A Debate ("Dialogue") Scheduled for Today in Magna, UT

[bluebell]

19 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Everything has been dumbed down to simple platitudes that are repeated over and over, year after year.  Gone are the days of BRM and JFS, who were scriptorians and didn't care much about PR. Their talks and books were on doctrine.  After they were gone the focus of the brethren shifted to public relations,.  Expecally whith GBH. 

 

Some of their books were on their opinion of doctrine, and the church has had to fight against problems caused by that ever since.  I think the church is dealing with some 'once bitten, twice shy' issues and is more wary about teaching personal opinion as doctrine over the pulpit.  In a lot of ways they are asking us (have been asking us) to stop relying on the leadership to spoon feed us doctrine and to find out God's will and learn the mysteries for ourselves.  We are just really bad at it (probably because many members can barely manage to say two prayers and read 10 minutes of scriptures a day and that kind of spiritual nourishment doesn't produce any real results).

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Some of their books were on their opinion of doctrine, and the church has had to fight against problems caused by that ever since.

True.  I like the new emphasis on ministry, increasing virtuous, Christ like living that qualifies one to have the Spirit in their lives.  We have always been encouraged to get our own confirmation regarding the teachings of our leaders.  Regardless of how impressive and authorative James White's delivery may have sounded,  (he is working on his PhD, he explained,) I was impressed by the direct, humble delivery of Bro. Allred.  I learned many things that strengthened me.  I loved his example of "treading under our feet" as it relates to the Commandments of God in the Book of Mormon.  It was yet another witness to the truth of that Book.  It's an individual thing, conversion and living the Gospel.  The Spirit helps us see through PC in religious thinking and shows us how to actually live out of love for God and love for our fellow beings.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Meerkat

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Some of their books were on their opinion of doctrine, and the church has had to fight against problems caused by that ever since.  I think the church is dealing with some 'once bitten, twice shy' issues and is more wary about teaching personal opinion as doctrine over the pulpit.  In a lot of ways they are asking us (have been asking us) to stop relying on the leadership to spoon feed us doctrine and to find out God's will and learn the mysteries for ourselves.  We are just really bad at it (probably because many members can barely manage to say two prayers and read 10 minutes of scriptures a day and that kind of spiritual nourishment doesn't produce any real results).

As long as your journey is in lock step with what the current Q15 story is, then you will be okay.  Any deviation, then all bets are off.  If you have any questions on this, then just ask BYU professor Randay Bott:

https://universe.byu.edu/2012/02/29/professor-didnt-follow-university-media-policy-when-speaking-with-washington-post/

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

As long as your journey is in lock step with what the current Q15 story is, then you will be okay.  Any deviation, then all bets are off.  If you have any questions on this, then just ask BYU professor Randay Bott:

https://universe.byu.edu/2012/02/29/professor-didnt-follow-university-media-policy-when-speaking-with-washington-post/

It's unfair and inaccurate to equate Prof. Bott's experience with the rest of us having to march in lock step with Church leaders.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/4/2018 at 4:48 AM, sunstoned said:

One thing that struct me as interesting is that in his observation, the attitude and general knowledge of the typical member that he meets at these events has greatly changed over the years.  He said that he and his colleagues use to be hoarse after an event because members would be lining up to speak with them and tell what they believed and to defend their beliefs.  Most had a clear understanding of the main differences between mainstream Christianity and LDS beliefs, and were happy and prepared to discuss them. All that has changed. James says now he has to carry around LDS scriptures on his pad to point out main points of Mormon doctrine to conference/pageant goes.  His opinion is that members are not as well versed or as knowledgeable in Mormon doctrine as they use to be.  He also says that the attitudes that most have now are is that church doctrine is close to mainstream Christian doctrine and are either not interested or can’t in discuss the differences.

