Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I'm interpreting him as someone who had a personal testimony from God on some issues and as someone who worked personally and frequently with some apostles and presidents of the Lord's church who he upheld as prophets, seers and revelators to the Lord's church based on his own personal testimony from God that they were.. 

Not that he knew everything that they knew, as well as they did, but as someone who had enough faith/assurances from the Lord about them and their callings.

I try to learn as much as I can but I figure they know some things that I don't know yet, too, and I regard them as honorable men who are doing their best to follow the Lord's revelations to them.

The logical flaw in thinking that continues to perpetuate itself and that is compound in its magnitude as it works its way down the hierarchical structure is this idea that a testimony of someone's prophetic calling means you can't question their decision making.  Essentially it means that you believe they are infallible, even though we have history and church teachings all throughout the scriptures that men are fallible.  Its compounded throughout the hierarchy in this way.  A member doesn't question her bishop, who doesn't question his SP, who doesn't question his AA, who doesn't question his GA, who doesn't question his Apostle who doesn't question his FP member.  All the way up. 

So one error in thinking from the top gets compounded and spread all the way down the chain, and its never questioned and its taught that questioning is disloyal and even a sin.  This is group think on overdrive and that's how current correlated Mormonism works, and its a very flawed process.  

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The logical flaw in thinking that continues to perpetuate itself and that is compound in its magnitude as it works its way down the hierarchical structure is this idea that a testimony of someone's prophetic calling means you can't question their decision making.  Essentially it means that you believe they are infallible, even though we have history and church teachings all throughout the scriptures that men are fallible.  Its compounded throughout the hierarchy in this way.  A member doesn't question her bishop, who doesn't question his SP, who doesn't question his AA, who doesn't question his GA, who doesn't question his Apostle who doesn't question his FP member.  All the way up. 

So one error in thinking from the top gets compounded and spread all the way down the chain, and its never questioned and its taught that questioning is disloyal and even a sin.  This is group think on overdrive and that's how current correlated Mormonism works, and its a very flawed process.  

That's not what I was talking about.  I know they are not infallible.  I know they make mistakes, sometimes speaking as men and not as prophets of God.  And I'm sure Oaks also knew that then and still knows it now.

I was talking about someone can have personal testimony from God to assure them that someone is a prophet of God while not knowing everything they know as they do.   Like I'm sure they know some things that I don't know, yet.

So while I strive to gain my own personal testimony from God to help me know what God knows I'm also sure that there are other people who are doing that, too with some who know even more than I know right now, like apostles and presidents of our Lord's church, then and now.

I'm sure Id be very wrong to try to convince myself that I already know more than they do, considering their callings and my testimony from God that they truly are his prophets, seers and revelators to his Church.

[CMZ]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is a silly apologetic claim.  We don't even have a historical hint that there was a revelation to support the ban.  We do have a lot of historical evidence to the contrary.  

I'm not saying God is a racist.  I'm accusing people that claim that God is the author of the ban of creating a racist God.  

The apostasy narrative is one of many narratives taught by correlated Mormonism that are problematic because of their implications for the kind of God they create.  Not to mention a completely inaccurate reading of history and theology.  I suggest this book on that topic.  

https://www.amazon.com/Standing-Apart-Historical-Consciousness-Apostasy/dp/0199348146/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528232560&sr=8-1&keywords=standing+apart

 

We may still not have all relevant historical information. Okay, so you don't believe in the Church. Got it. Then blacks being kept from a priesthood which in your mind is not real should not be a problem for you. Not sure what you are getting at when you say, "one of many narratives taught by correlated Mormonism," since the apostasy was taught by Joseph Smith himself and was taught to him in the First Vision. I'm not saying you are obligated to believe in the First Vision; just that the apostasy is not some idea that came along after him.

[CMZ]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The logical flaw in thinking that continues to perpetuate itself and that is compound in its magnitude as it works its way down the hierarchical structure is this idea that a testimony of someone's prophetic calling means you can't question their decision making.  Essentially it means that you believe they are infallible, even though we have history and church teachings all throughout the scriptures that men are fallible.  Its compounded throughout the hierarchy in this way.  A member doesn't question her bishop, who doesn't question his SP, who doesn't question his AA, who doesn't question his GA, who doesn't question his Apostle who doesn't question his FP member.  All the way up. 

So one error in thinking from the top gets compounded and spread all the way down the chain, and its never questioned and its taught that questioning is disloyal and even a sin.  This is group think on overdrive and that's how current correlated Mormonism works, and its a very flawed process.  

