Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Only Reeve himself can really comment on what was changed, removed, added, or altered in his 55 page draft (the Church isn't going to comment on it).

Just an FYI…I remembered this, so looked it up.  I haven’t been tracking this issue for a few years, the current incarnation of one of my disorders makes sustained reading difficult…the board’s formatting in small, brief posts is more my speed right now.  Hoping that will change eventually as the Meniere’s is generally lifting, but it is extraordinarily lazy in changing and seems to be happy to regress just when .I think I am hitting a tipping point.  (Had to whine, not a great couple of days and so many projects stalled, making a mess of my home). All that to say I am not aware of later comments of Reeve about it, but if I come across something while this thread is still active I will post it.

Quote

Q. Did you write the Gospel Topics essay on race and the priesthood? If so, how were you chosen? What major changes were edited out of your writing? 

A. You’re calling me out in front of everybody. I have people in the room who are from the Joseph Smith Papers project who are going to report what I say here, no doubt. Yes, I did help with the Gospel Topics essay. What appears online was what the Church History Department produced from a 55-page essay that I wrote that was approved by the Brethren. Then the Church History Department reduced that down to what was put online. How were you chosen? Have you seen Toy Story – that claw in…? [laughter and applause] I don’t know if the presumption is that I wasn’t qualified, with this question or not. My friends at the Church History Department were aware that I was doing research on this book. That was the desire, as I understood it, for the Gospel Topics essay, was to tap some scholars who were already doing research in whatever topic area that was being addressed. They were aware that I was doing research for this book. They asked if I was willing to help. What major changes were edited out of your writing? I’m not going to address that

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2015/rethinking-the-mormon-racial-story

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[rongo]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

What is the value in continuing to believe that "the ban's inception and timing were God's will?"

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the value is that you don’t have to figure out the whole issue of racist prophets keeping people from blessings against God’s will but still being prophets.

I largely agree with @bluebell's statement here. It keeps the integrity of Mormon prophets intact, and doesn't boil such an important things down to "they were just a product of their times, they are fallible men, it's unreasonable to think that God could/would make His will known about something this important until 140 years later," etc. Whenever there are knotty problems, the apologetic default setting is "fallibility" (cf. gospel topics essays), at the expense of daring to teach and believe that Mormon prophets can stand the test of time. This puts Mormonism and her prophets at odds with social currents and trends, and that makes some people uncomfortable. 

[Calm]

I very much appreciate Reeve’s suggestion on how we as a people should approach the issue of the ban.   Best to hear it in his own words, hopefully there will be a transcript or this part will get written up.  Maybe I will even do it as I was impressed.  See last 5 minutes or so of Part 2 SU video.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Joseph F. Smith Changes His Position Relative to Blacks
Joseph F. Smith abandons his former position on Elijah Abel’s status and now claims that Joseph Smith declared Abel’s ordination “null and void.” (Council Minutes, 26 August, as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Signature Books, pg. 140) Historians today don’t understand this reversal, as Smith had Abel’s ordination certificates which supported his earlier (strongly held) position and don’t support his new views.

How do we explain this, then? Was "false memory" your phrase, and not Reeve's? 

It sounds like he changed his mind (there could be all kinds of factors feeding into that). Is thinking that Abel's ordination was "null and void" similar to Coltrin believing that Abel was "dropped from the quorum?" 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

How do we explain this, then? Was "false memory" your phrase, and not Reeve's? 

It sounds like he changed his mind (there could be all kinds of factors feeding into that). Is thinking that Abel's ordination was "null and void" similar to Coltrin believing that Abel was "dropped from the quorum?" 

No, it was Reeve’s in the podcast…it is a very tolerable podcast, very focused, not a lot of chit chat.  Worth the time to watch if you want to challenge his position.  I would prefer not to be the interpreter as I am going to not be able to provide all the relevant nuances or details, so if you are serious about the subject, then invest the time to watch it.
 

I need to check his book to see if he speculated that was the cause of the change there, it didn’t stick in my memory if it was, think I would remember as I have wondered myself if that was what happened.

