comments were made with the advanced approval of his fellow apostles, with the understanding that his comments would be the only stark and well-defined statement to come from a general authority.  Why?  Because McConkie had always been the lightning rod for such harsh doctrinal assertions in the past, and thus would be the single most appropriate person to declare them null and void.  This he did very effectively, without embarrassing the Church or the Brethren as a body.  His fellow GA's were certainly aware of it, even if they pretended tactical ignorance

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/9/2018 at 3:04 PM, Teancum said:

Or perhaps some evil apostates conclude that no proclaimed one true religions speaks for God, if God is even there. 

Good point.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Good point.

Please see my follow up post. Teancum and I differed in our frame of reference. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I would suggest that Elder McConkie's comments were made with the advanced approval of his fellow apostles, with the understanding that his comments would be the only stark and well-defined statement to come from a general authority.  Why?  Because McConkie had always been the lightning rod for such harsh doctrinal assertions in the past, and thus would be the single most appropriate person to declare them null and void.  This he did very effectively, without embarrassing the Church or the Brethren as a body.  His fellow GA's were certainly aware of it, even if they pretended tactical ignorance

I’m not sure what you mean by saying that the other GA’s pretended tactical ignorance. 

What I see as the problem is that his statement wasn’t well defined.  Some of us read it as only a disavowal of the timing.  Other read it as a disavowal of the timing and reasoning.  I suppose his “limited understanding” statement could even be thought to indicate that it may not have even come from God. 

And to the Wheat and Tares post I cited... it seems that President Hinckley in 1998 was unaware that the reasoning behind the ban had been disavowed by the church.  As was BYU religion professor Bott in 2012 and nearly every other church member I ever discussed the matter with prior to the gospel topics essay. 

Since I’m headed out to our stake YM camp in the morning, this will likely be my last response. So I’ll just say that I think Pres. Oaks had the best of intentions with that comment from the 1-June celebration and I believe he likely sees it as a prompt and public disavowal.  But I think the body of evidence shows otherwise... too many leaders and members continued to believe and teach the reasoning to successive generations (like myself) for the church to wash its hands of this post-1978.  If the church has truly disavowed the teachings behind the ban, how would someone like me that was still in junior primary at the time of McConkie’s talk have grown up learning the curse of Cain and pre-mortal valiancy reasons for the ban?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m not sure what you mean by saying that the other GA’s pretended tactical ignorance. 

What I see as the problem is that his statement wasn’t well defined.  Some of us read it as only a disavowal of the timing.  Other read it as a disavowal of the timing and reasoning.  I suppose his “limited understanding” statement could even be thought to indicate that it may not have even come from God. 

And to the Wheat and Tares post I cited... it seems that President Hinckley in 1998 was unaware that the reasoning behind the ban had been disavowed by the church.  As was BYU religion professor Bott in 2012 and nearly every other church member I ever discussed the matter with prior to the gospel topics essay. 

Since I’m headed out to our stake YM camp in the morning, this will likely be my last response. So I’ll just say that I think Pres. Oaks had the best of intentions with that comment from the 1-June celebration and I believe he likely sees it as a prompt and public disavowal.  But I think the body of evidence shows otherwise... too many leaders and members continued to believe and teach the reasoning to successive generations (like myself) for the church to wash its hands of this post-1978.  If the church has truly disavowed the teachings behind the ban, how would someone like me that was still in junior primary at the time of McConkie’s talk have grown up learning the curse of Cain and pre-mortal valiancy reasons for the ban?

You were still in junior Primary and you wonder why you weren’t made aware of this immediately?  

Don’t underestimate the propensity for the water not to reach the end of the row immediately. Some people don’t keep abreast of current events. For example, how many here know that the camp certification program in Young Women has been discontinued? Apparently, leaders in my local unit are not. 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m not sure what you mean by saying that the other GA’s pretended tactical ignorance. 

What I see as the problem is that his statement wasn’t well defined.  Some of us read it as only a disavowal of the timing.  Other read it as a disavowal of the timing and reasoning.  I suppose his “limited understanding” statement could even be thought to indicate that it may not have even come from God. 

And to the Wheat and Tares post I cited... it seems that President Hinckley in 1998 was unaware that the reasoning behind the ban had been disavowed by the church.  As was BYU religion professor Bott in 2012 and nearly every other church member I ever discussed the matter with prior to the gospel topics essay. 

Since I’m headed out to our stake YM camp in the morning, this will likely be my last response. So I’ll just say that I think Pres. Oaks had the best of intentions with that comment from the 1-June celebration and I believe he likely sees it as a prompt and public disavowal.  But I think the body of evidence shows otherwise... too many leaders and members continued to believe and teach the reasoning to successive generations (like myself) for the church to wash its hands of this post-1978.  If the church has truly disavowed the teachings behind the ban, how would someone like me that was still in junior primary at the time of McConkie’s talk have grown up learning the curse of Cain and pre-mortal valiancy reasons for the ban?