I think questioning goes on all the time. In this particular case the prophets for a period of time were reporting receiving revelation that the time had not come yet to lift the ban even thought they wanted to. That in and of itself made it more than just a "policy." As June 1, 1978, came closer different members of the Church began getting premonitions that the time for the lifting was soon.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That's not what I was talking about.  I know they are not infallible.  I know they make mistakes, sometimes speaking as men and not as prophets of God.  And I'm sure Oaks also knew that then and still knows it now.

I was talking about someone can have personal testimony from God to assure them that someone is a prophet of God while not knowing everything they know as they do.   Like I'm sure they know some things that I don't know, yet.

But isn't Oaks essentially acting as if prior prophets were infallible on this issue of the ban.  He didn't feel comfortable about the theories to describe the ban, but he felt confirmation that he should just trust the prior leaders were correct in implementing it.  

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So while I strive to gain my own personal testimony from God to help me know what God knows I'm also sure that there are other people who are doing that, too with some who know even more than I know right now, like apostles and presidents of our Lord's church, then and now.

I'm sure Id be very wrong to try to convince myself that I already know more than they do, considering their callings and my testimony from God that they truly are his prophets, seers and revelators to his Church.

Aren't you just perpetuating the problem that I articulated by deferring to church leaders and assuming because of their position that they much have greater knowledge than you?  

[CMZ]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is a silly apologetic claim.  We don't even have a historical hint that there was a revelation to support the ban.  We do have a lot of historical evidence to the contrary.  

I'm not saying God is a racist.  I'm accusing people that claim that God is the author of the ban of creating a racist God.  

The apostasy narrative is one of many narratives taught by correlated Mormonism that are problematic because of their implications for the kind of God they create.  Not to mention a completely inaccurate reading of history and theology.  I suggest this book on that topic.  

https://www.amazon.com/Standing-Apart-Historical-Consciousness-Apostasy/dp/0199348146/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528232560&sr=8-1&keywords=standing+apart

 

If you feel blacks were kept from a real and beneficial priesthood then perhaps the best course of action would be to accept that things about the past may not have always been perfect but that no gospel blessing is now withheld from any person, even those who have passed on, and bask in the light of the Gospel. No, you absolutely do not have to! Me saying this doesn't take your agency away.

[CMZ]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

But isn't Oaks essentially acting as if prior prophets were infallible on this issue of the ban.  He didn't feel comfortable about the theories to describe the ban, but he felt confirmation that he should just trust the prior leaders were correct in implementing it. 

He felt the ban was real even if he also felt that people's ideas attempting to explain it were not correct. That is not that hard to grasp. My guess is he came to not believe the theory posited that blacks were cursed and he probably also came to not believe the line of, "whites not being ready yet for blacks to have the priesthood."

[hope_for_things]

19 hours ago, CMZ said:

We may still not have all relevant historical information. Okay, so you don't believe in the Church. Got it. Then blacks being kept from a priesthood which in your mind is not real should not be a problem for you. Not sure what you are getting at when you say, "one of many narratives taught by correlated Mormonism," since the apostasy was taught by Joseph Smith himself and was taught to him in the First Vision. I'm not saying you are obligated to believe in the First Vision; just that the apostasy is not some idea that came along after him.

Also, I didn't say I don't believe in the church, please don't make that assumption.  

The priesthood ban was a huge problem because of the harm it did to people of color and everyone in the church who bought into the racism.  We're still trying to atone for it today, but we have a long ways to go.  

I'll challenge you to read that Standing Apart book, its excellently written by thoughtful and I believe actively participating Mormons, some of which work at BYU and other scholarly institutions.  It's not anti-Mormon at all, its very respectful.  I shows how history really unfolded in Mormon teachings and broader Christian teachings, and unfortunately how correlated Mormonism has reduced this narrative down into a very simplistic and inaccurate telling of our history.  There are podcasts with the authors, this one by the Maxwell Institute, if you want to get a taste about the content of the book.

https://mi.byu.edu/mipodcast-wilcox-young-apostasy/

 

 

~Video deleted by mods

 

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, CMZ said:

I think questioning goes on all the time. In this particular case the prophets for a period of time were reporting receiving revelation that the time had not come yet to lift the ban even thought they wanted to. That in and of itself made it more than just a "policy." As June 1, 1978, came closer different members of the Church began getting premonitions that the time for the lifting was soon.

Church leaders at the time made the same assumptions that Oaks articulates.  That prior church leaders must have been inspired to implement the ban.  