It doesn’t just sound like he changed his mind, it is clear that he did.  The question is why the shift in his position, especially since it was key and appears to be the turning point as after that the Church’s narrative about the beginnings of the ban changed/solidified.  No more debates among leadership on what to do, no more investigations (until a number of years later).  
 

And it is more than just changing his mind though as JFS had documents supporting his previous position.

Edited February 19, 2022 by Calm

[kimpearson]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Out of curiosity, why do you think I would know this?  And if I did, wouldn’t it likely be something that should be kept confidential or do you think it appropriate to share without permission information about people’s medical treatment or welfare support?

That would depend on the person, how they became mentally unstable, including interactions with others (for example, I do not think it was helpful for Rowe to get involved with Daybell, who imo used her and encouraged her delusions to make money off of her as he basically told her to make more elaborate claims about her visions if he wanted a longer chapter according to Rowe shortly after her first book was published iirc), and how competent they were outside of their delusions and likely a host of other factors. Mental dysfunction and emotional disorders are very complex and cover a broad range of situations. 

Just seemed like you were very close to what happened.

13 hours ago, Calm said:

You mentioned in the past iirc that you were an auditor for the Church, so I am assuming your training is as an accountant of some sort. You have talked about having numerous conversations with LGBT and others and now this.  Did you switch careers or just do a lot of volunteer work?  Applaud you either way for trying to help others. 

Retired 4 years ago.  My wife had been working in the day program so I decided to do it part time.  Very hard work that is heart breaking and rewarding at the same time.  Really got to see up close and personal what was going on in the lives of about 100 adults with mental disabilities.  Son came out as gay 10 years ago and got very involved in the LGTBQ+ community both inside and outside of the Church so I could be a dad to my son that had at least some idea of what was going on in his life and what his future could be.  That experience has fundamentally changed my view of the Church, it's mistakes and its doctrines. 

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you really think he is agreeing with your point and if not, why did you choose to say this? I am curious as I think it a bit of childish nonsense and yet I see quite intelligent, reasonable people using it from time to time.

The only thing that occurs to me is this is an adult version of goading, like calling someone chicken if they refuse to get into a fist fight as kids, but rather than assuming that is what you were doing I thought it would be better to let you explain since you seem comfortable enough to share. 

It's just funny how smac can act childish, rip people up, talk about suicide being what some people wanted of those who make mistakes yet get upset when I mentioned ideas that lead to death.  Many of you on this board seem to have a real double standard when it comes to a few of the posters.  That of course is just my viewpoint but I try to poke at it bit to see if many of you see that in your responses.  I can't change your mind and you probably disagree with me but that is part of the purpose of a board like this.  You will never have as much discussion if everyone has the same viewpoint and opinion.

[kimpearson]

My thoughts on the priesthood ban.  God gave all the revelation to Joseph Smith necessary to make the right decisions on this issue.  God gave the priesthood leaders at the time His spirit to guide them as well as every prophet through Pres. Kimball.  Having given that, God then steps back and lets leaders govern the Church without divine intervention.  From Brigham Young through Spencer Kimball, leaders allowed their own beliefs to override revelation and the Spirit.  By President Kimball's time, issues around the ban had become so difficult and problematic that finally a leader humbled himself enough to overcome his personal beliefs and see what God had intended all along.  Those who held the mistaken belief on the ban will have to work through that and repent for it.  Those damaged by the ban will receive mercy from God that will make up for the damage.  That is the purpose of the atonement, to heal us from sins we have committed and heal us from the damage we unfairly suffered in life.

To me the true measure of the truthfulness of a doctrine or belief is the affect it has on all people subject to it.   Truth brings happiness and peace to our lives.  Truth never hurts or damages our self image.  Truth doesn't create contention among honest people trying to follow God.  Truth only increases love for God and for each other.  Truth would never make someone feel like God doesn't love them as much as someone else.  That is why the ban, teachings on women's current role in the Church and teachings on how LGTBQ+ members should live their lives can't be true.  Our leaders need to humble themselves just like President Kimball did and find the truth.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Having given that, God then steps back and lets leaders govern the Church without divine intervention. 

Do you apply this mostly to the ban or generally speaking?