Or, those of us who used to attend to the street screechers have grown bored with the same old same old and have moved on. Mr. White, on the other hand, seems to be stuck in the ruts of the past. I guess he could be given credit for persistence. We need to agree that we are not enemies....there are many out there who wish to do us both in.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[sunstoned]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's unfair and inaccurate to equate Prof. Bott's experience with the rest of us having to march in lock step with Church leaders.

Really?  From my perspective, Bott stated what he wast taught, which is the same thing I was taught.  However, I guess he didn't get the memo that all of that Specter Kimball., Ezra Taft Benson and Bruce McConkie stuff had been disavowed.   GBH made it really clear that any teaching or doctrine, no matter how central it might be.  If it does not promote positive PR, then it goes under the bus.

[sunstoned]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Or, those of us who used to attend to the street screechers have grown bored with the same old same old and have moved on. Mr. White, on the other hand, seems to be stuck in the ruts of the past. I guess he could be given credit for persistence. We need to agree that we are not enemies....there are many out there who wish to do us both in.

I'm just the messenger.  I don't agree with Jame White. In fact I hold him and his people in low regard.  They purposely target people who are attending religious venues and disrupt their worship.  And for what reason?  Because their slant on Christianity is better than someone else's?  The arrogance of this is appalling.  

Edited August 6, 2018 by sunstoned

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Really?  From my perspective, Bott stated what he wast taught, which is the same thing I was taught.  However, I guess he didn't get the memo that all of that Specter Kimball., Ezra Taft Benson and Bruce McConkie stuff had been disavowed.   GBH made it really clear that any teaching or doctrine, no matter how central it might be.  If it does not promote positive PR, then it goes under the bus.

Not my experience from all those times, but I understand what you are saying. We don’t hear a lot about fire and brimstone today like we used to, but perhaps we’re getting the message we need to hear right now.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Really?  From my perspective, Bott stated what he wast taught, which is the same thing I was taught.  However, I guess he didn't get the memo that all of that Specter Kimball., Ezra Taft Benson and Bruce McConkie stuff had been disavowed.   GBH made it really clear that any teaching or doctrine, no matter how central it might be.  If it does not promote positive PR, then it goes under the bus.

Bott should have known that stuff had been disavowed. However tying this to PR seems silly. You think Hinkely didn't honestly feel those things wrong?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Really?  From my perspective, Bott stated what he wast taught, which is the same thing I was taught.  However, I guess he didn't get the memo that all of that Specter Kimball.....

Not too many viewed President Kimball as a menace. Probably more saw Presidents JF Smith and Benson as threats.

[Meerkat]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not too many viewed President Kimball as a menace. Probably more saw Presidents JF Smith and Benson as threats.

Regardless of who the leader is, we've been given this counsel for a long time:

          "19 Quench not the Spirit.
            20 Despise not prophesyings.
            21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."  From Thessalonians 5

Our leaders teach us things.  We are entitled to personal revelation on those matters.  We get to prayerfully consider them, and govern ourselves--  according to Thes. 5:21.

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, sunstoned said:

As long as your journey is in lock step with what the current Q15 story is, then you will be okay.  Any deviation, then all bets are off.  If you have any questions on this, then just ask BYU professor Randay Bott:

https://universe.byu.edu/2012/02/29/professor-didnt-follow-university-media-policy-when-speaking-with-washington-post/

 

 

Nah, that's not a great example of your point.  It says right in the article why Bott got in "trouble" and it wasn't because he wasn't in lock step.

Spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said Bott’s discussion of this topic is being handled as an internal matter.  “Our media policy is that we ask members of our campus community not to speak for the university or the Church,” Jenkins said.

Members know (or they should know) that you can't speak as if you are representing the LDS church and it's teachings and deviate from what the church actually teaches.  That doesn't have anything to do with forcing members to be in lock step.  It's just common sense.  Believe what you want in private.  Go out and teach your beliefs as if they belong to the church when they actually disagree with the church's current teachings, and there will be some problems.

