Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

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.

The survey does not prove your point, it only proves that they are loyal a perception that the church has perpetuated these many years.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The survey does not prove your point, it only proves that they are loyal a perception that the church has perpetuated these many years.  

Got it. Absolutely no implications. You will keep agitating, ostensibly on behalf of people who largely disagree with your core premise. No doubt you know better than they do what black Saints should really think/feel on this issue.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The survey does not prove your point, it only proves that they are loyal a perception that the church has perpetuated these many years.  

Zero capacity or willingness to reflect. 

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Got it. Absolutely no implications. You will keep agitating, ostensibly on behalf of people who largely disagree with your core premise. No doubt you know better than they do what black Saints should really think/feel on this issue.

Please explain how the data supports your claim that the survey results are telling you very specifically that blacks don't want the church to apologize (what I'm advocating for) for the priesthood ban, or that blacks wouldn't be thrilled with the church clearly articulating that the priesthood ban as a mistake and disavowing it directly.  What evidence do you have to support that reading?  

Just to review and clarify, here is what the article specifically says about the survey: 

Quote

The 2016 Next Mormons Survey asked whether respondents felt that the ban on members of African descent was “inspired of God and was God’s will for the church until 1978.”

One major surprise in the data was that Mormons of color were actually more likely to say they knew or believed the ban was God’s will than white Mormons were. Seventy percent of nonwhites affirmed this, compared to 61 percent of whites. That also remains true when we consider only African-American respondents in a group by themselves: 67 percent of African-Americans know or believe the priesthood/temple ban was God’s will, which is 6 percentage points higher than the rate for whites. (The margin of error is high, however, since there were only 50 African-American Mormon respondents in the study.)

 

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

Zero capacity or willingness to reflect. 

I'm asking for an explanation.  

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm asking for an explanation.  

And you were asked a specific question about how you believe your actions impact members of color who believe the Priesthood restriction was God's will. 

Whether you can't or won't, you haven't answered. 

[hope_for_things]

51 minutes ago, kllindley said:

And you were asked a specific question about how you believe your actions impact members of color who believe the Priesthood restriction was God's will. 

Whether you can't or won't, you haven't answered. 

Slightly different question than what Hamba asked, but I'm happy to answer.  

I think my "actions" which to date include having a personal opinion and sharing that opinion with friends and on a  message board, have little to no effect on members of color who believe the Priesthood restriction was God's will. 

If I were able to effectively share my understanding about the origins of the priesthood ban and articulate how the ban came to be, that its origins were racist in nature, and that God was not responsible for this ban.  I think a large majority of members of color would find greater understanding and be grateful for learning a more accurate portrayal of history.  

[blueglass]

15 hours 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)?

What may be the personal implications of 80% of the survey respondents carrying around the burden of the troubling aspects of the ban?  Of those surveyed in the article "About four in five [80%] say they are at least a little “troubled” by the ban, while one in five are “not at all troubled.”   Should we give glory to God that he hardened Brigham's heart?   Exodus 7:3  "And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt."  or should we believe Joseph Smith that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, Exodus 10:1  "JST Ex. 10:1 … for he hath hardened his heart, and the hearts of his servants, therefore I will show these my signs before him;"

When Joseph Smith authorized Elijah Abel's ordination and when Joseph's brother William ordained Walker Lewis was this in fulfillment of God's will or was it a mistake as Abraham Smoot, Joseph F. Smith, and Harold B Lee believed?  

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by blueglass

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Got it. Absolutely no implications. You will keep agitating, ostensibly on behalf of people who largely disagree with your core premise. No doubt you know better than they do what black Saints should really think/feel on this issue.

Given the small sample size in the survey, it's not clear what most black Saints really think about this issue.

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Slightly different question than what Hamba asked, but I'm happy to answer.  

I think my "actions" which to date include having a personal opinion and sharing that opinion with friends and on a  message board, have little to no effect on members of color who believe the Priesthood restriction was God's will. 

If I were able to effectively share my understanding about the origins of the priesthood ban and articulate how the ban came to be, that its origins were racist in nature, and that God was not responsible for this ban.  I think a large majority of members of color would find greater understanding and be grateful for learning a more accurate portrayal of history.  

Thank you for answering. 

I don't really have words to describe the apparent tone-deafness of your explanation, but I respect you for sharing your honest views. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Thank you for answering. 

I don't really have words to describe the apparent tone-deafness of your explanation, but I respect you for sharing your honest views. 

Hard to have a thoughtful dialogue if you're just going to take jabs and not actually engage in an exchange of ideas.  

