Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Patrick Mason on Mormon Stories


Recommended Posts

On 10/3/2022 at 12:43 PM, CV75 said:

He says he observed, studied, and could not feel the truth of reasons for the ban then given. He learned that the Lord rarely gives reasons -- and from this I infer that he concluded the reasons given were human rationale. He learned that the Lord gives commandments and directions to his servants – and from this I infer that believed the ban was commanded or directed. Integrating these two inferences, it seems he determined to be loyal to these fallible servants and a God who rarely explains, and not leverage his empathy and longing for others, or his harbored questions, into criticism of either.

In the absence of clarifications from Pres. Oaks himself, I think your inferences of what Pres. Oaks believed and chose are probably correct. My main observation is that these beliefs and choices seem to lead towards conservatism -- which may or may not be the same as Eternal Truth.

He concluded that God Himself never gave reasons, so the reasons given were human rationale -- but God never seemed willing or able to correct His prophets and apostles and people in their false tradition (though @Bernard Gui didn't seem to like calling these reasons false traditions). If we're not careful, this seems like part of the recipe for blind obedience. For me, the real problem is what the priesthood and temple ban says about the broader nature of prophets, scripture, and revelation. Why would God allow prophets and apostles to teach and perpetuate false ideas, if He truly didn't want any reason given for the policy? What are the implications for other policies and the reasons we claim for those policies?

He believed that the ban was commanded or directed by God -- I believe many of us (including our leaders) start with the assumption that the priesthood and temple ban was commanded/directed by God. By Pres. McKay's time, at least, God seemed unable/unwilling to change the policy or allow the policy to be changed for another decade or two. I notice that Mason does not share this assumption. I also notice that Mason claims to have been told that he will not be treated as apostate (or be given other membership restrictions) for publicly teaching this assumption. This assumption (that whatever policies the church has currently implemented must be directed by God) in particular seems to push towards conservatism.

His choice to be loyal without leveraging his concerns into criticism -- As I note, his choice to be loyal and without criticism seems to have led him to be completely silent about his questions and concerns. I observe that Mason seems to think it is possible to publicly express his own, more progressive, views, questions, and concerns without necessarily leading to disloyal criticism. As @Teancum's observations seem to show, we are not always comfortable with these kinds of disagreements in the church. Grassroots silence seems to also be a nod towards a quest for conservatism over a quest for Eternal Truth.

So, while I think you are right about Pres. Oaks's inferences about the ban, I'm not sure his approach to this difficult issue is fully representative of how God wants us to pursue our quest for truth. But, it also seems to be the preferred approach for the church as a whole, so we sometimes seem to get stuck pursuing false traditions rather than Truth.

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In the absence of clarifications from Pres. Oaks himself, I think your inferences of what Pres. Oaks believed and chose are probably correct. My main observation is that these beliefs and choices seem to lead towards conservatism -- which may or may not be the same as Eternal Truth.

He concluded that God Himself never gave reasons, so the reasons given were human rationale -- but God never seemed willing or able to correct His prophets and apostles and people in their false tradition (though @Bernard Gui didn't seem to like calling these reasons false traditions). If we're not careful, this seems like part of the recipe for blind obedience. For me, the real problem is what the priesthood and temple ban says about the broader nature of prophets, scripture, and revelation. Why would God allow prophets and apostles to teach and perpetuate false ideas, if He truly didn't want any reason given for the policy? What are the implications for other policies and the reasons we claim for those policies?

He believed that the ban was commanded or directed by God -- I believe many of us (including our leaders) start with the assumption that the priesthood and temple ban was commanded/directed by God. By Pres. McKay's time, at least, God seemed unable/unwilling to change the policy or allow the policy to be changed for another decade or two. I notice that Mason does not share this assumption. I also notice that Mason claims to have been told that he will not be treated as apostate (or be given other membership restrictions) for publicly teaching this assumption. This assumption (that whatever policies the church has currently implemented must be directed by God) in particular seems to push towards conservatism.

His choice to be loyal without leveraging his concerns into criticism -- As I note, his choice to be loyal and without criticism seems to have led him to be completely silent about his questions and concerns. I observe that Mason seems to think it is possible to publicly express his own, more progressive, views, questions, and concerns without necessarily leading to disloyal criticism. As @Teancum's observations seem to show, we are not always comfortable with these kinds of disagreements in the church. Grassroots silence seems to also be a nod towards a quest for conservatism over a quest for Eternal Truth.

So, while I think you are right about Pres. Oaks's inferences about the ban, I'm not sure his approach to this difficult issue is fully representative of how God wants us to pursue our quest for truth. But, it also seems to be the preferred approach for the church as a whole, so we sometimes seem to get stuck pursuing false traditions rather than Truth.

That is often the stumbling block: identifying what is Eternal Truth and what is the same as Eternal Truth. I think that quest is a lost cause (short-term) and tend to look at the elements of my discipleship, including my own good-faith understanding, as “true enough” for now – holding more certitude in some points more than others – and leading me in the right direction. That way, my innate conservatism and liberalism, depending on the topic, are tempered. I can still strive for the more neutral qualities described in Mosiah 3:19 (“…as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father…”) and elsewhere.

For example, I am less conservative than Elder Oaks, because despite my belief that the scriptures didn’t support some of the notions put forth explaining the ban, and that all Black members would receive priesthood ordinations and temple blessings, I found my way by complying with the principles in Mosiah 3:19 rather than maintaining loyalty to the brethren. No matter how Elder Oaks or I or anyone else approached this, everyone involved and impacted, in the long run, enjoy the fruits of our discipleship having been “true enough.” I think this is why Blacks joined the Church before 1978, not because they were conservative or liberal in their approach to finding Eternal Truth.

Applying this to the broader nature of prophets, scripture, and revelation, God allows prophets and apostles to teach and perpetuate retrospectively identified false ideas as a consequence of their fallibility because, as with earthly fathers, there is a time, place and priority, and economy, for correction (line upon line, etc.). The implication, for me, for other policies is that the Lord will lead His servants and saints along in the right direction. Hopefully we share our reasons for policy in good faith and the spirit of Mosiah 3:19, avoiding the spirit of contention. This includes not framing the conversation in terms of “conservatism” or “liberalism” being inherently right or wrong ideologies or approaches to truth-finding. God works with anyone who is willing. There is a grassroots movement for Mosiah 3:19 also, you know! Which grassroots movement is "more true"?

Occasionally I have an opportunity to have an in-depth discussion with someone about whether or not he Church in general, or members in general – anybody but themselves – are stuck pursuing false traditions by not heeding how God wants us to pursue Eternal Truth. The conversations usually get back to paragraph one of this post :) .

If someone feels they are square in their relationship with the Lord, I take that as the best they can do, and these conversations about “How We Hear Him” flow from that.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think pretty much everyone does that to one extent or another

To one extent or another is pretty broad.  And I don't think everyone does.  But extent is important.  Thinking one cannot or can drink hot chocalate and be ok with the WoW is a lot different than believing BY sinned for the race issue or plural marriage was a sin and D&C 132 is not binding scripture.

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

, including critics.

How do you think critics create their own unorthodox Mormonism?  In my personal experience many disaffected critics believed what the Church taught whole heartedly and struggled to come to grips with less orthodox views in order to maintain a testimony. I would include myself to some extent in that camp.

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure if this is a question of honesty.  Reasonable people can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things, and still be generally "honest."  The issue is, I think, less about "honesty" and more about presuppositions one brings with them and uses them as the "lens" through which the evidence is viewed.

Ok maybe a poor choice of words. You provided some comments below but really did not get into what  I was looking for. What I was really interested in is whether some of the solid believers here, and I include you in that camp, think Mason's views are acceptable to be considered an active orthodox Latter day-Saint.  Were I an active believer I would struggle with some of them.  And a disaffected member I would have liked to make some of them work for me but personally got to the point where I felt like I could not. As I have noted before I was not comfortable bringing up issues I had problems with. I cannot imagine a Sunday School discussion on JS being wrong on plural marriage or putting much of his own thoughts and ideas into the BoM or the BoM not being literal meaning the people written about were real people and so on. At least in my ward and stake I don't think such discussions would be welcome.

 

You seem to think much of what he says is old news but you do take exception with others. Overall is Mason orthodox enough?  Can one hold some of the view he talks about that you were critical of and be a member in good standing?

 

 

 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

1. General authorities know what Mason does. (1:29)

 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  Some of them, I suspect, know more than "what Mason does."

2. Mason says that banning Blacks from the priesthood was a sin on Brigham Young’s part. (1:3
Too conclusory, I think.  I think we can say that there is no known revelatory provenance for the priesthood restriction.  Nothing in the records of the Church.  Mason, though, goes beyond that and labels it as a "sin."
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Unnamed high-ranking general authority tells Mason that Mason will not be stopped from giving firesides declaring that banning Blacks was a sin. (1:31)
 
I tend to be a bit skeptical about quotes from anonymous "high-ranking general authorit{ies}."  That said, I don't see this as particularly noteworthy.  I also think that Mason is seen as someone who is trying to grapple with the history of the Church honestly.  I think it is kinda weird for a historian to declare this or that a "sin," particularly where there is no stewardship in view.
 
4. Deseret Book published Mason’s book “Planted” in which Mason says that Brigham Young sinned with the priesthood ban. (1:33)
 
I would like to see the precise quote in the book.
 
5. Mason says that the Church should apologize (for racism, sexism, etcetera). (1:44)
 
Plenty of people think that.  Plenty of people think otherwise, and plenty of others don't care one way or another.  I think Mason, being an academic, is perhaps influenced by prevailing social/academic trends, a big one of which is the imputation of collective guilt, and the concomitant call for collective apologies.
 
6. Mason says that members should be allowed to criticize the leaders (though it shouldn’t be personal and should be done with a spirit of love and by giving the benefit of the doubt). (1:51)
 
The devil is in the details here.  I think the best approach was laid out by Pres. Oaks in his 1987 article, "Criticism."  To the extent Mason varies from Pres. Oaks, I'll go with the latter.  
 
7. Mason says that Elder Holland was wrong to give his talk at BYU encouraging faculty to take up metaphysical muskets to defend the Church. (1:54)
 
Meh.  I think the histrionics about this were way overdone, to the point of absurdity.  Including on this very board (see, e.g., herehere, here, here).
 
5ksvpg.jpg
 
8. Mason says that the work of addressing difficult specific problems in Church doctrine and history has not been sufficient. (2:03)
 
Pretty subjective, this.  And conclusory.  In contrast, consider these remarks by Richard L. Bushman:
 

And here:

And here (someone responding to John Dehlin's characterization of Bushman) :

Of the two, I think Bushman's assessment is more substantive and accurate.

9. Mason says that the first nine chapters of Genesis are not literal history. He points to fact that Brigham Young thought Genesis contained “baby stories.” (2:12)
 
Nothing new here.  From our own Robert F. Smith:
 

I suspect Mason is not asserting that the entirety of the text is ahistorical / fictional.

10. Mason says that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith treat Genesis as literal. [For example, the Book of Mormon mentions allegedly literal people who allegedly migrated to America from the Tower of Babel.] Either Joseph Smith or Nephite prophets assumed literalness incorrectly or they were writing metaphorically. (2:15)
 
So he disputes the historicity of the Tower of Babel altogether?  I've never been comfortable with absolutist, it's-either-all-one-or-the-other approaches to questions of historicity in ancient writings.
 
11. Mason is comfortable with the idea that Joseph Smith at least partially created the Book of Mormon from his own mind, even though Mason cannot say which parts of the Book of Mormon are from Joseph Smith’s mind and which are not. (2:18)
 
Not surprising.  The "Inspired Fiction" theorists seldom follow their own reasoning to its logical conclusions.
 
12. Mason says that there are lots of “19th-century-isms” in the Book of Mormon. (2:25)
 
Nothing new here.
 
13. The 19th century influences of the Book of Mormon causes Mason to accept the idea that Joseph Smith was an active participant in the creation of the Book of Mormon, either consciously or subconsciously. (2:26)
 
Nothing new here.
 
14. Mason says that Joseph was not translating. The Book of Mormon was a product of revelation. (2:27)
 
I think Mason is being a wee bit obtuse here.  He is equivocating, as "translate" can have a variety of meanings.  See, e.g., here:
 

Here:

Here:

Here:

15. Mason thinks that God is doing a work through people who don’t understand their role in that work, so Joseph Smith could easily think that he was translating, when he wasn’t. (2:28)

More equivocation.  I think Mason is using "translate" in an overly restrictive way.

16. Mason thinks that scripture has errors and contradictions. The Book of Abraham isn’t a one-to-one correspondence with an ancient text. (2:30)
 
Nothing new here.
 
17. Mason says that the jury is out whether the Book of Mormon is history and whether the characters in the Book of Mormon were historical people. But Mason talks like they were historical characters in the same way that you talk about any fictional character doing or saying things. (2:32)
 
Nothing new here.
 
18. Mason does not like polygamy. (2:34)
 
Nothing new here.
 
19. Mason does not think that he has to believe in polygamy because he thinks that scripture, including D&C 132, can be in error. (2:35)
 
This one seems a bit hard to swallow.
 
20. Mason hopes that he would have rejected any advance Joseph Smith made to marry his twelve-year-old daughter. He doesn’t want to call any of Joseph’s behavior in regard to polygamy sacred. (2:41)
 
Nothing new here.
 
21. Mason doesn’t “want to put lip stick on a pig” in regard to Joseph’s polygamy. (2:42)
 
Nothing new here.
 
22. A lot of Joseph’s polygamy looks like sin to Mason. But Mason still believes the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. God can work through morally revolting people. (2:44)
 
I don't think Joseph was a "morally revolting" person.
 
23. Mason believes that Mother Theresa was closer in moral living to Jesus that Joseph Smith was. But Mason thinks that Joseph was a prophet because God “mysteriously and inextricably” revealed truths to him. Being a moral exemplar is not required to be a prophet. (2:45)
 
Yeesh.  Mason is not impressing here.  There are all sorts of criticisms leveled against Mother Theresa.  That he is idealizing her as a juxtaposition to the "morally revolting" Joseph Smith makes him (Mason) look like a pretty facile and populist thinker.
 
24. Mason thinks that while the Church heals some people it also hurts people, and he wants the Church to be better. Mason thinks that God works through the LDS Church, but not only through the LDS Church. (2:56)
 
Nothing new here.
 
25. Sniffling and wiping tears from his eyes, Mason says that he is so sad that the Church has hurt people. (2:57)
 
Nothing new here.
 
26. Still sniffling, Mason says that sometimes the Church goes backwards. (2:58)
 
Nothing new here.
 