Jenkins comments came as The  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU campus and  the LDS community strongly repudiated the statements attributed to Bott.  “The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” the Church said in a news release issued Wednesday (see inset). “We do not tolerate racism in any form.”

BYU University Communications also released a statement yesterday.  “The comments attributed to Professor Bott do not reflect the teachings in the classroom at Brigham Young University,” said Dean of Religious Education Terry Ball.

And finally, I'm pretty sure Bott is still 'ok'.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Nah, that's not a great example of your point.  It says right in the article why Bott got in "trouble" and it wasn't because he wasn't in lock step.

Spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said Bott’s discussion of this topic is being handled as an internal matter.  “Our media policy is that we ask members of our campus community not to speak for the university or the Church,” Jenkins said.

Members know (or they should know) that you can't speak as if you are representing the LDS church and it's teachings and deviate from what the church actually teaches.  That doesn't have anything to do with forcing members to be in lock step.  It's just common sense.  Believe what you want in private.  Go out and teach your beliefs as if they belong to the church when they actually disagree with the church's current teachings, and there will be some problems.

Jenkins comments came as The  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU campus and  the LDS community strongly repudiated the statements attributed to Bott.  “The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” the Church said in a news release issued Wednesday (see inset). “We do not tolerate racism in any form.”

BYU University Communications also released a statement yesterday.  “The comments attributed to Professor Bott do not reflect the teachings in the classroom at Brigham Young University,” said Dean of Religious Education Terry Ball.

And finally, I'm pretty sure Bott is still 'ok'.  

Last report he was serving as a senior missionary after retiring from BYU:

"It was announced in March 2012 that Bott would be leaving his teaching post at BYU to serve as a senior missionary with his wife"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_L._Bott

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

Jenkins comments came as The  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU campus and  the LDS community strongly repudiated the statements attributed to Bott.  “The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” the Church said in a news release issued Wednesday (see inset). “We do not tolerate racism in any form.”

 

If you haven't done already, I suggest you listen to the Bott interview.  I was quoting what has been taught in the church for decades.  I believe the above quote by Jenkins is less than honest.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

If you haven't done already, I suggest you listen to the Bott interview.  I was quoting what has been taught in the church for decades.  I believe the above quote by Jenkins is less than honest.

It’s hasn’t been taught for decades though. The teachings have changed. What Bott said does not represent the teachings of the church anymore.

That’s why the quote by Jensen is completely honest. 

 

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Last report he was serving as a senior missionary after retiring from BYU:

"It was announced in March 2012 that Bott would be leaving his teaching post at BYU to serve as a senior missionary with his wife"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_L._Bott

Presumably to teach to penguins in Antarctica as punishment for his perfidious heresy........

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, sunstoned said:

If you haven't done already, I suggest you listen to the Bott interview.  I was quoting what has been taught in the church for decades.  I believe the above quote by Jenkins is less than honest.

Next you'll be saying that a teacher teaching Adam/God theory in class is in the same boat.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Next you'll be saying that a teacher teaching Adam/God theory in class is in the same boat.

Maybe you are not old enough to remember what was taught about why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood, but I do, and apparently Professor Bott does.  Anyway, he is a primer for you:

 

QuoteFirst Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)

 

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." 

 

 

 

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements#1949

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Maybe you are not old enough to remember what was taught about why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood, but I do, and apparently Professor Bott does.  Anyway, he is a primer for you:

LOL. Maybe you've not heard what was taught about Adam/God. I think you missed the allusion completely. 

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

LOL. Maybe you've not heard what was taught about Adam/God. I think you missed the allusion completely. 

Dude. I don't i do not know where you are coming from.  What we are discussing here is blacks and the priesthood and not Adam god.  clue in.

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Dude. I don't i do not know where you are coming from.  What we are discussing here is blacks and the priesthood and not Adam god.  clue in.