Excellent points, showing once again the truth of the old adage:  "The more things change, the more they remain the same."  However, it was never likely to be otherwise.  I am always amazed that people actually expect things to really change.  A certain level of cynicism is called for generally.  As in ancient Israel, the people are so very slow to get the message.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Edited June 11, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m not sure what you mean by saying that the other GA’s pretended tactical ignorance. 

What I see as the problem is that his statement wasn’t well defined.  Some of us read it as only a disavowal of the timing.  Other read it as a disavowal of the timing and reasoning.  I suppose his “limited understanding” statement could even be thought to indicate that it may not have even come from God. 

And to the Wheat and Tares post I cited... it seems that President Hinckley in 1998 was unaware that the reasoning behind the ban had been disavowed by the church.  As was BYU religion professor Bott in 2012 and nearly every other church member I ever discussed the matter with prior to the gospel topics essay. 

Since I’m headed out to our stake YM camp in the morning, this will likely be my last response. So I’ll just say that I think Pres. Oaks had the best of intentions with that comment from the 1-June celebration and I believe he likely sees it as a prompt and public disavowal.  But I think the body of evidence shows otherwise... too many leaders and members continued to believe and teach the reasoning to successive generations (like myself) for the church to wash its hands of this post-1978.  If the church has truly disavowed the teachings behind the ban, how would someone like me that was still in junior primary at the time of McConkie’s talk have grown up learning the curse of Cain and pre-mortal valiancy reasons for the ban?

The logic Robert is using really strains credibility.  McConkie's BYU talk was no disavowal and Oaks' statement is completely false. 

McConkie's comments had advanced approval from the other Q15?  No, the clearest explanation is McConkie felt personally bad for all his past racist statements and felt some desire to make up for it.  Unfortunately, this one isolated statement at an obscure event at BYU doesn't make up for all the public statements that were published and disseminated to many thousands and perhaps millions more people over his many years previously.  

The church is also to blame for much of the racism that continues to exist in the church today because of its very inability to articulate a "prompt and public disavowal".  Oaks' claim becomes even more problematic because of how it highlights just how lacking the response from the church has been on this topic, and that they have been willing to let racism continue to fester because of their refusal to address the perniciousness of racist ideology in the church including perpetuating ideas about interracial marriage being verboten, even after the 1978 revelation.  

This is a bizarre kind of world we live in where an organization that was one of the slowest to change, and has been one of the worst examples on this particular issue, is now claiming to have handled this issue in a very responsible fashion?  Come on, this is some crazy kind of revisionist history happening here.  

 

[Ahab]

On ‎6‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 11:07 PM, Bernard Gui said:

What was John’s baptisms if not Old Testament baptism? The New Testament (fulfilling and ending the Law had not yet happened.)

I think the Book of Mormon does a better job of describing what "Old Testament baptism" was like.  Pretty much the same as it was in New Testament times.  People just looked ahead for our Lord and his atonement rather than behind in the past.

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think the Book of Mormon does a better job of describing what "Old Testament baptism" was like.  Pretty much the same as it was in New Testament times.  People just looked ahead for our Lord and his atonement rather than behind in the past.

Plain and precious.

[hope_for_things]

A very interesting result from the Next Mormons survey.  Apparently most active Mormons today believe the ban was God’s will.  

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/06/11/commentary-most-mormons-still-believe-the-racist-priesthoodtemple-ban-was-gods-will-survey-shows/

 

 

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

A very interesting result from the Next Mormons survey.  Apparently most active Mormons today believe the ban was God’s will.  

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/06/11/commentary-most-mormons-still-believe-the-racist-priesthoodtemple-ban-was-gods-will-survey-shows/

 

 

Nice to know I'm not the only one.

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Apparently most active Mormons today believe the ban was God’s will.

Including more non-white Saints than white Saints.

Have you considered the personal implications for taking a stand that is rejected by most African-American Saints (and based upon my personal experience, by the vast majority of other black Saints)?

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Including more non-white Saints than white Saints.

Have you considered the personal implications for taking a stand that is rejected by most African-American Saints (and based upon my personal experience, by the vast majority of other black Saints)?

I’m not sure of all the implications, and can only speculate.  My guess is that active members have been conditioned to value loyalty in Mormon culture at the expense of egalitarianism.  

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Nice to know I'm not the only one.

I’m glad to be in the minority.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m not sure of all the implications, and can only speculate.

 

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m glad to be in the minority.  

A space you have every right to be in.

At the same time, I've been challenged at every turn in this and other threads for suggesting that the people you feel you're championing largely don't want what you're advocating for. Now that my position has been supported by this survey, it's the implications of that fact that I'm interested in.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan