Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you please explain from your vantage point where Bro Wilcox erred in his talk and what he should have learned from his students?

Not specific to your question, but covers some of it:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74332-brad-wilcox-fireside-to-alpine-youth-on-feb-6/?do=findComment&comment=1210081345

 

[bsjkki]

20 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Thanks for your response.  I think our personal experiences strongly color our views.  I am the parent of a gay son who has been basically cut off from participating in church because I dared to point out that the Church's current stance and teachings about queer people is destroying lives.  I can attend, pay tithing, go to the temple and serve as a ministering brother but I was released from all my callings and have never been asked to speak or teach in 9 years.  I have been accused of being an apostate by Church leaders for mentioning in priesthood that the doctrine of the Church in the past was that blacks wouldn't receive the priesthood until the millennium.  I was accused of apostasy by my bishop for expressing to him that the November 15th policy really hurt my family.  I have several black friends who have experienced the same cutting off for expressing disappointment with the continued racism in the Church.  I have watched as the children of one of my black friends have totally rejected the Church because of the treatment and teachings they were exposed too.  I worry about this black friend because he keeps taking hits like Brad Wilcox and just doesn't know what to do.  He tries to take the same path as you but it really isn't working for his family.  I work every day almost with parents of queer children who are trying to hang on to their testimonies but keep getting beat down by the things taught by local and general leaders in the Church.  They have tried so hard in most cases to take your path of giving folks the benefit of the doubt.  They just keep getting kicked.  These parents have hoped that general authorities with queer children would understand their pain only to have those same leaders basically slap them in the face.  I have a number of black friends with similar experiences in the Church.  One black man who is a close friend is also gay.  He keeps that hidden from his church leaders partly because he is tired of being asked to give talks or sing in choirs and finding out it is mainly because he is black.  I have seen this Church destroy far to many lives in a way that is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ as I understand it.  I believe it is because members of the Church are conditioned not to complain, to never question authority and never discuss the faults of leaders.  Brad Wilcox is a perfect example of where no one speaking up has got us as a Church.  Go view David Archuleta's post to see what the Church is currently doing to queer people.  What we are doing related to many things in this Church currently is not Christlike. I don't believe for minute that God will stop leaders from leading us astray.  That is another falsehood taught to members.  There is no scripture, history or revelation that supports that statement.  The scriptures are actually quite clear to the contrary.  So yes I take strong positions because my experience tells me that currently Church leader's first priority is to protect the Church even if it means destroying the lives of some members.  In my opinion, that was Brother Corbitt's number 1 goal, protect the Church.

This explains a lot of where your anger and distrust is coming from. I would only caution that you don't project the absolute worst of motives on people without evidence. It's easy to fall into thinking people have ulterior motives when they do not. I am sorry you have been so hurt at church. It is very hard when a safe place becomes not so safe.

 

[CV75]

8 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Thanks for your response.  I think our personal experiences strongly color our views.  I am the parent of a gay son who has been basically cut off from participating in church because I dared to point out that the Church's current stance and teachings about queer people is destroying lives.  I can attend, pay tithing, go to the temple and serve as a ministering brother but I was released from all my callings and have never been asked to speak or teach in 9 years.  I have been accused of being an apostate by Church leaders for mentioning in priesthood that the doctrine of the Church in the past was that blacks wouldn't receive the priesthood until the millennium.  I was accused of apostasy by my bishop for expressing to him that the November 15th policy really hurt my family.  I have several black friends who have experienced the same cutting off for expressing disappointment with the continued racism in the Church.  I have watched as the children of one of my black friends have totally rejected the Church because of the treatment and teachings they were exposed too.  I worry about this black friend because he keeps taking hits like Brad Wilcox and just doesn't know what to do.  He tries to take the same path as you but it really isn't working for his family.  I work every day almost with parents of queer children who are trying to hang on to their testimonies but keep getting beat down by the things taught by local and general leaders in the Church.  They have tried so hard in most cases to take your path of giving folks the benefit of the doubt.  They just keep getting kicked.  These parents have hoped that general authorities with queer children would understand their pain only to have those same leaders basically slap them in the face.  I have a number of black friends with similar experiences in the Church.  One black man who is a close friend is also gay.  He keeps that hidden from his church leaders partly because he is tired of being asked to give talks or sing in choirs and finding out it is mainly because he is black.  I have seen this Church destroy far to many lives in a way that is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ as I understand it.  I believe it is because members of the Church are conditioned not to complain, to never question authority and never discuss the faults of leaders.  Brad Wilcox is a perfect example of where no one speaking up has got us as a Church.  Go view David Archuleta's post to see what the Church is currently doing to queer people.  What we are doing related to many things in this Church currently is not Christlike. I don't believe for minute that God will stop leaders from leading us astray.  That is another falsehood taught to members.  There is no scripture, history or revelation that supports that statement.  The scriptures are actually quite clear to the contrary.  So yes I take strong positions because my experience tells me that currently Church leader's first priority is to protect the Church even if it means destroying the lives of some members.  In my opinion, that was Brother Corbitt's number 1 goal, protect the Church.

We really do need to be prepared to sacrifice all things, and the day will come when we must. These deeply personal sacrifices are the ones people never talk about or make known even to intimates – and very rarely are they about race and sexuality. And that constitutes the very destructiveness of the “steady beat of Babylon’s band” on the shrill, high notes of the day. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/59nelson?lang=eng . Fight, not sacrifice; fight because you've sacrificed enough. 

And then there is consecration, which isn’t any easier. "What lack I yet?"

The Church no more destroys lives than does the “steady beat of Babylon’s band.” Our response to both the Church and Babylon, given the gift of the Holy Ghost we possess, helps us rise or fall. Feelings of offense, confusion, conflict and contention must not undermine that precious gift. I have seen it work, personally and for others. It is not because I am strong, my faith and testimony are strong, etc., but out of necessity that I remember on whom I depend. There is no other way to face the situations you listed above and find “happiness, peace and rest.” The desire to love God must outweigh strong positions and judgements, righteous and otherwise, that we may have about others and the Church. Both are informed by experience, but the saints need not experience life without the Spirit.