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, CMZ said:

If you feel blacks were kept from a real and beneficial priesthood then perhaps the best course of action would be to accept that things about the past may not have always been perfect but that no gospel blessing is now withheld from any person, even those who have passed on, and bask in the light of the Gospel. No, you absolutely do not have to! Me saying this doesn't take your agency away.

That construction doesn't work for me. If you think that no gospel blessings are withheld from any person today, then you have a huge blind spot on multiple issues.  Gender based discrimination, LGBT discrimination, prejudice against outsiders of every kind and white culture promotion by members in the church and the lack of diversity within leadership are all areas that need serious improvement. 

[Ahab]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But isn't Oaks essentially acting as if prior prophets were infallible on this issue of the ban. 

No, not in my view.  I see him acting like he doesn't know and can't find the reason while realizing they must have for issued the ban for whatever reason they had.

 

Quote

He didn't feel comfortable about the theories to describe the ban, but he felt confirmation that he should just trust the prior leaders were correct in implementing it.  

I think he only knew they had the keys of the kingdom and that our Lord had authorized them to govern his Church using those keys.  That's it.  Nothing more about why they did what they did.

 

Quote

Aren't you just perpetuating the problem that I articulated by deferring to church leaders and assuming because of their position that they much have greater knowledge than you?  

I'm not assuming they know more about their callings than I do.  I know they do, with my personal assurances from the Lord that they do.

I'm thinking that the key question they were asking our Lord was if they should be removing the restriction, and according to what many have said, they didn't feel it was the right time to do it, until they did it.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Ahab

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, CMZ said:

He felt the ban was real even if he also felt that people's ideas attempting to explain it were not correct. That is not that hard to grasp. My guess is he came to not believe the theory posited that blacks were cursed and he probably also came to not believe the line of, "whites not being ready yet for blacks to have the priesthood."

I agree that with your first sentence, that this likely represents what Oaks thinks, the reasons were in error, but the ban itself was ordained of God via his trust in church leaders before him.  And hence my problem from the OP, this reasoning of Oaks is a step back from the more accurate explanation given in the Gospel Topics essay.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This is all a cop out...how in the world do you hate sin...and love the sinner?  great for an ego..but not much else.  When you love you love a whole person as they are..they are not perfect but they can love you..when you are not perfect.

Can you love an abuser, but hate the abuse they do or must you choose to love the abuse as well or hate the abuser if one hates abuse (as I am assuming all here feel)?

I am trying to understand why you think it is a cop out when it seems to me there are always something we don't approve of that our loved ones do because we see it as unhealthy or in religious terms sinful.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The huge problem here is the assumption that an ancient tradition and a modern interpretation of that tradition (Oaks interpretation) is representative of the divine will.  I find that assumption quite presumptuous myself, especially considering what we've learned from historians and critical biblical scholars.  The most likely scenario is one where Oaks or any other naive modern reader is likely misrepresenting not only the original author's intentions, but God's will as well, and this ought to give us a great deal of humility before making any claims as to what God directed in the past or in the present.  

Doesn't that pretty well require throwing out Mormonism in total? (I'd add that I'm not sure what you're referring to relative to Levitical Priesthood being uninspired -- but the main thing is more or less you're also rejecting most of the D&C)

At a minimum you can hopefully understand why believing Mormons might take issue with that.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Considering that I've never heard of this theory that you've articulated here before, and I consider myself fairly aware of discussions on this topic as I follow online Mormonism and historical Mormonism, I think my reading of Oaks is much more likely than creative reading that you've constructed here. 

Umm he just gave the talk on Friday and it's a bad reading because no one you know interpreted it that way? Just how many people did you poll? 

Edited June 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

6 hours ago, CMZ said:

In your research you should come across the quote by President Kimball where he said that the counsel generally to marry within your own race was not about aiming to protect people of one race from another. There were good reasons behind this general counsel. I believe he also said that they weren't condemning Church members in interracial marriages. Which is good since I'm in one.

In the original full quote used in the manuals, President Kimball included a number of differences in background that studies had demonstrated were correlated to higher rates of divorce at the time including economic, educational, social, and racial.  Hopefully our society doesn't set up obstacles for couples these days, but having many similar ways of approaching life can help remove conflict in marriage and different backgrounds tend to increase likelihood of different approaches.  

It would appear that Pres. Kimball was not against interracial marriage because it mixed races, but because of the difficulties it brought into relationships.

For example, my husband and I took the same psych courses from most of the same teachers and thus our approaches to our discipline of our children were very consistent and we never had conflict over what type of discipline to apply.  Otoh, my parents were much stricter about having an orderly house with decorations limited to certain areas of the house to avoid clutter (my mom was an artist, so the house never looked bland even if limited).  I had to basically give up my goal of an orderly house unless I wanted to be fighting my husband and then kids all the time once they picked up his habit (I married him because he placed having fun with his kids very high, unfortunately we never figured out how to do both; if I hadn't valued that aspect so high, we may very well have divorced over the lack of organization he shows in some areas and my own uptightness about it).  It still is a very difficult thing for me to deal with and if other things irritate me, that is usually the straw that blows my self control totally out of whack.. Other things we have been able to compromise on, this one appears to be a major blindspot in that he just doesn't see the clutter as clutter and I can't see it as anything else.

So while it may have been in part prejudice that led to Pres. kimball's remark, it may have not been prejudice at all, but only pragmiticism based on science and life experience counseling couples with issues (conflict over handling of finances is still a huge factor in divorce last time I checked and can be a result of different economic backgrounds).

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Is_interracial_marriage_prohibited_or_condemned_within_the_Church%3F

Quote

we recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background. Some of these are not an absolute necessity, but preferred; and above all, the same religious background, without question. In spite of the most favorable matings, the evil one still takes a monumental toll and is the cause for many broken homes and frustrated lives.

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Was it not the time because God still wanted to keep black people out of the temple and prevent them from holding the priesthood while letting church members believe false teachings about the curse of Cain and premortal lack of valiancy.  Or...

Could it have been that the Apostles and members weren't quite ready to accept what the Lord wanted?

 

2 hours ago, CMZ said:

A third option not mentioned.

 

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

And what would that be?

 

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

I don't want to deprive you of being able to find it through your own personal study. When you do it will all make sense.

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I’ve done my own extensive personal study, pondering and prayer.  I already know the answer.  I was curious about your thoughts.  What is this third option?

So no response?  I don’t get to find out what your third option is?

 

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Doesn't that pretty well require throwing out Mormonism in total? (I'd add that I'm not sure what you're referring to relative to Levitical Priesthood being uninspired -- but the main thing is more or less you're also rejecting most of the D&C)

At a minimum you can hopefully understand why believing Mormons might take issue with that.

Umm he just gave the talk on Friday and it's a bad reading because no one you know interpreted it that way? Just how many people did you poll? 

Its not throwing out Mormonism at all, its just a matter needing a huge dose of humility with respect to how we interpret the past and what we learn from scriptures.  Its similar to the Terryl Givens approach of finding the parts of Mormonism that are worth keeping, and being willing to leave the rest.  I don't see any value in the Levitical Priesthood narrative, or exclusive universal authority, these aren't core gospel principles from my perspective.  

I do see how this could be upsetting to orthodox Mormons, yes.  Change can be upsetting.  You can't just tear down the old and not replace it with something that is inspiring.  I have ideas on how you could transition to a narrative more compatible with modern sensibilities, but don't put me in charge as I'm likely to botch it all up.  I feel confident that things need to change, but I'm not at all confident that I have the right ideas for how those changes could best be implemented.  We need inspirational and dynamic leadership with real vision to accomplish that kind of change.  

You are so smart Clark, and I regularly enjoy your posts and your perspective, even if we have differences of opinion.  

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can you love an abuser, but hate the abuse they do or must you choose to love the abuse as well or hate the abuser if one hates abuse (as I am assuming all here feel)?

I am trying to understand why you think it is a cop out when it seems to me there are always something's we don't approve of that our loved ones do because we see it as unhealthy or in religious terms sinful.

I understand what you are saying..and of course..abuse...drugs...prostitution ..and all those things that are hurtful to our loved ones.need tjo be pointed out with love.  But if we are talking about gender..and color of skin..I don't see sin anywhere.

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Considering that I've never heard of this theory that you've articulated here before, and I consider myself fairly aware of discussions on this topic as I follow online Mormonism and historical Mormonism, I think my reading of Oaks is much more likely than creative reading that you've constructed here. 

Umm he just gave the talk on Friday and it's a bad reading because no one you know interpreted it that way? Just how many people did you poll? 

I pay attention to online Mormonism and I read a lot of blogs and scholarly essays and books, and I've never come across this idea before.  I didn't know you were claiming your interpretation of Oaks was a brand new creative explanation, I thought you were implying that your idea was an existing theory that others have and that Oaks also shared.  

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

 

 

 

So no response?  I don’t get to find out what your third option is?

 

 Consider this as the 3rd option, or at least another possible reason.

When the Church did it, most of the world outside of the Church was saying or thinking something like "It's about time!" rather than "What they heck are they doing that for?" or "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!  They shouldn't do that!"