27. Mason says, “We can’t even see Zion yet. It’s not even on the horizon. We have a long way to go.” (2:59)
 
Oh, I don't know that we're all that bad.
 
28. Mason says that Christ is not a capitalist. (3:01)
 
Are the Latter-day Saints saying that He is?  "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36.
 
29. Mason says that it’s time to put the Church’s wealth to use helping people. (3:02)
 
Per Pres. Oaks' remarks a few days ago
 

Did Mason mean "it's time to put more of the Church's wealth to use helping people"?  Or is he doing a bit of populist pandering here?

30. Mason hopes that there is pressure on the Church to do more with its wealth. (3:03)
 
More populism.  Meh.
 
31. Mason says that the Church should have a policy of reporting sexual predators when it is legal to do so. (3:05)
 
More populism.  I don't think he has given this one much thought.
 
32. Mason says that Mormon scripture has racist passages, and that God doesn’t inspire racism. (3:12)
 
Nothing new here.
 
33. Mason rejects all scripture and all prophetic teachings that conflict with the life of Jesus. (3:14)
 
Weird.  And populist.  And pandering.
 
34. Mason says that prophets don’t have a good track record of foretelling the future, but that’s ok because the main jobs of a prophet are to show God’s fundamental relationship with the world, call people to repentance, and witness the name of Jesus. (3:15)
 
Populist.  And pandering.
 
35. Mason says that racism in the Church is a failure of prophetic witness. (3:17)
 
Not sure what this means.
 
36. Mason says that the Church needs to figure out its theology of gender and sexuality. (3:19)
 
Populist.  And pandering.
 
37. Mason says that the Church needs to figure out what it means to have a prophet, and what the role of a prophet is. (3:20)

Meh.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
On 10/3/2022 at 1:02 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

All of them?  I don't know that President David O. McKay was "oblivious," and I doubt President Spencer W. Kimball was, otherwise we wouldn't have OD-2.

Well not one of them acted on the priesthood ban and didn't really say much about it until David O, McKay.  Do you know what prompted President McKay to consider a change? One was Hugh B Brown.  The other was interest from people in Nigeria and South Africa concerns about race and bloodline.  And sure President Kimball made the change.  But if it was a mistake it sure took a long time to fix it.

Link to comment

Posted 3 hours ago

I should add that I am also relatively more conservative than Elder Oaks on this issue because, in 1978 he was old enough to be my father, and yet I, a college student chose to sustain the Church policies and ordinances in place as a matter of principle and not as a prayerful conclusion about remaining loyal to the brethren. And maybe to him, we are saying the same thing! Liberalism might also call for putting loyalty to the group first.

Also, I think holding to Mosiah 3:19 is about as conservative as one can get in terms of adopting the approach of relying on the Holy Spirit and the basic covenants of a saint, given how ancient these concepts are.

And liberal institutions need to preserve their fundamental platform to survive -- does this indicate that they are basically conservative (as @MrShorty put it, small "c" meaning prefers old traditions over new changes) and using a tried-and-true approach to hold fast to principle and peers?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

To one extent or another is pretty broad.  And I don't think everyone does.  But extent is important.  Thinking one cannot or can drink hot chocalate and be ok with the WoW is a lot different than believing BY sinned for the race issue or plural marriage was a sin and D&C 132 is not binding scripture.

I will grant that.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:
Quote

Patrick has molded Mormonism in many ways to is own personal views in order to make it work for him. 

How do you think critics create their own unorthodox Mormonism? 

Sort of what Patrick Mason has done, except that some critics "mold" the Church in order to make it not work for them.  Hence we get references to "TSCC" ("The So-Called Church"), "follow the profit," and so on.  Some members of the Church characterize the Church as being utterly pristine and inerrant, whereas some critics characterize it as being bad or corrupt or terrible, even evil. 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

In my personal experience many disaffected critics believed what the Church taught whole heartedly and struggled to come to grips with less orthodox views in order to maintain a testimony. I would include myself to some extent in that camp.

I can respect and appreciate that.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Ok maybe a poor choice of words. You provided some comments below but really did not get into what  I was looking for. What I was really interested in is whether some of the solid believers here, and I include you in that camp, think Mason's views are acceptable to be considered an active orthodox Latter day-Saint. 

Just having reviewed the summary, he does seem to have a few eyebrow-raising things to say.  And I think him saying such things in a fireside could be problematic.  But I don't know him, nor have I interacted with him, nor do I have any stewardship over him, so I feel no particular inclination to adjudicate whether or not he is sufficiently "acceptable" or "orthodox."  I tend to pay more attention to what I suppose could be called orthopraxy, which in my view is a mixture of right motives and right conduct.  I think someone who is earnestly seeking to do what is right may nevertheless err here and there in his understanding of this or that point of doctrine.  As Joseph Smith put it: "It [doesn't] prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine."

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Were I an active believer I would struggle with some of them. 