[CA Steve]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We really do need to be prepared to sacrifice all things, and the day will come when we must. These deeply personal sacrifices are the ones people never talk about or make known even to intimates – and very rarely are they about race and sexuality. And that constitutes the very destructiveness of the “steady beat of Babylon’s band” on the shrill, high notes of the day. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/59nelson?lang=eng . Fight, not sacrifice; fight because you've sacrificed enough. 

And then there is consecration, which isn’t any easier. "What lack I yet?"

The Church no more destroys lives than does the “steady beat of Babylon’s band.” Our response to both the Church and Babylon, given the gift of the Holy Ghost we possess, helps us rise or fall. Feelings of offense, confusion, conflict and contention must not undermine that precious gift. I have seen it work, personally and for others. It is not because I am strong, my faith and testimony are strong, etc., but out of necessity that I remember on whom I depend. There is no other way to face the situations you listed above and find “happiness, peace and rest.” The desire to love God must outweigh strong positions and judgements, righteous and otherwise, that we may have about others and the Church. Both are informed by experience, but the saints need not experience life without the Spirit.

If only people were willing to sacrifice as much as you are.

I don't think you have any idea how sanctimonious you sound here.

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Thanks for your response.  I think our personal experiences strongly color our views.  I am the parent of a gay son who has been basically cut off from participating in church because I dared to point out that the Church's current stance and teachings about queer people is destroying lives.  I can attend, pay tithing, go to the temple and serve as a ministering brother but I was released from all my callings and have never been asked to speak or teach in 9 years.  I have been accused of being an apostate by Church leaders for mentioning in priesthood that the doctrine of the Church in the past was that blacks wouldn't receive the priesthood until the millennium.  I was accused of apostasy by my bishop for expressing to him that the November 15th policy really hurt my family.  I have several black friends who have experienced the same cutting off for expressing disappointment with the continued racism in the Church.  I have watched as the children of one of my black friends have totally rejected the Church because of the treatment and teachings they were exposed too.  I worry about this black friend because he keeps taking hits like Brad Wilcox and just doesn't know what to do.  He tries to take the same path as you but it really isn't working for his family.  I work every day almost with parents of queer children who are trying to hang on to their testimonies but keep getting beat down by the things taught by local and general leaders in the Church.  They have tried so hard in most cases to take your path of giving folks the benefit of the doubt.  They just keep getting kicked. 

These parents have hoped that general authorities with queer children would understand their pain only to have those same leaders basically slap them in the face.  I have a number of black friends with similar experiences in the Church.  One black man who is a close friend is also gay.  He keeps that hidden from his church leaders partly because he is tired of being asked to give talks or sing in choirs and finding out it is mainly because he is black.  I have seen this Church destroy far to many lives in a way that is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ as I understand it.  I believe it is because members of the Church are conditioned not to complain, to never question authority and never discuss the faults of leaders.  Brad Wilcox is a perfect example of where no one speaking up has got us as a Church.  Go view David Archuleta's post to see what the Church is currently doing to queer people.  What we are doing related to many things in this Church currently is not Christlike. I don't believe for minute that God will stop leaders from leading us astray.  That is another falsehood taught to members.  There is no scripture, history or revelation that supports that statement.  The scriptures are actually quite clear to the contrary.  So yes I take strong positions because my experience tells me that currently Church leader's first priority is to protect the Church even if it means destroying the lives of some members.  In my opinion, that was Brother Corbitt's number 1 goal, protect the Church.

I do not want to be flippant with your pain. There are things I empathize with in what you said and things I've seen but thank my lucky stars I didn't have to interact with it regularly. I'm also grateful I'm relatively younger as there seems to be more problems in older generations. I remember a woman I talked to who lived in certain parts of rural UT and by the end her explanation of some of her experiences, I told her I thought she grew up in a cult. She knew I was active LDS, so it came off less as an indictment and more as a validation of some rough and rigid experiences...these were not mine. They seem to be clustered in certain areas, in the US. I have no idea if they're outside the US....maybe in differing ways but a lot of it seems cultural to those hailing from more pioneer stock (which I hail from, but again I grew up out east and only on one side) or large numbers of those who've been members for 4+ generations. So for example I'd rather eat my own foot than live in most of Idaho and parts of UT. Not because I don't think there's good people there, but because I've heard enough stories from those areas to know that I would likely struggle to be comfortable there socially. Beyond that I could give you my own list of negative stories that have happened with me. I prefer not to right now.

I do have a serious question....why do you (and others that you know) want to stay? I don't mean this defensively in the "you should just leave if you don't like it" sort of way. I mean it more as exploratory. As I mentioned I have had negative experiences in church or with church members. The woman I mention in my previous post was a church member, for example. But I've also had many many positive experiences, several that were life changing and life sustaining. I keep those in view when I'm dealing with the more negative and so I'm wondering what are the positive motivations that keep you or others there? How do you build those up and expand on them? I've found several ways to do so. For one I find community. When it became apparent that I was going to live where I currently do, I made contingency plans to keep me balanced. When I was single and attending a BYU ward that meant from time to time going to specialty wards and keeping tabs with a diverse friends group. That included the class I mentioned and before that a multicultural dance group that was largely LDS. I interacted with my ward, but my ward wasn't the social parameters of "the church" for me.