Oh, and BTW, did you listen to the interview on Mormonland with Dr. Paul Reeve, who is the primary author of the Gospel Topics Essay, who also wrote one of the best books in recent years on race (Religion of a Different Color Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness), who also said that he believes the origin of the ban was racism and that the church essay disavows the ban and not just the theories used to describe the ban.  I feel fairly confident that my views are in line with mainstream scholarship on this topic. 

Perhaps, if you could provide some explanation and support for your side of this issue, we might get an interesting discussion.  

 

[kllindley]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Hard to have a thoughtful dialogue if you're just going to take jabs and not actually engage in an exchange of ideas.  

Oh, and BTW, did you listen to the interview on Mormonland with Dr. Paul Reeve, who is the primary author of the Gospel Topics Essay, who also wrote one of the best books in recent years on race (Religion of a Different Color Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness), who also said that he believes the origin of the ban was racism and that the church essay disavows the ban and not just the theories used to describe the ban.  I feel fairly confident that my views are in line with mainstream scholarship on this topic. 

Perhaps, if you could provide some explanation and support for your side of this issue, we might get an interesting discussion.  

 

Perhaps. I don't see the odds as being very good. You have been very clear that you don't want to consider personal spiritual experience. I can respect that, even if I also chuckle at your obvious appeal to authority. It seems silly that you try to prove via logic and empiricism that the Priesthood restriction was not God's will, when God's will is clearly outside of the scope of empirical evidence.

I think Reeves is an excellent historian. I don't believe historical fact can prove that an action was contrary to God's will any more than it can prove that Jesus Christ was resurrected. I would have thought you would understand separating spiritual and secular knowledge.

I was trying to be respectful and diplomatic with my post, not make a jab. I intentionally did not say anything about patronizing double standards, benevolent racism, or condescending dismissal of the spiritual experiences of members of color. 

 

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Perhaps. I don't see the odds as being very good. You have been very clear that you don't want to consider personal spiritual experience. I can respect that, even if I also chuckle at your obvious appeal to authority. It seems silly that you try to prove via logic and empiricism that the Priesthood restriction was not God's will, when God's will is clearly outside of the scope of empirical evidence.

I think Reeves is an excellent historian. I don't believe historical fact can prove that an action was contrary to God's will any more than it can prove that Jesus Christ was resurrected. I would have thought you would understand separating spiritual and secular knowledge.

I was trying to be respectful and diplomatic with my post, not make a jab. I intentionally did not say anything about patronizing double standards, benevolent racism, or condescending dismissal of the spiritual experiences of members of color. 

Well lets start with where we agree first.  I agree that God's will is outside the scope of empirical evidence.  So the claim that the priesthood ban was the will of God is strictly a position of faith and not something that can be supported by empirical evidence.  

Alternatively, we have Dr. Reeve and other historians who've examined the historical evidence, and found very plausible historical evidence that shows quite nicely how racist ideas were present in the culture and how influential these ideas were on church leaders who implemented the ban.  

Another point I would agree on, making the claim that an action was contrary to God's will is a faith claim as well.  This is where we need to essentially bracket the faith claims on either side, and just look at the historical evidence.  Since neither of us can prove anything about what God's actual intentions are or were, we can't prove claims for or against God's will using empirical evidence.  

Lastly, you were taking a jab when you said I was "tone-deaf" and had "zero capacity or willingness to reflect".  And then you add additional jabs with your last sentence, none of which are accurate at all.  Sounds like you're trying to play a game of indirect insults.  

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well lets start with where we agree first.  I agree that God's will is outside the scope of empirical evidence.  So the claim that the priesthood ban was the will of God is strictly a position of faith and not something that can be supported by empirical evidence.  

Alternatively, we have Dr. Reeve and other historians who've examined the historical evidence, and found very plausible historical evidence that shows quite nicely how racist ideas were present in the culture and how influential these ideas were on church leaders who implemented the ban.  

Another point I would agree on, making the claim that an action was contrary to God's will is a faith claim as well.  This is where we need to essentially bracket the faith claims on either side, and just look at the historical evidence.  Since neither of us can prove anything about what God's actual intentions are or were, we can't prove claims for or against God's will using empirical evidence.  

Lastly, you were taking a jab when you said I was "tone-deaf" and had "zero capacity or willingness to reflect".  And then you add additional jabs with your last sentence, none of which are accurate at all.  Sounds like you're trying to play a game of indirect insults.  