(My own position is God doesn’t step in unless asked to in the vast majority of our lives and even then it is in mostly a supportive role, as in “I am here, ‘fighting!’”***—though there are those who may not even be able to be aware of his presence through no fault of their own—as mortal life is a time for self exploration as much as it is a time to learn obedience.)

***https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paiting

Quote

Within Korean, paiting! serves as an encouragement to release one's inhibitions and draw on inner power.

 

[Rivers]

Deleted already posted Minight Mormon video.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Rivers

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I don't have a "smoking gun" statement from Reeve I can point to, no. But you yourself have commented more than once over time that the essay leaves room for both interpretations, and that you wish there were more clarity and finality in it. Based on what you know about what Reeve has written about this, what do you think his original 55 page draft said vs. what was published? Do you think the room the published essay leaves to believe in the ban was (and continues to be) his original thought on the matter? I don't at all. Only Reeve himself can really comment on what was changed, removed, added, or altered in his 55 page draft (the Church isn't going to comment on it).

 

 

I do believe that the essay was left ambiguous on purpose (and I think it was because I think the Brethren have different opinions on the subject and there doesn't appear to be any revelation on the matter to justify statements in support or in opposition to the ban itself).  But I really can't use the little that I know about Reeves and make any statements on what his full paper contained.  I would just be guessing and then passing off my guesses as facts. 

I wouldn't be surprised if a full repudiation of the ban was contained in the paper, but I have no idea if it was or wasn't.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

That is why the ban, teachings on women's current role in the Church and teachings on how LGTBQ+ members should live their lives can't be true.  Our leaders need to humble themselves just like President Kimball did and find the truth.

I am with you up till here and not actually contradicting outright, but simply adding the detail that our experience of Truth is always through our interpretations of it and therefore it may be our interpretations of all of the above that are screwing us up and causing conflict. 

Added: Plus there is the whole conflict between family, I bring a sword, wheats and tares  comments by Christ.  Conflict in Zion is not his desire, but conflict was going to happen because of the truth as well as lies.  I don’t think we can automatically assume because a teaching or policy creates conflict, it can’t be truth given conflict would naturally arise as truth is taught to replace past false ideas in and out of the Church.  Which position is the false one is what is being debated in my view.  Honest people trying to seek God will still have mistaken ideas that won’t suddenly disappear when exposed to truth and therefore conflict can occur.

And everyone needs to be humble if we actually desire to learn the truth from God…telling our leaders to be humble without including ourselves seems to be missing the boat to me. 

I personally believe the ban was not revelation based on the historic record of how it developed.  And it appears contrary to other commandments received, such as Reeve’s example of taking the gospel to every creature****.  My view on the other two is at minimum our knowledge of God’s truths in these areas are rather incomplete.  And I have no doubt that our attempts to fill in the gaps with our own reasoning fails drastically in most cases. 
 

****https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/68.8?lang=eng&clang=eng#p8
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/80.1?lang=eng&clang=eng#p1
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/18.28?lang=eng&clang=eng#p28

There’s two more with that phrasing, but this conveys the point. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

This makes a lot of sense to me -- especially as it applies to the historical issue of race and priesthood. The challenge for me with this conclusion is that it suggests the possibility that we might still be harboring blind spots or have other things where we need communal repentance (maybe the other issues from Wilcox's talk like women and priesthood and gender roles or like LGBT issues). I have observed elsewhere that the Church with its gerontocracy and its requirements of "unity" when making changes at the top seems very much inclined towards "conservatism" -- or assume communal repentance (change) is not needed until moved upon by a strong outside force/revelation. And the revelation may not come until after the change/repentance, but will we be able to recognize what needs to change before the revelation can come?

In the end, I'm not sure how to incorporate this idea into my working model of prophets and scripture and revelation.

I would like to hear your working model, please share.

I believe that repentance, especially communal repentance, takes time. The Lord will help those who believe they are ahead of the curve to be patient, longsuffering and charitable while their time to have a voice in council arrives. This includes those who believe that prophetic decisions on Church policy have, eventually, or should mirror governmental solutions to discrimination (OD2) and other moral (OD1) and social ills.