My active participation in the ward, particularly in later years was often forged by my input. A lot. From negotiating callings to volunteering for other things. For example when one bishop won sex-shaming bingo on a chastity talk in my YSA (a bishop who earlier would lead a very heartfelt and caring discussion about LGBT concerns....again, people are complicated) I was mortified. Okay, nah, I was pissed. Before I could talk to him, he was released. But I was already working as a sex therapist and I actually like public speaking. so I knew I could help and I talked directly to the next bishop about giving a fireside on the issue. I worked in the system as it already was and was patient. I explained what I wanted to cover and how. I accepted some limitations but kept nudging and explained others. I was extremely collaborative...which took more time (read a LOT more time) but meant that when I shared my fireside it was with the full support of my local leadership. It went very very well and I'd made my community just a little better by doing so. It then opened the door to do so yearly in my ward. In short, I became the law of chastity talk, among other things. And a few bishops relied on me for questions and concerns they didn't fully get. I also lucked out. I got really stellar bishops who appreciated my experiences and voice. Being empowered in the space I am in and the talents and experiences I have makes my differences less of a burden. I do so carefully, some things I don't share with all people. When I know it will be controversial for whatever reason, I walk carefully and with a lot of "this is from my experience and understanding" prefaces. People don't usually feel pushed or attacked by me, even when we are diametrically opposed. And I don't focus solely on just those parts. Because there's a lot that I value and love in my faith that is more similar in the community. Those are my first points of relationship, the rest are seconds and talents that I can share if people are ready for them. 

Note, I still have contingency plans. I now attend a spanish family ward and pre-pandemic I would attend genesis at least a few times a year. I still have my diverse close friend circle who know me well. Some of the things mentioned or experienced in the regular geographic wards feel almost foreign to me when I do experience them. They're not my world in the church right now and I'm nourished and more comfortable because of that. And that's how I do it. It works for me.

It is easy to get wrapped into the problems. I'm not denying they're there. They are. I've seen and interacted with those who've either been burnt for being different or struggle to find comfortable purchase in the church. I don't blame them and when I can I try to help them in that pain. Sometimes more successfully than others. I can drown in the negative or I can find courses and means to foster positive. I choose that path. 

One last note, I don't view Ahmad as simply trying to protect the church...at least if we're talking about the institution. I could get more with it in trying to protect the body of believers. I get that's what you see. But personally I'm seeing an imbalance that means the negative and the problems are predominant in one's view and perspective. I'm not blaming you for it, it sounds like it comes from some painful and jarring experiences. But I also don't think it likely makes it hard to see any other interpretation of events when things don't live up to your expectations or hopes....which also I would assumed make moments like this all the more painful. like a raw wound that's never had space or time to fully heal and just keeps getting bumped on. 

I wish you the best with this. I have no ill will on my end.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If only people were willing to sacrifice as much as you are.

I don't think you have any idea how sanctimonious you sound here.

Yes, I knew I was taking a big risk. But I cannot commiserate with each of the offenses listed without knowing the details or the individuals involved. So, I stuck with general principles of how to handle these kinds of problems when they affect us personally, and I've experienced some of them myself, though the biggest challenge / threat of my life had nothing to do with these particular topics.

[MiserereNobis]

This is somewhat related to the topic at hand, so I thought I'd share it for your enjoyment (and also to think about it). In one of my classes we were discussing dialects and why one dialect, standard written English, was elevated to prominence, leaving other dialects behind. The issue of the contextual use of language arose, so I shared this slam-style poem by Jamila Lyiscott, who is a professor at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. As a professor she is fluent, obviously, in standard written English. But she's also from Trinidad, so when she's with her family, she can speak that dialect. She also has a community around her that speaks Black English vernacular. In the poem she discusses using all three, and how language in one context might not be appropriate in another context. I think she does a good job expressing ideas of language, identity, and race. She wrote the poem because a woman complimented her on how articulate she was, which from her point-of-view was a way of saying "I'm surprised you're so articulate because you are Black."

Here's the poem:

Here's a transcript:

https://www.deepcenter.org/deepcenter/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/three-ways-to-speak-english-by-jamila-lyiscott.pdf

[Nofear]

42 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is somewhat related to the topic at hand, so I thought I'd share it for your enjoyment (and also to think about it).

Professor Higgins would certainly have had something to say about that.

 

[MrShorty]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is an example of this kind of question, in this particular instance?

Shall we just start with one of the big questions of this thread -- the race and the priesthood/temple issue? What does it mean to trust God and the Church and its leaders as we look backwards (with the benefit of hindsight) at this issue?

On trusting God: If we assume that the priesthood and temple ban was all on God (that the leaders and members of the Church have no input or that God is not accommodating them somehow), what do we learn about trusting God? I have said before that sometimes when I go down this path, I end up somewhere where I wonder if God is even trustworthy. Does God really teach and encourage and promote immorality (like slavery and racism) -- even when it is temporary to be changed on His timeline? Can I trust the God I see in history -- when I assume that everything prophets and apostles attribute to God was really from God -- as a 100% reliable source of truth and morality?

If the question is more about accommodation (historical peoples could not accept for one reason or another the real truth), that suggests that God is unwilling or unable to correct His people. Unable calls into question His omnipotence. Unwilling, again, calls into question His reliability as a source of truth and morality.

At this point, I will mention that I think everything that tries to attribute the ban to God ("just trust that the ban was from God and that He changed it on His timing -- even if He didn't or doesn't explain the whys and wherefores and such of His so-called wisdom") feels like "throwing God under the bus" as some like to describe it (and I will then defer to Michael Austin at BCC for a recent discussion: https://bycommonconsent.com/2022/02/10/god-under-the-bus/#comment-436711

This is where I think Bro's Corbitt and Wilcox's message really fits and is maybe the only satisfactory? answer the Church can give. The Church (meaning many Church members and leaders) seems to assume that the ban was from God and that God could have changed it at any time (or even not implemented it at all) if He had desired it. Because the Church and/or its leaders would never be guilty of rejecting a direct command from God, then the ban must have been God's will for the entire 1 1/4 centuries that it existed and we must somehow just trust that God had very good reasons that He is refusing to divulge (and we have to trust that this is also God's will). It is probably the correct message based on that assumption, but it fails to address the next round of inquiry where we challenge that assumption.