Same here.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And a disaffected member I would have liked to make some of them work for me but personally got to the point where I felt like I could not.

I can appreciate that.  The scriptures tell us a few different times that the Spirit will not always "strive with man":

  • "For the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man. And when the Spirit ceaseth to strive with man then cometh speedy destruction, and this grieveth my soul." (2 Nephi 26:11.)
  • "And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man."  (Genesis 6:3.)
  • "And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts."  (D&C 1:33.)
  • "And the brother of Jared repented of the evil which he had done, and did call upon the name of the Lord for his brethren who were with him. And the Lord said unto him: I will forgive thee and thy brethren of their sins; but thou shalt not sin any more, for ye shall remember that my Spirit will not always strive with man; wherefore, if ye will sin until ye are fully ripe ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord."  (Ether 2:15.)

Elder Oaks spoke along similar lines in his 1987 article, Criticism:

Quote

We are given these commandments for a reason. The Apostle Paul advised the Saints to “grieve not the holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30) by evil speaking. Of faultfinders, President Brigham Young said, “The Spirit of God has no place in [such] persons.” (Journal of Discourses, 8:13.) The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize.
...
The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. The Savior taught: “The spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, [who] stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” (
3 Ne. 11:29.) Paul taught the Romans: “Mark them which cause divisions … and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17.)  In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that “Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,” and declared that “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:25, 27.)
...
Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (
1 Tim. 5:1.)

Church leaders need this consideration, since the responsibilities of Church leadership include the correction of others. That function is not popular. As the Lamanite prophet Samuel taught, when a prophet comes among us and speaks of our iniquities, we are made angry. We call him a false prophet and “cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him.” (See Hel. 13:26.) But if a man comes among us and speaks flattering words about our behavior and tells us that it is all right to “walk after the pride of [our] own hearts … and do whatsoever [our] heart desire[s],” “we will not find fault with him.” (See Hel. 13:27, 28.) We will call him a prophet and reward him.

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

I am reticent to publicly disparage or find fault with the Brethren because A) we have been counseled not to do this, B) we have alternative means of addressing concerns/disagreements, C) I highly value the concept of stewardship, such that it is generally not my place to publicly correct the leaders of the Church, D) there are plenty of other people who are all too willing to step up and adopt the role of condemnatory faultfinder, and E) I constrain myself for my own sake.  

As to this last point, I think of folks like Sam Young, Bill Reel, Kate Kelly, Denver Snuffer, and then people of my acquaintance who - like these others - publicly disparage the leaders of the Church even without much of a soapbox.  Not all critics do this, but there are, in my estimation, very few faithful and observant Latter-day Saints who can maintain those devotions while also publicly disparaging and finding fault with the leaders of the Church.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

As I have noted before I was not comfortable bringing up issues I had problems with. I cannot imagine a Sunday School discussion on JS being wrong on plural marriage or putting much of his own thoughts and ideas into the BoM or the BoM not being literal meaning the people written about were real people and so on.

Nor would I.  I don't think Sunday School is the appropriate venue for hashing out such concerns.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

At least in my ward and stake I don't think such discussions would be welcome.

But there are other contexts in which such concerns can and ought to be aired and discussed.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You seem to think much of what he says is old news but you do take exception with others. Overall is Mason orthodox enough? 

Again, I don't know him, nor have I interacted with him, nor do I have any stewardship over him, so I am not situated to "judge" him.  And if I were, I would not do so publicly.  See Pres. Oaks' "Criticism" article above, which lays out better ways to address such things.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Can one hold some of the view he talks about that you were critical of and be a member in good standing?

Seems like it.  I am not his bishop, so I have no particular say as to his standing in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 10/5/2022 at 11:14 AM, CV75 said:

If someone feels they are square in their relationship with the Lord, I take that as the best they can do, and these conversations about “How We Hear Him” flow from that.

In many ways, I like your expression of the problem. As @Teancum responded to me when talking about Elder Renlund's quote from this conference ("Third, personal revelation will be in harmony with the commandments of God and covenants made with Him. “When we ask for revelation about something God has already given clear direction, we open ourselves up to misinterpreting our feelings and hearing what we want to hear.” ), how do you feel your view squares with Elder Renlund's suggestion that any personal revelation must be in agreement with what the church and its leaders teach? Is there room for disagreement or even outright rejection of individual principles?

Perhaps a different example -- I just started reading Carol Lynn Pearson's Ghost of Eternal Polygamy yesterday. Even as a faithful (my characterization) member of the church and a believer in the prophet Joseph Smith, she seems to outright reject polygamy as any kind of commandment from God or even remotely approved by God. She seems pretty comfortable with her relationship with God, so is she "right" to reject polygamy even though prophets throughout this dispensation (and in the OT) accepted the practice as something from God or at least approved by God?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

In many ways, I like your expression of the problem. As @Teancum responded to me when talking about Elder Renlund's quote from this conference ("Third, personal revelation will be in harmony with the commandments of God and covenants made with Him. “When we ask for revelation about something God has already given clear direction, we open ourselves up to misinterpreting our feelings and hearing what we want to hear.” ), how do you feel your view squares with Elder Renlund's suggestion that any personal revelation must be in agreement with what the church and its leaders teach? Is there room for disagreement or even outright rejection of individual principles?