While governments are instituted of God in part to prepare a society’s people for Zion, I think the Church implements practical change far more efficiently and effectively than governments do (e.g., compare the period from 1776 to 1964 for passing the Civil Rights Act with 1964 to 1978 for receiving OD2, and the years from 1776 to 1862 for passing the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act with 1862 to 1890/1904 for receiving OD1).

But even leaving that comparison aside, I believe that once the government passes a law (assuming the law is in line with God’s will), those who have the keys of the kingdom lag behind in similarly changing Church policy because it is a horribly weighty responsibility to govern one’s use of the keys, not to mention a religious institution. And are they really lagging, or simply doing it right? We still have a lot of societal problems with racism and divorce, etc. in the USA, and arguably less so within the Church community.

Another thing I consider is the latitude with which the Lord grants the prophets in exercising the keys of the kingdom at various levels of priority, from lower (administrative policies and procedures) to higher (revelatory, doctrinal and ecclesiastical pronouncements and policies) to the highest (the sealing power, ordinances, and the delegation of keys). Disagreeing at the lower levels does not mean the prophets are wrong.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Just seemed like you were very close to what happened.

Mostly just paid attention to what she posted online, said in interviews or podcasts and a few reports of what she said at conferences that were posted online, some of which is by people who knew her offline. She was posting on LDS Freedom Forums early on and there were people there who fact-checked her claims in extensive detail, both there and elsewhere. There are a couple of threads on the board where we discuss her and I and others may offer recaps of her comments. Plus there has been additional discussion since the Daybell murders became public and she forced herself back into public view with that, first in proclaiming their innocence and having a vision of the children being alive and well and later reversing course when evidence piled up and even accusing Daybell of molesting her.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Mostly just paid attention to what she posted online, said in interviews or podcasts and a few reports of what she said at conferences that were posted online, some of which is by people who knew her offline. She was posting on LDS Freedom Forums early on and there were people there who fact-checked her claims in extensive detail, both there and elsewhere. There are a couple of threads on the board where we discuss her and I and others may offer recaps of her comments. Plus there has been additional discussion since the Daybell murders became public and she forced herself back into public view with that, first in proclaiming their innocence and having a vision of the children being alive and well and later reversing course when evidence piled up and even accusing Daybell of molesting her.

I had forgotten that she claimed the children were alive.  She would be doing a lot better mentally if she didn't have so many people enabling her.

[the narrator]

On 2/16/2022 at 4:59 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

An infantilized priesthood?

Ha. Fair enough.

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

My thoughts on the priesthood ban.  God gave all the revelation to Joseph Smith necessary to make the right decisions on this issue.  God gave the priesthood leaders at the time His spirit to guide them as well as every prophet through Pres. Kimball.  Having given that, God then steps back and lets leaders govern the Church without divine intervention.  From Brigham Young through Spencer Kimball, leaders allowed their own beliefs to override revelation and the Spirit.  By President Kimball's time, issues around the ban had become so difficult and problematic that finally a leader humbled himself enough to overcome his personal beliefs and see what God had intended all along.  Those who held the mistaken belief on the ban will have to work through that and repent for it.  Those damaged by the ban will receive mercy from God that will make up for the damage.  That is the purpose of the atonement, to heal us from sins we have committed and heal us from the damage we unfairly suffered in life.

To me the true measure of the truthfulness of a doctrine or belief is the affect it has on all people subject to it.   Truth brings happiness and peace to our lives.  Truth never hurts or damages our self image.  Truth doesn't create contention among honest people trying to follow God.  Truth only increases love for God and for each other.  Truth would never make someone feel like God doesn't love them as much as someone else.  That is why the ban, teachings on women's current role in the Church and teachings on how LGTBQ+ members should live their lives can't be true.  Our leaders need to humble themselves just like President Kimball did and find the truth.

It appears then, that the crux of the matter is humility, which puts the members on a par with those who exercise the keys of the kingdom. I think this is as it should be, given common consent. Who needs to be humbler: the members, the prophets, the offended, or the accusers? Trick question: we each need to be humbler than we are today. So, when we speak of the Prophet’s spirituality and humility, we need to speak of every one of us that is involved with building Zion.