On trusting the Church and its leaders: If we drop the assume that God was the source of the ban, the next in the chain of command are the prophets and apostles. As many (including the Church's Race and the Priesthood essay) point out, 19th and early 20th century America was a time of strong racial prejudices throughout American society. Even the most ardent abolitionists were opposed on some level to full integration of the races -- there were very, very few voices calling for full integration. Church leaders and members were among those with these beliefs and fears. If we drop the assumption that God wanted to ban a race from priesthood and temple ordinances, the usual next place to look is how did these strong racial prejudices figure into the God's inability and/or unwillingness to force a revelation of inclusion onto the Church and its leaders. If we assume that God wanted desegregation from the beginning, then we usually end up somewhere where the Church and its leaders would not (maybe did not??) accept True revelation on this issue. Of course, this calls into question the trustworthiness of the Church and its leaders as a source of moral truth, because it suggests the very real possibility that the Church and its leaders may substitute their own false traditions and prejudices for moral truth (even to the possibility of rejecting a direct revelation from God??).

While I cannot find it right now, I recall something C. S. Lewis said about scripture and God. He said something to the effect of, "if something I read in scripture does not match up with my view of God, I generally assume that my view of God is right and reject that reading of scripture." In the same vein, if I am forced to choose between and untrustworthy God and an untrustworthy Church with untrustworthy leaders, I am inclined to believe that the Church and its leaders are the untrustworthy ones. Of course, in that case, I have to naturally wonder -- if they proved themselves to be untrustworthy around the priesthood and temple ban, are there other things where we as a Church and our leaders are rejecting or refusing to receive a revelation from God (we can probably start with the women and the priesthood issue, since that was one that figured prominently in Bro. Wilcox's original talk).

As much as I (as someone who wants to stay active and believing in the Church) might hate to give a second voice to @Teancum's post-Mormon belief, I find his statement a few pages back here very compelling

Quote

If the ban was wrong why did not God intervene? Why did God not tell his prophets to change this sooner than 1978 at a time when there was great pressure on the Church as well as growth in Brazil where the ban caused problems?  This is one of the biggest reasons why I think LDS prophets and apostles are relatively useless. They have no better insight to the issues in the worlds and sometimes worse since dogma restricts their actions.

At some point, I feel like if I am going to stay in the Church, I somehow must be able to come to a place where I can trust God, accept that the Church and its leaders are not always trustworthy, but they still are useful to me. When the Church wants to throw God under the bus and claim that the ban was wholly from God, I find the Church and its leader relatively useless. But the Church and its leaders never seem to quite be able to accept that the ban was a mistake that God would have and could have corrected much sooner if only they had been able and willing to cast off false traditions and receive God's light and revelation. At some level, the Church must decide what it believes the Truth (capital T) is about this issue.

[MrShorty]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would say that one thing some members can do is define their intention, prayerfully come up with a course of action, and with the gift of the Holy Ghost, ask the Lord for confirmation as to whether it is the right thing right to do. Others might ask, "is such and such true / a true principle" with the sincere intent to follow through in keeping it should the Lord confirm that it is true. Then it is up to them to govern themselves.

This might be true. Much of the time, I am inclined to believe it. If we really believe this is true, I see basically two ways for this to play out:

1) People are sometimes led away from the Church, and such a path is perfectly legitimate. This begins to suggest to me that the Church's claims to "the one true and living Church" are maybe overstated. Maybe the LDS Church isn't the only path to salvation and exaltation? Sometimes, this leads me into that "heresy" of universalism -- maybe God knows how to save and exalt everyone (some may just have a lot more work to do in the post-mortal realms)?

2) Why do we use some of these points in "boundary maintenance"? Part of me would ask -- if we believe that someone can legitimately be led to believe or do something contrary to the Church's beliefs and practices, why does the Church not do more to validate and accept people with differing beliefs and practices? Why the constant need for "boundary policing"? If God can lead some to believe that drinking tea is not a sin, why do we feel a need to use complete abstinence from tea as a line in the sand for full fellowship and communion? We often say that the Gospel as we preach is open to all truth no matter where it comes from, so why exclude people from full fellowship who feel that God has led them to believe or do something different from the mainstream?

 

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sincere questions:

How does testifying of the Restoration violate the Christian ideals taught in D&C 121:29-46?

Should Latter-day Saints abandon the claims of the Restoration?

If not all, then which LDS Priesthood holders have no hubris?

I hope you will receive my answers to your sincere questions as equally sincere. Much of this thread involves folks sharing their own personal experiences as cause for or justification for their perspectives, reactions, opinions, beliefs, pain, etc. That is what I am about to do as well.

In my previous comments to which you are reacting, I generalized instead of making it clear that I was referring to my own experience. If we are neither careful nor mature, personal experience may cause us to generalize. I also tried to provide an example of the same from those of my own faith to lessen the concept that I was singling out LDS priesthood holders. That didn't work. It probably rarely does.

Some on this forum occasionally interact with non-LDS Christians. They form opinions, but then quickly return to the comfort and safety of what the great LDS historian B Carmon Hardy called the cocoon or encystment of Mormonism. They then can talk in sweeping generalizations about those others with whom they interacted and receive zero push back for their comments. In that, they probably rarely have to examine their comments.

When I generalize about my LDS acquaintances it is usually to other LDS acquaintances, and I receive immediate feedback. I never speak negatively about the LDS to those with whom I speak in family or other settings where I speak about history or religious history. Living in Chihuahua and speaking where I do, I often speak about Mormons, Mennonites, Pentecostals, Catholics and other religions prevalent in Mexico and the borderlands. It is part of how I earn my income.