Perhaps a different example -- I just started reading Carol Lynn Pearson's Ghost of Eternal Polygamy yesterday. Even as a faithful (my characterization) member of the church and a believer in the prophet Joseph Smith, she seems to outright reject polygamy as any kind of commandment from God or even remotely approved by God. She seems pretty comfortable with her relationship with God, so is she "right" to reject polygamy even though prophets throughout this dispensation (and in the OT) accepted the practice as something from God or at least approved by God?

I think my view squares. Given that Elder Renlund is offering a framework for personal revelation, the direction, commandments and covenants refer to those we’ve personally received and made in our lives. This framework, because it is personal, allows for a seeming exception to a general rule (he offered the Nephi/Laban example), so I’m not seeing an absolute imperative that “any personal revelation must be in agreement with what the church and its leaders teach.”

I take Carol Lynn Pearson to be doing the best she can do, both in matters of personal discipleship and in assessing points of fact and alleged fact. I doubt very much that she has been offered polygamous commandments or covenants by the Church or her leaders, so I cannot comment on whether or how her thought/revelatory process fit into Elder Renlund’s framework.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, CV75 said:

Posted 3 hours ago

I should add that I am also relatively more conservative than Elder Oaks on this issue because, in 1978 he was old enough to be my father, and yet I, a college student chose to sustain the Church policies and ordinances in place as a matter of principle and not as a prayerful conclusion about remaining loyal to the brethren.

I am not sure I follow.  When are we asked to sustain "policies and ordinances"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

In many ways, I like your expression of the problem. As @Teancum responded to me when talking about Elder Renlund's quote from this conference ("Third, personal revelation will be in harmony with the commandments of God and covenants made with Him. “When we ask for revelation about something God has already given clear direction, we open ourselves up to misinterpreting our feelings and hearing what we want to hear.” ), how do you feel your view squares with Elder Renlund's suggestion that any personal revelation must be in agreement with what the church and its leaders teach? Is there room for disagreement or even outright rejection of individual principles?

Perhaps a different example -- I just started reading Carol Lynn Pearson's Ghost of Eternal Polygamy yesterday. Even as a faithful (my characterization) member of the church and a believer in the prophet Joseph Smith, she seems to outright reject polygamy as any kind of commandment from God or even remotely approved by God. She seems pretty comfortable with her relationship with God, so is she "right" to reject polygamy even though prophets throughout this dispensation (and in the OT) accepted the practice as something from God or at least approved by God?

One MUST ALWAYS follow one's conscience, or might end up following a mad prophet who demands crazy stuff like mass suicide.

I joined the church in 1979, a year after Black men were permitted to have the priesthood, and would not have joined, if the prohibition was still in effect 

Blind faith is not part of the Lord's plan, justifiable obedience is.  It was Satan's plan to enforce blind, robotic "obedience",  not the Lord's.

And so we have the "fortunate fall" where ostensible disobedience was actually built into the covenant path, precisely, in my opinion, as an example for these situations 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure I follow.  When are we asked to sustain "policies and ordinances"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Very rarely are we asked to sustain policy proposals, and more often to sustain ordinance proposals (ordination of elders in stake conference, for example).

As a college student in 1978 (graduated in May), I chose to sustain the Church policies and ordinances in place concerning Black members as a matter of principle, not as an action of raising my hand. I did not think of it in terms of sustaining or remaining loyal to the brethren, though I was that, too -- both in principle and by raising my hand. I consider this to be a more personally fundamental approach to the issue and therefore more conservative (in the way the term is used in this series of exchanges) than what I understood Elder Oaks to say about his experience. If anyone wishes to view my attitude/approach as more liberal, fine; it was 44 years ago, and I was a new convert!

I think of my discipleship more in terms of Mosiah 3:19 than in raising my hand, though I do raise my hand in the spirit of Mosiah 3:19.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Very rarely are we asked to sustain policy proposals, and more often to sustain ordinance proposals (ordination of elders in stake conference, for example).

Okay.  That seems to pertain less to the ordinance (to an office in the priesthood) and more to the individual being referenced.  The typical language used is something like "It is proposed that Bro. John Smith be ordained to the office of High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood.  All those in favor of this proposal..."

I have an acquaintance who knew some things about a man in her ward.  When his name was presented for a calling, she raised her hand in opposition.  She later spoke with the bishop, disclosed what she knew, and the calling ended up not being extended to the man.  Her objection was not about the ordinance (of being set apart for a calling, I suppose), but about the man.

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As a college student in 1978 (graduated in May), I chose to sustain the Church policies and ordinances in place concerning Black members as a matter of principle, not as an action of raising my hand.