Truth does create contention (sorry) as we see in many scriptural stories. Humility does not create contentious feelings within oneself, though it may provoke a contentious reaction from the proud, as we see in Jesus’ life. “Truth” is often used as a rhetorical label to justify a rational position someone is proud of.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I had forgotten that she claimed the children were alive.  She would be doing a lot better mentally if she didn't have so many people enabling her.

Nancy Grace using her as a prop is disgusting to me. Rowe was complaining on how none of the news outlets were returning her calls after she shared she had inside knowledge for them, iirc. Pity Grace couldn’t stop herself from biting. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Have it in a box waiting to be donated to FAIR for auctioning as part of my effort to downsize my library.  I may go dig it out for you if you are really interested. It has been eons since I read it.  It was not a pleasant experience. 

I can dig mine out Calm, thanks for offering though. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, mtomm said:

Oh, man, my dad had the book and I never took the chance to read or ever ask him about it. I wish I taken that opportunity.   He carried a copy of Mormon Doctrine with his scriptures to church every week. My dad was a liberal member of the Church and liked to push boundaries (in a very muted sort of way.) I really wish I would have attended his lessons in the High Priest class. Would love to know his thoughts now. Too bad we don't figure that out until it is too late. 

I wish I could ask my dad questions as well, but it's too late as well.  

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I can dig mine out Calm, thanks for offering though. 

Excellent. Reeve’s book is enough for me today.  And I did find Stewart’s book right on top, but the opening pages are depressing in his certainty, not that interested in posting his arguments. I have to find out when he died and if he had a chance to change his views and if he did. 
 

added:  looks like he had a book published in 1978 and a paperback in 1999 (though could be reissue), so likely alive

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/eternal-gift/2387563/#edition=36834631&idiq=44101880

Died 2014…no mention of his most famous work, shocker that!  

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/hjnews/name/john-stewart-obituary?id=22935350

The book itself is online. 
 

Not finding anything but a fond and gentle tribute to him by an ex Mormon grandson. Says he had a stroke in his later years and lost a lot of memory, so the grandson never got the chance to discuss the book with him.  Can’t find anything else relevant. 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Calm

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I largely agree with @bluebell's statement here. It keeps the integrity of Mormon prophets intact, and doesn't boil such an important things down to "they were just a product of their times, they are fallible men, it's unreasonable to think that God could/would make His will known about something this important until 140 years later," etc. Whenever there are knotty problems, the apologetic default setting is "fallibility" (cf. gospel topics essays), at the expense of daring to teach and believe that Mormon prophets can stand the test of time. This puts Mormonism and her prophets at odds with social currents and trends, and that makes some people uncomfortable. 

So, to boil this down, you'd rather God instituted a racist practice and not a bunch of 19th and 20th century white guys? That passes the smell test to you?

Edited February 19, 2022 by ttribe

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, to boil this down, you'd rather God instituted a racist practice and not a bunch of 19th and 20th century white guys? That passes the smell test to you?

I don't believe it was racist. I get that you and others do. 

For those who believe in a pre-existence, there are a lot of inequities, the least of which is race. Writing this off as racism doesn't really allow us to put the problem behind us; it is just the tip of the iceberg, and we have the problem of evil and the vast disparity in "my turn on earth" that all of God's children face. Racial heritage is a factor, but there are many others, and I don't think it's one of the bigger ones. 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

 least of which is race.

Seriously?

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't believe it was racist. I get that you and others do. 

For those who believe in a pre-existence, there are a lot of inequities, the least of which is race. Writing this off as racism doesn't really allow us to put the problem behind us; it is just the tip of the iceberg, and we have the problem of evil and the vast disparity in "my turn on earth" that all of God's children face. Racial heritage is a factor, but there are many others, and I don't think it's one of the bigger ones. 

This does not help your argument. Race as “inequity” seems to project something on God. 

[ttribe]

37 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't believe it was racist. I get that you and others do. 

For those who believe in a pre-existence, there are a lot of inequities, the least of which is race. Writing this off as racism doesn't really allow us to put the problem behind us; it is just the tip of the iceberg, and we have the problem of evil and the vast disparity in "my turn on earth" that all of God's children face. Racial heritage is a factor, but there are many others, and I don't think it's one of the bigger ones. 

Wow. That's...disgusting.