1. How does testifying of the Restoration violate the Christian ideals taught in D&C 121:29-46?

It violates those ideals because it is symptomatic of rankism, which many believe is in itself a precursor of other isms like racism, ageism, sexism, etc. I see rankism as the leading cause of human conflict, not just religious conflict. When I teach about religion as conflict, I almost always include rankism as a social-religious construct leading to conflict. I believe rankism is a sin. It invariably makes one group higher, better, purer, “righter,” than the other. It also moves the emphasis from testifying about Christ to about the church. It puts the institution above the instigator of our faith (Christ). It makes the investigator feel less than; it ranks the missionary above the investigator. The missionary “teaches.” It is a parent-child relationship, not adult-adult transaction. I do believe it stems from a sort of hubris. It is an affirmation of correctness and priority in the community of Christ that is practiced formally once a month to reinforce the validity of the faith. My problem with what I hear is that it too often (in my mind) seems rote, especially when 4-year-olds are put on the stand to “testify” of Joseph Smith or the like. I have been in scores of Lutheran services, thousands of Mennonite services and have never heard testimonies of Martin Luther or Menno Simons. So, I am uncomfortable when I hear so little about Christ and so much about “the church.” That is rankism and I think demonstrates a kind of “faith hubris.” Of course, in this answer I must add that I don’t think the LDS church is the “only true and living” anything. It is certainly living, and in many senses true, but the “only” part is what gets me every time. I think you know that.

2. Should Latter-day Saints abandon the claims of the Restoration?

If the claims are that it is the only true exemplar of a restoration, yes. If inherent in those claims is that all other religions were/are less than the COJCOLDS, then yes. I have had a front seat (literally sometimes) to observing the lived lives of members of the LDS church on a daily basis, in and out of chapel, in a number of different states and meetings. I conclude that the average LDS church member has no different spiritual characteristics than the average member of any other church with which I have been connected, affiliated, or witnessed. That is not a criticism. It is my sincere observation. If the LDS restoration (remember many churches consider themselves restorationist) were unique, and the LDS church were unique, then I would except to see a unique form of Christian living as a result. I have often said that two of the Godliest people I have ever associated with are LDS. I have said that on this forum. Of course, others are Baptist, two are Mennonite, one Presbyterian, and one was Muslim (he passed away). Should you abandon “truth claims?” I guess it depends on the truth claim. Do I squirm when someone says in a testimony that the “church is true?” No. Do I squirm when someone claims it is the only true church, I sense rankism setting in and then yes, I squirm.

I have been told that it can’t be hubris if it is true! I reject that. Hubris and truth can certainly co-exist.

3. If not all, then which LDS Priesthood holders have no hubris?

Those who don’t have a need to remind me I am “less than” in their hierarchy of Christians – with of course LDS Christians at the top (as soon as they learn I am not LDS). Those who don’t tell me I am “playing” or “pretending” at church because I am not LDS. Those who don’t write that I am committing blasphemy when I oversee an ordinance. Those who don’t rank Christian faiths. Those who don’t tell me “That was a good prayer, but I wish they wouldn’t let non-members pray.” Those who treat me like a spiritual equal (acknowledging our respective faults). Those who want to learn from me as well as teach me. Those who don’t generalize and normalize (I am guilty of this one). Those who don’t criticize the bishop for asking me to close a meeting in prayer.

Last and most important, dear folks like General Authority Emeritus Waldo P. Call who sat in front of me in Sacrament service for over four years. He always (always – always) was kind, affirming, positive, letting me know I belonged sitting behind him whether I were a member or not. He encouraged the bishop to have us use our gifts in the ward. He encouraged us to use them. He sat in Sunday School when I or my wife taught it and always had good things to say to us afterward. He thanked and complimented us each on the four times we gave sacrament talks. When I sang a solo in German at the stake Christmas conference, he told me he didn’t understand a word of it, but he loved every word and note of it. He passed away last year. I miss him terribly. He was a model of being Christ-like and a wonderful priesthood holder. He always lifted us up. Not a scintilla of hubris in him.  I will always be grateful for having know him. We have now moved up! We moved up a pew and sit with his dear widow every service. Such a Godly lady!

Edited February 15, 2022 by Navidad

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Shall we just start with one of the big questions of this thread -- the race and the priesthood/temple issue? What does it mean to trust God and the Church and its leaders as we look backwards (with the benefit of hindsight) at this issue?

On trusting God: If we assume that the priesthood and temple ban was all on God (that the leaders and members of the Church have no input or that God is not accommodating them somehow), what do we learn about trusting God? I have said before that sometimes when I go down this path, I end up somewhere where I wonder if God is even trustworthy. Does God really teach and encourage and promote immorality (like slavery and racism) -- even when it is temporary to be changed on His timeline? Can I trust the God I see in history -- when I assume that everything prophets and apostles attribute to God was really from God -- as a 100% reliable source of truth and morality?

If the question is more about accommodation (historical peoples could not accept for one reason or another the real truth), that suggests that God is unwilling or unable to correct His people. Unable calls into question His omnipotence. Unwilling, again, calls into question His reliability as a source of truth and morality.

At this point, I will mention that I think everything that tries to attribute the ban to God ("just trust that the ban was from God and that He changed it on His timing -- even if He didn't or doesn't explain the whys and wherefores and such of His so-called wisdom") feels like "throwing God under the bus" as some like to describe it (and I will then defer to Michael Austin at BCC for a recent discussion: https://bycommonconsent.com/2022/02/10/god-under-the-bus/#comment-436711

This is where I think Bro's Corbitt and Wilcox's message really fits and is maybe the only satisfactory? answer the Church can give. The Church (meaning many Church members and leaders) seems to assume that the ban was from God and that God could have changed it at any time (or even not implemented it at all) if He had desired it. Because the Church and/or its leaders would never be guilty of rejecting a direct command from God, then the ban must have been God's will for the entire 1 1/4 centuries that it existed and we must somehow just trust that God had very good reasons that He is refusing to divulge (and we have to trust that this is also God's will). It is probably the correct message based on that assumption, but it fails to address the next round of inquiry where we challenge that assumption.