I guess I still don't understand.  Were you asked to give a sustaining vote regarding "the Church policies and ordinances in place concerning Black members"? 

Or are you referring to the sustaining vote on September 30, 1978 as pertaining to Official Declaration-2?

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I did not think of it in terms of sustaining or remaining loyal to the brethren, though I was that, too -- both in principle and by raising my hand. I consider this to be a more personally fundamental approach to the issue and therefore more conservative (in the way the term is used in this series of exchanges) than what I understood Elder Oaks to say about his experience. If anyone wishes to view my attitude/approach as more liberal, fine; it was 44 years ago, and I was a new convert!

You are referring to this:

Quote

President Oaks' full remarks from the LDS Church's 'Be One' celebration - Church News (thechurchnews.com)

“I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray — as promised from the beginning of these restrictions — that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple.”

He says he observed, studied, and could not feel the truth of reasons for the ban then given. He learned that the Lord rarely gives reasons -- and from this I infer that he concluded the reasons given were human rationale. He learned that the Lord gives commandments and directions to his servants – and from this I infer that believed the ban was commanded or directed. Integrating these two inferences, it seems he determined to be loyal to these fallible servants and a God who rarely explains, and not leverage his empathy and longing for others, or his harbored questions, into criticism of either.

This clarifies things a bit.  For me, a sustaining vote pertains to the individual serving in a calling, as opposed to decisions he or she may make while in that calling.  

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think of my discipleship more in terms of Mosiah 3:19 than in raising my hand, though I do raise my hand in the spirit of Mosiah 3:19.

That helps me understand more.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  That seems to pertain less to the ordinance (to an office in the priesthood) and more to the individual being referenced.  The typical language used is something like "It is proposed that Bro. John Smith be ordained to the office of High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood.  All those in favor of this proposal..."

I have an acquaintance who knew some things about a man in her ward.  When his name was presented for a calling, she raised her hand in opposition.  She later spoke with the bishop, disclosed what she knew, and the calling ended up not being extended to the man.  Her objection was not about the ordinance (of being set apart for a calling, I suppose), but about the man.

I guess I still don't understand.  Were you asked to give a sustaining vote regarding "the Church policies and ordinances in place concerning Black members"? 

Or are you referring to the sustaining vote on September 30, 1978 as pertaining to Official Declaration-2?

You are referring to this:

This clarifies things a bit.  For me, a sustaining vote pertains to the individual serving in a calling, as opposed to decisions he or she may make while in that calling.  

That helps me understand more.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, it is helpful to understand the semantics.

I was not asked to give a sustaining vote / raise my hand regarding "the Church policies and ordinances in place concerning Black members" prior to OD2, but I certainly gave it in the following General Conference procedure. Prior that, I supported the ban in principle as it stood and as I understood it, though I questioned a couple of the scriptural interpretations used to support it--they didn't tie together well (I had a fairly good grasp of the standard works, having read them cover-to-cover several times already). I was a new member and felt it incumbent upon me to learn all I could, so I read Mormon Doctrine cover-to-cover, often reminding myself that there was a disclaimer! I was surprised at the annoyingly strong tone of the book, but I didn't let that bother me.

Link to comment
On 10/6/2022 at 1:13 AM, MrShorty said:

He concluded that God Himself never gave reasons, so the reasons given were human rationale -- but God never seemed willing or able to correct His prophets and apostles and people in their false tradition (though @Bernard Gui didn't seem to like calling these reasons false traditions).

Who has labeled them false traditions?

Link to comment
23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

One MUST ALWAYS follow one's conscience

I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not sure the church and its members are comfortable when someone claims that their conscience leads them to leave the church or enter a same-sex sexual relationship or other scenarios that run counter to what the church officially teaches. Some would claim that Elder Renlund's quote that started this tangent precludes the possibility of receiving those kinds of revelation from God (in other words, such revelations must be coming from an alternate source). I'm inclined to say that, if we believe that one must always follow one's conscience, we need to be better as a church body at tolerating some of the different directions this will lead people.

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Blind faith is not part of the Lord's plan, justifiable obedience is.  It was Satan's plan to enforce blind, robotic "obedience",  not the Lord's.

Again, I am inclined to agree with you, but this also seems to be in contradiction to Pres. Oaks's observation that "the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants."

I am reminded of that saying attributed to Joseph Smith about learning truth by proving contraries (or whatever exactly it was he said). Personal revelation and conscience sometimes in contradiction to institutional claims to truth, and how they bump against each other and constrain each other. Justified obedience in contrast to God rarely giving justifications for His commands. I sometimes think we need more and better practice and working through contrary "truths" to find the real truth underneath.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not sure the church and its members are comfortable when someone claims that their conscience leads them to leave the church or enter a same-sex sexual relationship or other scenarios that run counter to what the church officially teaches. Some would claim that Elder Renlund's quote that started this tangent precludes the possibility of receiving those kinds of revelation from God (in other words, such revelations must be coming from an alternate source). I'm inclined to say that, if we believe that one must always follow one's conscience, we need to be better as a church body at tolerating some of the different directions this will lead people.