Actually, I was very clear in identifying your comment as tone deaf.  I stand by that description. It is a White man stating that if he could just effectively communicate his understanding, members of color would be grateful. The comment strikes me as tone-deaf. I didn't say you were. 

And yeah, I wasn't sure whether it was capacity or willingness to not answer the question hamba posed about the implications of your position. When you did reply to the question that rendered my question moot. 

I apologize for not being more direct.  I was genuinely surprised that by your comment. I don't know what motivated it, but it sounds terribly condescending and arrogant. I am surprised that you think your comments on this board cannot possibly have any impact on members of color. I am surprised that you believe that members of color would feel grateful if they could better understand your perspective.  I don't assume any ill will or malice. I am just surprised that for someone who seems to feel so strongly about racial issues you don't see any contradiction in your comment. 

 

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well lets start with where we agree first.  I agree that God's will is outside the scope of empirical evidence.  So the claim that the priesthood ban was the will of God is strictly a position of faith and not something that can be supported by empirical evidence.  

So you are not trying to dismiss the idea that the ban was God's will by using empirical evidence?  If all you are attempting to say is that some leaders had racist ideas, then I think we can all agree with that.  What exactly are you trying to say that we don't already know?

The point is empirical evidence says nothing of God's will (as you freely admit), so why use it as a tool in this discussion?  This is a matter of faith.  So, what can be said about it?  Nothing.  All you can do is try and respect the faith of others.  Your empirical evidence cannot save anyone from errors of faith. 

 

[CV75]

20 hours 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/

That is fine, but I think considering certain doctrines  would facilitate another perception by the majority of survey respondents: that the ban was neither God’s will nor man’s will. Consider the LDS belief that God sheds varying levels of light through various dispensations, and apply this to the idea that God did not roll out the light on this specific subject (or for those who discount that, American society had not advanced sufficiently in tolerance for diversity and in the definition and application of human rights) in the earlier parts of this dispensation (or for those who discount that, the 19^th century) in a way that would sufficiently illuminate the considerations of a Prophet (or for those who discount one, frontier politicians and ecclesiastical and business leaders) to develop a will on a moral issue, considering that clear choices are needed for someone to develop and exert a moral will on a subject. No one can make decisions and take action in an area that lacks opposing options, so the ban was not man’s will, and since God reveals His will to His prophets in due time, does not hold the prophets accountable for things He has not revealed in the meantime. Consideration of how dispensations and agency within those dispensations work supports how much (rather, little) will is exerted by God, the prophet, and good people possessing an advanced sense of societal values, morality or faith.

The brother of Jared is a great example. It was not his dispensation to know the physical nature of God, so God did not expect him to see His finger. When by faith he did just that, God did not interfere, but rewarded him, and at the same time instructed him not to disclose what he had learned. It wasn't time for his (the brother of Jared's) world to know. But who would have blamed him if he didn’t see God’s finger? It was neither God’s will nor his that he didn’t see it; God would have and did let him see it; he only saw it because he had more faith than he was expected to have.

I think it reasonable that LDS believe that our doctrine reflects God's will, and in this superficial sense conclude that the ban was God's will for the sake of a (likely poorly-constructed) survey.

Edited June 12, 2018 by CV75

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that God's will is outside the scope of empirical evidence.  So the claim that the priesthood ban was the will of God is strictly a position of faith and not something that can be supported by empirical evidence ... Another point I would agree on, making the claim that an action was contrary to God's will is a faith claim as well.  This is where we need to essentially bracket the faith claims on either side, and just look at the historical evidence.

This is the very definition of circular logic: We can't know if God was involved or not, so we should bracket God and just look at the remaining evidence, from which I conclude that the most 'accurate' explanation is that God was not involved.

That you are then confident that black Saints would be 'grateful' (your word!) to have you correct them with this more enlightened perspective is clearly not something anyone can even comment on without your labelling this point a 'jab' or an 'insult'.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

So you are not trying to dismiss the idea that the ban was God's will by using empirical evidence?  If all you are attempting to say is that some leaders had racist ideas, then I think we can all agree with that.  What exactly are you trying to say that we don't already know?

The point is empirical evidence says nothing of God's will (as you freely admit), so why use it as a tool in this discussion?  This is a matter of faith.  So, what can be said about it?  Nothing.  All you can do is try and respect the faith of others.  Your empirical evidence cannot save anyone from errors of faith. 

 

The primary error of faith is faith in a racist God.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

Actually, I was very clear in identifying your comment as tone deaf.  I stand by that description. It is a White man stating that if he could just effectively communicate his understanding, members of color would be grateful. The comment strikes me as tone-deaf. I didn't say you were. 