On trusting the Church and its leaders: If we drop the assume that God was the source of the ban, the next in the chain of command are the prophets and apostles. As many (including the Church's Race and the Priesthood essay) point out, 19th and early 20th century America was a time of strong racial prejudices throughout American society. Even the most ardent abolitionists were opposed on some level to full integration of the races -- there were very, very few voices calling for full integration. Church leaders and members were among those with these beliefs and fears. If we drop the assumption that God wanted to ban a race from priesthood and temple ordinances, the usual next place to look is how did these strong racial prejudices figure into the God's inability and/or unwillingness to force a revelation of inclusion onto the Church and its leaders. If we assume that God wanted desegregation from the beginning, then we usually end up somewhere where the Church and its leaders would not (maybe did not??) accept True revelation on this issue. Of course, this calls into question the trustworthiness of the Church and its leaders as a source of moral truth, because it suggests the very real possibility that the Church and its leaders may substitute their own false traditions and prejudices for moral truth (even to the possibility of rejecting a direct revelation from God??).

While I cannot find it right now, I recall something C. S. Lewis said about scripture and God. He said something to the effect of, "if something I read in scripture does not match up with my view of God, I generally assume that my view of God is right and reject that reading of scripture." In the same vein, if I am forced to choose between and untrustworthy God and an untrustworthy Church with untrustworthy leaders, I am inclined to believe that the Church and its leaders are the untrustworthy ones. Of course, in that case, I have to naturally wonder -- if they proved themselves to be untrustworthy around the priesthood and temple ban, are there other things where we as a Church and our leaders are rejecting or refusing to receive a revelation from God (we can probably start with the women and the priesthood issue, since that was one that figured prominently in Bro. Wilcox's original talk).

As much as I (as someone who wants to stay active and believing in the Church) might hate to give a second voice to @Teancum's post-Mormon belief, I find his statement a few pages back here very compelling

At some point, I feel like if I am going to stay in the Church, I somehow must be able to come to a place where I can trust God, accept that the Church and its leaders are not always trustworthy, but they still are useful to me. When the Church wants to throw God under the bus and claim that the ban was wholly from God, I find the Church and its leader relatively useless. But the Church and its leaders never seem to quite be able to accept that the ban was a mistake that God would have and could have corrected much sooner if only they had been able and willing to cast off false traditions and receive God's light and revelation. At some level, the Church must decide what it believes the Truth (capital T) is about this issue.

Absolutely: we must trust God and accept that the Church and her leaders are useful to us, our personal misgivings towards them aside. Sometimes these misgivings result from conditions we have set, not them, and from our level of tolerance for life’s messy ambiguities. The link or bridge I find between trusting God and the usefulness of the leaders is the restoration of the keys of the kingdom.

Teancum did not like my reply to his compelling statement...

Trusting God’s involvement with His kingdom and her leaders during the period of the priesthood ban would entail appreciation that the kingdom has survived the various injustices of our culture and history and the sins of the people in and out of the Church, etc. so that today I personally enjoy the blessings of the restored keys. God’s love, grace and longsuffering are trustworthy as He balances the chaos of this probationary estate with the perfection of His Son’s atonement, which, by definition, cannot be fully realized until after this probation is over. This is what is meant by God’s timing and intervention, and I find Alma 14: 8-15 instructive in this regard: God most often does not intervene in this life – this life is a test, and His lack of intervention creates the test! I think it reflects opposition in all things: little or no material intervention in contrast to the full spiritual blessings of the Atonement. Those who enjoy the blessings of the restored gospel have a bridge between the two.

I believe this paradigm can be applied to concerns over women’s ordination, same-sex marriage, etc. I think it is faulty logic to assume, and then expect with intent and argument, that because the ban was lifted, these will someday come about. Some will chafe and contend against doctrine and policy, but the bottom line is that we have the blessings of the keys, the atonement of Christ, and this test.

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

This might be true. Much of the time, I am inclined to believe it. If we really believe this is true, I see basically two ways for this to play out:

1) People are sometimes led away from the Church, and such a path is perfectly legitimate. This begins to suggest to me that the Church's claims to "the one true and living Church" are maybe overstated. Maybe the LDS Church isn't the only path to salvation and exaltation? Sometimes, this leads me into that "heresy" of universalism -- maybe God knows how to save and exalt everyone (some may just have a lot more work to do in the post-mortal realms)?

2) Why do we use some of these points in "boundary maintenance"? Part of me would ask -- if we believe that someone can legitimately be led to believe or do something contrary to the Church's beliefs and practices, why does the Church not do more to validate and accept people with differing beliefs and practices? Why the constant need for "boundary policing"? If God can lead some to believe that drinking tea is not a sin, why do we feel a need to use complete abstinence from tea as a line in the sand for full fellowship and communion? We often say that the Gospel as we preach is open to all truth no matter where it comes from, so why exclude people from full fellowship who feel that God has led them to believe or do something different from the mainstream?

 

RE: 1) I will never tell someone that Jesus is not leading them out of the Church. I will even tell them that when they tell me that Jesus is leading them out of the Church. It keeps the conversation going, and often they consider something they hadn't previously that would keep the door open for them to stay in the Church. There is no scientific way to evaluate whether God is leading them out of the Church, anyway.

RE: 2) I believe that it is more precious to God that people govern themselves with the light He has given them, or without the light which they have refused from Him, than to force the issue. But governing oneself with they light they possess is different from governing the community with the light it possesses, which entails common consent of the individual members who sustain the doctrines, policies, practices, etc. of the Church (in this case, abstinence from tea as a temple recommend requirement).

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

As much as I (as someone who wants to stay active and believing in the Church) might hate to give a second voice to @Teancum's post-Mormon belief, I find his statement a few pages back here very compelling

I hope you can find your way. I could not. It seem to me that no matter what time in history there is a prophet that is supposed to speak with God and receive direction from God, that God would fix major horrible issues, regardless of culture. And as noted, if God was so insistent that Joseph Smith institute polygamy, in spite of the cultural norms of the time, it seems God could have fixed the priesthood ban problem since now the leaders say this was all a mistake. 