Sometimes I think our leaders are waiting for many in the world to catch up with us!

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 Consider this as the 3rd option, or at least another possible reason.

When the Church did it, most of the world outside of the Church was saying or thinking something like "It's about time!" rather than "What they heck are they doing that for?" or "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!  They shouldn't do that!"

Sometimes I think our leaders are waiting for many in the world to catch up with us!

I'm not sure how that fits with CMZ's POV.  Are you saying that the Brethren wanted the world to think we were behind the times?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You keep asserting that he didn't say this, but you haven't shown any evidence from text of Oaks talk to substantiate this claim of yours.  He never mentions McKay and JFS in his talk, you have not evidence to support your reading of the words.  

I think your reading is flawed here.  I agree that Oaks is likely repeating the past logic from leaders like McKay and JFS.  But why is he doing this when we have the gospel topics essay which certainly Oaks should be familiar with.  Shouldn't his views align with the views in that essay?  

I didn't say that Oaks mentioned McKay and Smith.  I just assumed that you were aware that they were already thinking along the same lines back in the 60s (according to McKay's biographer) at the same time that Oaks was independently thinking the same thing:  That no basis could be found for the ban, and that the reasons given could not be verified.  That stark realization is very important in light of the 1978 public disavowal of those previously given reasons -- and Oaks mentions the fact.  If what you have been alleging were true, Oaks would not have made those points, which you regularly neglect to mention.  The Essay comes much later, and Oaks' views do align with them fully and completely.  I don't understand where you see the disjuncture.  Maybe you just don't understand the timeline.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

.........As for waiting until Oaks speaks, thats exactly what I did, because he did speak at the Be One event, and his words have been published, and now we're having a discussion about what he said.  Sounds fair to me.  

Yes, as long as you actually reflect what those remarks are, which you have not done so far.

[CMZ]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, I didn't say I don't believe in the church, please don't make that assumption.  

The priesthood ban was a huge problem because of the harm it did to people of color and everyone in the church who bought into the racism.  We're still trying to atone for it today, but we have a long ways to go.  

I'll challenge you to read that Standing Apart book, its excellently written by thoughtful and I believe actively participating Mormons, some of which work at BYU and other scholarly institutions.  It's not anti-Mormon at all, its very respectful.  I shows how history really unfolded in Mormon teachings and broader Christian teachings, and unfortunately how correlated Mormonism has reduced this narrative down into a very simplistic and inaccurate telling of our history.  There are podcasts with the authors, this one by the Maxwell Institute, if you want to get a taste about the content of the book.

https://mi.byu.edu/mipodcast-wilcox-young-apostasy/

 

Lovin' the Dumb & Dumber reference. With any historical topic there's a chance ("Like one in a hundred?") that more information on it could be forthcoming. No, I'm not saying we have to hold our breath waiting for some wonderfully revealing document of a revelation that will explain it all. If it happened I wouldn't be against it, but neither am I waiting for it. Waiting around for some apology doesn't mean much of anything when nobody alive today had anything to do with instituting the ban. What good is forcing apologies from people who weren't fans of the ban going to do? Is it going to somehow make the temple ordinances for blacks even more effective?

As far as the Apostasy thing goes thanks for the reference. It kind of isn't relevant to this discussion because my point was more about there being a lack of temples that anyone could go to for about 1400 years. So, for approximately 14 centuries not a single family could go to a temple and get sealed by priesthood authority. Why aren't people up in arms about that? Why aren't people pressing Nelson and Oaks to apologize for that? Ultimately, it doesn't matter because they can still have those ordinances performed for them. If some more recent prophet had nothing to do with the ban and wanted it to be lifted and prayed to know if it could be lifted but got a strong impression that the time had not yet come then that is not racism. Racism in no way explains that set of circumstances. So anyone stuck on the thought that racism is the only possible thing that could explain the ban will never realize the actual truth behind it.

[CMZ]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So no response?  I don’t get to find out what your third option is?

I'm sorry that I don't live on the board. This is something that can be found out through individual study.

[CMZ]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

That construction doesn't work for me. If you think that no gospel blessings are withheld from any person today, then you have a huge blind spot on multiple issues.  Gender based discrimination, LGBT discrimination, prejudice against outsiders of every kind and white culture promotion by members in the church and the lack of diversity within leadership are all areas that need serious improvement. 

Oh, I know about that stuff. Pardon me if I don't comment at length on every single topic here. And as usual... whenever there is change or progress or whatever on one of those matters it gets ignored as not being enough. I am personally in an interracial marriage, so some decades ago might have had more of an issue to deal with.