And yeah, I wasn't sure whether it was capacity or willingness to not answer the question hamba posed about the implications of your position. When you did reply to the question that rendered my question moot. 

I apologize for not being more direct.  I was genuinely surprised that by your comment. I don't know what motivated it, but it sounds terribly condescending and arrogant. I am surprised that you think your comments on this board cannot possibly have any impact on members of color. I am surprised that you believe that members of color would feel grateful if they could better understand your perspective.  I don't assume any ill will or malice. I am just surprised that for someone who seems to feel so strongly about racial issues you don't see any contradiction in your comment. 

 

All I’m getting is condescension and I think intentional misunderstanding from you.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The primary error of faith is faith in a racist God.  

Be careful in judging another’s faith and imputing their God recklessly.  You are projecting man’s ways upon God, who’s ways you do not understand.  As other’s have noted, there are many faithful blacks who do not share your view.  Why do you so carelessly dismiss their faith, and belittle their intelligence?  Are they not capable of deciding if their God is racist or not for themselves?  No empirical evidence makes your version of God the correct version.  You are not capable of making such definitive judgments of both God Himself and of man’s faith.

Edited June 13, 2018 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

That is fine, but I think considering certain doctrines  would facilitate another perception by the majority of survey respondents: that the ban was neither God’s will nor man’s will. Consider the LDS belief that God sheds varying levels of light through various dispensations, and apply this to the idea that God did not roll out the light on this specific subject (or for those who discount that, American society had not advanced sufficiently in tolerance for diversity and in the definition and application of human rights) in the earlier parts of this dispensation (or for those who discount that, the 19^th century) in a way that would sufficiently illuminate the considerations of a Prophet (or for those who discount one, frontier politicians and ecclesiastical and business leaders) to develop a will on a moral issue, considering that clear choices are needed for someone to develop and exert a moral will on a subject. No one can make decisions and take action in an area that lacks opposing options, so the ban was not man’s will, and since God reveals His will to His prophets in due time, does not hold the prophets accountable for things He has not revealed in the meantime. Consideration of how dispensations and agency within those dispensations work supports how much (rather, little) will is exerted by God, the prophet, and good people possessing an advanced sense of societal values, morality or faith.

The brother of Jared is a great example. It was not his dispensation to know the physical nature of God, so God did not expect him to see His finger. When by faith he did just that, God did not interfere, but rewarded him, and at the same time instructed him not to disclose what he had learned. It wasn't time for his (the brother of Jared's) world to know. But who would have blamed him if he didn’t see God’s finger? It was neither God’s will nor his that he didn’t see it; God would have and did let him see it; he only saw it because he had more faith than he was expected to have.

I think it reasonable that LDS believe that our doctrine reflects God's will, and in this superficial sense conclude that the ban was God's will for the sake of a (likely poorly-constructed) survey.

Well, I absolutely believe that the teachings of the church have heavily influenced these perspectives.  If the church had taught differently then these perceptions wouldn't exist.  The real finding the survey reveals is how well conditioned Mormons are to believe certain teachings are the will of God even when those teachings are inherently immoral and incompatible with central gospel principles.  

As for how God reveals truth, I think it apparent that society progresses incrementally, with many fits and starts along the way.  There have been periods of rapid progression and periods of stagnation and devolution.  Ups and downs is the legacy of humanity so far, with a overarching upward trend.  

I don't find the argument that God had to slowly introduce this concept of treating people equally, otherwise people would have rejected it, very persuasive or ethically satisfying.  This makes God essentially racist and slow to act because of humanity's inability to make quick adjustments to paradigms.  Honestly, I don't see the point in the claim that God is holding back important knowledge because he believes the people aren't ready for it.  Seems like a shallow God to me, and like we're making excuses for bad behavior on the part of humans and turning God into a capricious being.  

Your last sentence is a truism for Mormonism.  Orthodox Mormons believe that whatever the church and its leaders are doing or have done is and was God's will.  They don't grapple with the mistakes made and the implications of those mistakes, because honest evaluation of that would cause them to question authority, and thats a sin, so its best just to pretend that leaders never make mistakes.  

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is the very definition of circular logic: We can't know if God was involved or not, so we should bracket God and just look at the remaining evidence, from which I conclude that the most 'accurate' explanation is that God was not involved.

That you are then confident that black Saints would be 'grateful' (your word!) to have you correct them with this more enlightened perspective is clearly not something anyone can even comment on without your labelling this point a 'jab' or an 'insult'.