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

 

 

I think you tried to PM me and my box was full- sorry!

I have recently gotten a bunch of questions by PM so I set up another dedicated email - mfbukowski@live.com - pending me updating my old blog site.

So shoot me an email!  Please remember to identify yourself in the title with your MDD handle so I know who you are, and not spam.

Same for anyone else for that matter!  

[Olmec Donald]

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

What does it mean to trust God and the Church and its leaders as we look backwards (with the benefit of hindsight) at [the race and the priesthood]  issue?

On trusting God: If we assume that the priesthood and temple ban was all on God (that the leaders and members of the Church have no input or that God is not accommodating them somehow), what do we learn about trusting God? 

... I think everything that tries to attribute the ban to God ("just trust that the ban was from God and that He changed it on His timing -- even if He didn't or doesn't explain the whys and wherefores and such of His so-called wisdom") feels like "throwing God under the bus" ...

The Church (meaning many Church members and leaders) seems to assume that the ban was from God and that God could have changed it at any time (or even not implemented it at all) if He had desired it...

If we drop the assume that God was the source of the ban, the next in the chain of command are the prophets and apostles... this calls into question the trustworthiness of the Church and its leaders as a source of moral truth, because it suggests the very real possibility that the Church and its leaders may substitute their own false traditions and prejudices for moral truth (even to the possibility of rejecting a direct revelation from God??)...

At some point, I feel like if I am going to stay in the Church, I somehow must be able to come to a place where I can trust God, accept that the Church and its leaders are not always trustworthy, but they still are useful to me. 

 

I don't begin to have answers to the big questions you articulate here, just an observation to toss out:  Obviously God is not limited to working only with and through the leadership of the LDS Church, because there were many people either not in a leadership position within the church OR not affiliated with the church in any way who arrived at the correct conclusion about equality long before the Prophet and Apostles did.  

In other words, I think Christ is vastly more active in doing his job (Moses 1:39) than is obvious from looking at any one religion or belief system.  I think that if we really are seekers of truth, then it is up to us to widen our search radius.  "Seek and ye shall find" is still in play.  The first thing they do after baptism is bestow on the person the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and imo that implies we have the power and the responsibility to recognize truth solely on its own merits, rather than placing our trust in an intellectual forensic analysis of who said what and when.  

Edited February 16, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Olmec Donald]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think you tried to PM me and my box was full- sorry!

I have recently gotten a bunch of questions by PM so I set up another dedicated email - mfbukowski@live.com - pending me updating my old blog site.

So shoot me an email!  Please remember to identify yourself in the title with your MDD handle so I know who you are, and not spam.  

I think that was @Navidad who tried to e-mail you.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I think that was @Navidad who tried to e-mail you.

Thanks.   But syllogisms? 

[Olmec Donald]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks.   But syllogisms? 

I'd forgotten about that.  Lemme rummage a bit...

You responded and answered my question, and I think that conversation had wrapped itself up.  

Edited February 15, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I hope you will receive my answers to your sincere questions as equally sincere. Much of this thread involves folks sharing their own personal experiences as cause for or justification for their perspectives, reactions, opinions, beliefs, pain, etc. That is what I am about to do as well.

In my previous comments to which you are reacting, I generalized instead of making it clear that I was referring to my own experience. If we are neither careful nor mature, personal experience may cause us to generalize. I also tried to provide an example of the same from those of my own faith to lessen the concept that I was singling out LDS priesthood holders. That didn't work. It probably rarely does.

Some on this forum occasionally interact with non-LDS Christians. They form opinions, but then quickly return to the comfort and safety of what the great LDS historian B Carmon Hardy called the cocoon or encystment of Mormonism. They then can talk in sweeping generalizations about those others with whom they interacted and receive zero push back for their comments. In that, they probably rarely have to examine their comments.

When I generalize about my LDS acquaintances it is usually to other LDS acquaintances, and I receive immediate feedback. I never speak negatively about the LDS to those with whom I speak in family or other settings where I speak about history or religious history. Living in Chihuahua and speaking where I do, I often speak about Mormons, Mennonites, Pentecostals, Catholics and other religions prevalent in Mexico and the borderlands. It is part of how I earn my income.

1. How does testifying of the Restoration violate the Christian ideals taught in D&C 121:29-46?

It violates those ideals because it is symptomatic of rankism, which many believe is in itself a precursor of other isms like racism, ageism, sexism, etc. I see rankism as the leading cause of human conflict, not just religious conflict. When I teach about religion as conflict, I almost always include rankism as a social-religious construct leading to conflict. I believe rankism is a sin. It invariably makes one group higher, better, purer, “righter,” than the other. It also moves the emphasis from testifying about Christ to about the church. It puts the institution above the instigator of our faith (Christ). It makes the investigator feel less than; it ranks the missionary above the investigator. The missionary “teaches.” It is a parent-child relationship, not adult-adult transaction. I do believe it stems from a sort of hubris. It is an affirmation of correctness and priority in the community of Christ that is practiced formally once a month to reinforce the validity of the faith. My problem with what I hear is that it too often (in my mind) seems rote, especially when 4-year-olds are put on the stand to “testify” of Joseph Smith or the like. I have been in scores of Lutheran services, thousands of Mennonite services and have never heard testimonies of Martin Luther or Menno Simons. So, I am uncomfortable when I hear so little about Christ and so much about “the church.” That is rankism and I think demonstrates a kind of “faith hubris.” Of course, in this answer I must add that I don’t think the LDS church is the “only true and living” anything. It is certainly living, and in many senses true, but the “only” part is what gets me every time. I think you know that.