Adam God was once taught as Church doctrine by the President of the Church of all people. Then the Church repudiated the doctrine. Theories about the Priesthood Ban was once taught as Church doctrine, sometimes by apostles. Then the Church repudiated the doctrine. So Bott teaching racist justifications is analogous to someone in the 80's teaching Adam/God. 

Really not a hard analogy to follow.

[sunstoned]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Adam God was once taught as Church doctrine by the President of the Church of all people. Then the Church repudiated the doctrine. Theories about the Priesthood Ban was once taught as Church doctrine, sometimes by apostles. Then the Church repudiated the doctrine. So Bott teaching racist justifications is analogous to someone in the 80's teaching Adam/God. 

Really not a hard analogy to follow.

No it is not. Adam God was taught by BY and no one else.  No prophet supported BY's Adam God non sense.  What Bott talked about was the pre-existence reasons why blanks were denied the priesthood.  This is something that was taught over the pulpit for decades.  it was officially taught by the first presidency.  Now I know we don't believe that racist stuff anymore, because apparently god changed his mind, or more realistically, past prophets were just not in tune.  But what Professor Bott told the reporter was church doctrine that was taught by multiple prophets and apostles (please CFR me on this)..  And for his honesty, he was thrown under the PR bus.,

Edited August 8, 2018 by sunstoned

[clarkgoble]

55 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

No it is not. Adam God was taught by BY and no one else.  No prophet supported BY's Adam God non sense.  What Bott talked about was the pre-existence reasons why blanks were denied the priesthood.  This is something that was taught over the pulpit for decades.  it was officially taught by the first presidency.  Now I know we don't believe that racist stuff anymore, because apparently god changed his mind, or more realistically, past prophets were just not in tune.  But what Professor Bott told the reporter was church doctrine that was taught by multiple prophets and apostles (please CFR me on this)..  And for his honesty, he was thrown under the PR bus.,

Umm. You really need to read up on the history. It was even taught in songs in the hymnal! Until 1905 it was part of the endowment. It was believed at taught by most of the GAs with only a few like Orson Pratt opposing it. The times it was taught openly in general conference was about 50 years. Then for an other 50 years it was opposed but largely tolerated. Although clearly by then they were pushing a different narrative. It wasn't really until the late 50's through 80's that you see the strong opposition. And honestly part of that was less about doctrinal concern than it was the fact apostate sects like the FLDS made it a key teaching. 

Anyway, I can go into detail if you want, but it was simply ubiquitous in the 19th century. To say only Brigham taught it is just wrong. It was taught by Taylor and Woodruff as well not to mention big proponents like Heber C. Kimball. Abraham Cannon, Orson Hyde, Eliza R. Snow, etc. Honestly those who didn't accept it were a minority. It's not really until Joseph F. Smith as President that you get it diminished to Brigham's personal opinion. So in 1912 you have the following:

• At Special Priesthood meeting at which the official statement of the First Presidency regarding the teachings of Adam-God is presented, Prest. Jos. F. Smith then said that he was in full accord with what Prest. Penrose had said and that Prest. Brigham Young when he delivered that sermon only expressed his own views and that they were not corroborated by the word of the Lord in the stand works of the Church. The Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants were voted upon by the Church convened in a Conference and organized in various Quorums of the Priesthood who voted by Quorums after which the body of the Church were asked to vote to sustain the above books as the Standards of the Church. [...]
• Now all doctrine if it can't be established by these standards is not to be taught or promulgated by members. That those Patriarchs who persisted in teaching these things and did not stop when told to do so should be handled by their Bishops and their names sent up to the High Councils for further action and be cut off. (Journal of Thomas A. Clawson, 1912-1917 Book, pp. 69-70, April 8, 1912)

There begins backlash in the early 20th century with Orson Pratt's views (and even his arguments) finally winning the day. People like B. H. Roberts deal with it in their apologetics. But honestly it's Joseph Fielding Smith, Mark E Peterson and Bruce R. McConkie who really finally shut down the doctrine.