Bracketing the supernatural for the purposes of history and other scholarship is the status quo way of operating in the academy and the way that religious studies and Mormon studies scholars typically approach scholarship.   Its not circular logic at all.  

And yes, I have great confidence that people of color will change their views if they are introduced to accurately written history.  I think accurate information is the antidote to misinformation and prejudiced dogma.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The primary error of faith is faith in a racist God.  

Be careful in judging another’s faith and imputing their God recklessly.  You are projecting man’s ways upon God, who’s ways you do not understand.  As other’s have noted, there are many faithful blacks who do not share your view.  Why do you so carelessly dismiss their faith, and belittle their intelligence?  Are they not capable of deciding if their God is racist or not for themselves?  No empirical evidence makes your version of God the correct version.  You are not capable of making such definitive judgments of both God Himself and of man’s faith.

You've got it exactly backwards.  Those who believe God is the author of racist practices are projecting human flawed prejudice onto God.  

And this goes both ways, I'm not dismissing their faith, any more than you are dismissing mine.  I certainly haven't belittled their intelligence, I've done the precise opposite by placing the blame on the church leaders for their ability to condition people to think a certain way and support the leaders teachings.  

Lastly, I'm not claiming empirical evidence for my beliefs about God, but again this goes both ways, are you trying to claim this?  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You've got it exactly backwards.  Those who believe God is the author of racist practices are projecting human flawed prejudice onto God.  

You are certain that the ban was instigated by humans outside of the will of God?  Based on what evidence?  Again, you are trying to use empirical evidence to decipher God's will, which we have agreed is impossible.  

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 And this goes both ways, I'm not dismissing their faith, any more than you are dismissing mine. 

I have said nothing of your faith.  If your faith is that God did not instigate the ban, I respect that. In fact, I lean toward that perspective myself and don't take a solid stand one way or the other.  I am not condemning, you, your faith, or your God.  But you definitely are doing that to others by condemning black member's faith as being in "primary error", and condemning black member's God as being racist, even when they don't view the ban that way - as if a black person needs a white person to explain racism to them.  

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I certainly haven't belittled their intelligence, I've done the precise opposite by placing the blame on the church leaders for their ability to condition people to think a certain way and support the leaders teachings.  

You honestly don't view this as an attack on a person's intelligence - "I don't blame you for being a blind follower of manipulative church leaders.  You obviously don't have the intellectual capacity to think for yourself and are being brain-washed through religious conditioning to accept whatever is being fed to you without thinking for yourself and without questioning anything."  No, that is not belittling at all!  You are diminishing the person to a brainless lemming. 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, I absolutely believe that the teachings of the church have heavily influenced these perspectives.  If the church had taught differently then these perceptions wouldn't exist.  The real finding the survey reveals is how well conditioned Mormons are to believe certain teachings are the will of God even when those teachings are inherently immoral and incompatible with central gospel principles.  

As for how God reveals truth, I think it apparent that society progresses incrementally, with many fits and starts along the way.  There have been periods of rapid progression and periods of stagnation and devolution.  Ups and downs is the legacy of humanity so far, with a overarching upward trend.  

I don't find the argument that God had to slowly introduce this concept of treating people equally, otherwise people would have rejected it, very persuasive or ethically satisfying.  This makes God essentially racist and slow to act because of humanity's inability to make quick adjustments to paradigms.  Honestly, I don't see the point in the claim that God is holding back important knowledge because he believes the people aren't ready for it.  Seems like a shallow God to me, and like we're making excuses for bad behavior on the part of humans and turning God into a capricious being.  

Your last sentence is a truism for Mormonism.  Orthodox Mormons believe that whatever the church and its leaders are doing or have done is and was God's will.  They don't grapple with the mistakes made and the implications of those mistakes, because honest evaluation of that would cause them to question authority, and thats a sin, so its best just to pretend that leaders never make mistakes.   

How can you call something (the point of which you evidently misunderstood) a "truism for Mormonism" when the Church doesn’t identify a cohort as “Orthodox Mormons”? That only makes it a truism for you!

That said, let’s not give “Orthodox Mormons” – whatever that means -- a bad rap because of the survey results; I’m sure all kinds of Mormons responded and used mental shortcuts to select their option, while more careful consideration would likely yield an answer not found on the survey (which for some odd reason I cannot locate). I mean, everything and anything can be called God’s will, so to speak.

When you argue against arguments I didn’t make, that is boring!. If you have questions about the actual argument I was making, notably the misconstrued “truism,” please ask for clarification.

The rest of your post is sheer, unadulterated soapboxing, but hey, it’s your thread!