2. Should Latter-day Saints abandon the claims of the Restoration?

If the claims are that it is the only true exemplar of a restoration, yes. If inherent in those claims is that all other religions were/are less than the COJCOLDS, then yes. I have had a front seat (literally sometimes) to observing the lived lives of members of the LDS church on a daily basis, in and out of chapel, in a number of different states and meetings. I conclude that the average LDS church member has no different spiritual characteristics than the average member of any other church with which I have been connected, affiliated, or witnessed. That is not a criticism. It is my sincere observation. If the LDS restoration (remember many churches consider themselves restorationist) were unique, and the LDS church were unique, then I would except to see a unique form of Christian living as a result. I have often said that two of the Godliest people I have ever associated with are LDS. I have said that on this forum. Of course, others are Baptist, two are Mennonite, one Presbyterian, and one was Muslim (he passed away). Should you abandon “truth claims?” I guess it depends on the truth claim. Do I squirm when someone says in a testimony that the “church is true?” No. Do I squirm when someone claims it is the only true church, I sense rankism setting in and then yes, I squirm.

I have been told that it can’t be hubris if it is true! I reject that. Hubris and truth can certainly co-exist.

3. If not all, then which LDS Priesthood holders have no hubris?

Those who don’t have a need to remind me I am “less than” in their hierarchy of Christians – with of course LDS Christians at the top (as soon as they learn I am not LDS). Those who don’t tell me I am “playing” or “pretending” at church because I am not LDS. Those who don’t write that I am committing blasphemy when I oversee an ordinance. Those who don’t rank Christian faiths. Those who don’t tell me “That was a good prayer, but I wish they wouldn’t let non-members pray.” Those who treat me like a spiritual equal (acknowledging our respective faults). Those who want to learn from me as well as teach me. Those who don’t generalize and normalize (I am guilty of this one). Those who don’t criticize the bishop for asking me to close a meeting in prayer.

Last and most important, dear folks like General Authority Emeritus Waldo P. Call who sat in front of me in Sacrament service for over four years. He always (always – always) was kind, affirming, positive, letting me know I belonged sitting behind him whether I were a member or not. He encouraged the bishop to have us use our gifts in the ward. He encouraged us to use them. He sat in Sunday School when I or my wife taught it and always had good things to say to us afterward. He thanked and complimented us each on the four times we gave sacrament talks. When I sang a solo in German at the stake Christmas conference, he told me he didn’t understand a word of it, but he loved every word and note of it. He passed away last year. I miss him terribly. He was a model of being Christ-like and a wonderful priesthood holder. He always lifted us up. Not a scintilla of hubris in him.  I will always be grateful for having know him. We have now moved up! We moved up a pew and sit with his dear widow every service. Such a Godly lady!

Rankism.  Hmmm. That describes how this response comes across to me.

I hear testimonies of Christ all the time. Especially on Fast Sunday.

Suggesting that the Church abandon the Restoration is in effect saying it should cease to exist. Surely with your experience you know that to be the case.

Oversee an ordinance? What does that mean? 

Bro Call and his wife never testified of the Restoration?

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[2BizE]

Brad Wilcox offered a second apology on Sunday February 13, 2022.  I find it hard to truly believe Bro. Wilcox has any idea of how offensive his words have been. He managed to degrade and offend women, girls, black people, people of other religions, people who have left the church, etc.  Where has YM president Lund been while Bro. Wilcox has been giving this talk over the years. I do not have confidence in this General YM Presidency.

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Brad Wilcox offered a second apology on Sunday February 13, 2022.  I find it hard to truly believe Bro. Wilcox has any idea of how offensive his words have been. He managed to degrade and offend women, girls, black people, people of other religions, people who have left the church, etc.  Where has YM president Lund been while Bro. Wilcox has been giving this talk over the years. I do not have confidence in this General YM Presidency.

How do you know what he feels?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

It violates those ideals because it is symptomatic of rankism, which many believe is in itself a precursor of other isms like racism, ageism, sexism, etc. I see rankism as the leading cause of human conflict, not just religious conflict. When I teach about religion as conflict, I almost always include rankism as a social-religious construct leading to conflict. I believe rankism is a sin. It invariably makes one group higher, better, purer, “righter,” than the other. It also moves the emphasis from testifying about Christ to about the church.

I agree. We should never judge others and call them "wrong" while we are of course implying we are "right" because golly gee, that would be the sin of "rankism".

Worse yet is when we don't even know we are doing it, by repremanding others ourselves.   How ridiculous would that be to not know yourself well enough to see that?

But what if God tells you personally that your church is true?  And the only one that really gets these issues, and you try to tell others who have no testimony that that is the case?

So it seems to me that this entire concept is incoherent.  Even bringing it up is a self- contradiction.

"It's wrong to think you are better than others" as a reprimand ALWAYS MUST imply that the speaker herself thinks she herself is better than others simply by making the reprimand.

I see absolutely nothing wrong thinking one knows what is true and tries to tell others who don't know.  Let them make their own decisions.

The difference between that and criticizing others is honesty.   One is not hiding that one is in the teacher's role and the other is in the student's role.

Teaching others would never be possible without "rankism"!   Believing otherwise is not "wrong", it is just self-contradictory.  Everybody does THAT on occasion and when one does, one should be thankful for learning something new when it is pointed out.

Edited February 15, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

. My problem with what I hear is that it too often (in my mind) seems rote, especially when 4-year-olds are put on the stand to “testify” of Joseph Smith or the like

The church has policies against that.

Testimonies from children are fine, but not if they are "put on the stand" and someone whispers in their ear etc. or if they are reciting something previously memorized.   Not to mention it is absurd- little children could not possibly understand what they are saying on such issues.

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Brad Wilcox offered a second apology on Sunday February 13, 2022.  I find it hard to truly believe Bro. Wilcox has any idea of how offensive his words have been. He managed to degrade and offend women, girls, black people, people of other religions, people who have left the church, etc.  Where has YM president Lund been while Bro. Wilcox has been giving this talk over the years. I do not have confidence in this General YM Presidency.

I second this!