So if anything the racial theories had far less support in normative Mormonism than Adam/God did. So you're just being historically misinformed here. The church accepts fallibility and Brigham's views were thrown out as false. If we can reject something major like that, throwing out his racist views is much easier. Even Joseph F. Smith's standard for what is or isn't doctrine end up working as well for racist justifications as they do Adam/God.

Edited August 8, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

I should make the obvious apologetic point in case any reader reads the above and isn't familiar with the defenses. Brigham's problem with racist theology appears mysteriously in the 1840's for unknown reasons. He didn't appear to hold them before then and actually may have held the opposite view. (I'm not up on the nuances of the change - so I may be getting small details wrong there) My guess is that Brigham simply gave the Bible the benefit of doubt and read southern racist apologetics about Canaan and so forth. These racist southern apologetics are well known and became popular in the 1830's and 40's. They're complete nonsense but if you're ignorance of Ancient Near East history can seem persuasive. (Canaan obviously is a Semitic people almost indistinguishable from the Jews and completely different from Africans) It appears that Brigham Young was persuaded by such apologetics and because of his trust in the Bible made them doctrine. To the point of overruling clear practices Joseph Smith had engaged in by ordaining black members.

This false teaching persisted because of the Mormon tendency to privilege what the President of the Church said unless explicitly contradicted by an other President. The huge problem was that far too many members themselves held to racist beliefs - probably in no small part because of Brigham's adoption of these southern Biblical apologetics and because of Republican opposition to Mormons before and after the Civil War. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend mindset that in many ways is besetting us in contemporary politics)

With Adam/God the Church actually kept nearly all of Brigham's teachings except a small part of the theory. Typically key names including Adam are seen as functional titles and not proper names. So different figures are called Yahweh (Jehovah) and different ones are called Adam. Once you accept that and reject the idea that the man in the garden who fell was God the Father and just a confusion over titles then the problem disappears. This is the so-called Two Adam theory. While I don't think it explains Brigham's beliefs I think it explains how Brigham became somewhat confused.

[JAHS]

 

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

With Adam/God the Church actually kept nearly all of Brigham's teachings except a small part of the theory. Typically key names including Adam are seen as functional titles and not proper names. So different figures are called Yahweh (Jehovah) and different ones are called Adam. Once you accept that and reject the idea that the man in the garden who fell was God the Father and just a confusion over titles then the problem disappears. This is the so-called Two Adam theory. While I don't think it explains Brigham's beliefs I think it explains how Brigham became somewhat confused.

What makes President Young's statements confusing about the Adam/God issue is that in some discourses, President Young definitely states that "Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days;" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.46-51), which means that Adam is not Elohim, or God the Father. 
President Young also explained that Adam helped to make the earth. If he only helped then that means that he was subordinate to someone who was superior. Young also states, "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael."  (Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.46-51).  Here he places Adam, or Michael, third in the list, and hence the least important of the three mentioned.
Quoting Joseph Fielding Smith, "This is from one of the discourses of Brigham Young: "We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of."  Now, if he believed what some people like to interpret him as saying, then he could not say such a thing as that!"  
Why would Young say this if he thought that Adam was God the Father? He also said, "And what shall we say of our Heavenly Father? He is also a man in perfection, and the Father of the man Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 11, p42) Here he states that Heavenly Father, not Adam, is the father of the "man" Jesus.
Brigham once said that Jesus "was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."  (Journal of Discourse, vol. 1, pg 50-51) It sounds like he is talking about Adam, but Brigham knew that God walked and talked with Adam while in the Garden. So the "character" he is talking about could be God and not Adam. There are many other instances, like those I have mentioned, where Brigham Young correctly describes the proper identities and relationships of God and Adam. Hard to know why there are so many seeming contradictions in what he said, unless he was being misquoted a lot or changed hi mind a lot.