Again, I am inclined to agree with you, but this also seems to be in contradiction to Pres. Oaks's observation that "the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants."

I am reminded of that saying attributed to Joseph Smith about learning truth by proving contraries (or whatever exactly it was he said). Personal revelation and conscience sometimes in contradiction to institutional claims to truth, and how they bump against each other and constrain each other. Justified obedience in contrast to God rarely giving justifications for His commands. I sometimes think we need more and better practice and working through contrary "truths" to find the real truth underneath.

So on one hand we are to go by Moroni's promise in 10:4 to receive a testimony to JOIN the church but we cannot receive a testimony to LEAVE?

Nope.

I do not follow any MAN, only my testimonies.

As for "reality" -that can only be "found" by direct experience.  You are tent camping in Yellowstone and hear a growl at your tent door.   THAT is "reality"- the visceral full body experience of true danger.   Or in other situations- what you are feeling etc.

Do the words "We were camping in Yellowstone and heard a bear growl and boy, were we scared!?!" REPRODUCE in the other person what you felt with that growl two feet from your head?

Of course not- words CANNOT "represent" the full experience of anything.   The word "red" doesn't capture the beauty of  sunset- the smell of a rose isn't captured by any verbal description.  Yet only words can be "called" true or false because we cannot reproduce the feeling we had in another person.   The other person CANNOT have OUR experience.

If I have an EXPERIENCE listening to a talk that "This guy is wacky!" ;) I MUST follow the reality.  Moroni says one can find the truth of ALL THINGS through testimony- also James 1.

What you are saying could be said to imply that the explanations of men override the spirit, that both those scriptures are wrong.   No thanks!

We all have our own paths- if I had not been an atheist I would not know today why there IS a God who truly exists.   I NEEDED to go down that path that some may judge as "wrong" yet I would not have accepted the truth of The Christ without throwing it out first and having the direct experience of the vacuum I felt by doing that.

No sir, I will always follow my heart on my journey.

 

 

Link to comment
On 10/5/2022 at 2:14 PM, Teancum said:

Well not one of them acted on the priesthood ban and didn't really say much about it until David O, McKay. 

Your original allegation is that before Spencer W. Kimball, the powers-that-be in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were "oblivious" to the matter, which is not the same as saying that they didn't say much or didn't do much about it.

On 10/5/2022 at 2:14 PM, Teancum said:

Do you know what prompted President McKay to consider a change? One was Hugh B Brown.

I don't have any problem with the council system in place in the Church of Jesus Christ, nor do I have a problem with the prospect that one leader counseling with another might prompt the latter to consider a change.

On 10/5/2022 at 2:14 PM, Teancum said:

  The other was interest from people in Nigeria and South Africa concerns about race and bloodline.  And sure President Kimball made the change. 

I don't have one or more citations handy, but President Kimball is on record that he was willing to do whatever the Lord wanted in the matter, whether that was leaving the ban in place or rescinding it.

On 10/5/2022 at 2:14 PM, Teancum said:

But if it was a mistake it sure took a long time to fix it.

Yes.  That's true.  If it was a mistake.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not sure the church and its members are comfortable when someone claims that their conscience leads them to leave the church or enter a same-sex sexual relationship or other scenarios that run counter to what the church officially teaches. Some would claim that Elder Renlund's quote that started this tangent precludes the possibility of receiving those kinds of revelation from God (in other words, such revelations must be coming from an alternate source). I'm inclined to say that, if we believe that one must always follow one's conscience, we need to be better as a church body at tolerating some of the different directions this will lead people.

Again, I am inclined to agree with you, but this also seems to be in contradiction to Pres. Oaks's observation that "the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants."

I am reminded of that saying attributed to Joseph Smith about learning truth by proving contraries (or whatever exactly it was he said). Personal revelation and conscience sometimes in contradiction to institutional claims to truth, and how they bump against each other and constrain each other. Justified obedience in contrast to God rarely giving justifications for His commands. I sometimes think we need more and better practice and working through contrary "truths" to find the real truth underneath.

Members’ discomfort is their problem, not yours. Elder Renlund acknowledges that people can be deceived, which I don’t consider signifying a level of discomfort with what someone else claims to know; rather, it signifies a level of comfort with what he knows. The “church body” is comfortable with what the general ethos holds as divine knowledge, but I find that discomfort with others’ notions to be more of a variable and an individual phenomenon, often more to do with how they are presented than with content.

President Oaks was not sharing an observation! He was sharing what he learned as a result of sincere prayer and study: He said, “I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.” Acting on this lesson, he “determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray…” Such acting on hard-earned knowledge is not blind obedience. What would create discomfort with that principle?

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Yes.  That's true.  If it was a mistake.

Isn't that pretty much the tone of the Church these days?  We don't know why, all that was said about it was a mistake and the church has repuduated those teachings and so on. Do you think the ban was not a mistake?  That it was the will of God?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...