Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Activism toward the Church; talk by Ahmad S. Corbitt of YM General Presidency


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I just encountered this report of an insightful talk on a topic that deserves more attention, the perils of activism toward (or against) the Church of Jesus Christ. It was delivered by Brother Ahmad S. Corbitt of the Young Men general presidency to a group of Church-endorsed chaplains. 
 

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2022/11/1/23424931/brother-ahmad-s-corbit-activism-discipleship?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cn-social&utm_campaign=facebookpage-en&utm_content=churchnews-en&fbclid=IwAR1jT1UV8G3UnXgZxcy4rb04ozUa-Isaq3jPH_i5kkMrL3Bh_spi1tZ85iI

 

Activism has become so ingrained in our culture over the past two or three generations that some among us have failed to understand when it is inappropriate. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted (edited)

That was, and is, a masterful, much needed, and directly on point address.  All of us would do extremely well to take that counsel to heart.  Not to derail your thread, of course, Scott, but Brother Corbitt's address reminded me of this:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

It's funny ... I could have sworn that I looked for the address I link to above and had an absolute devil of a time :diablo: finding it.  Perhaps, on that occasion, my Google-foo simply failed me, but I remember seeing it discussed on several sites that offer, shall we say, supposed "faithful opposition" critiques of the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders, but not on the Website of the Church of Jesus Christ.  I was prepared to go through the same thing when I looked for it again, but it came right up this time.  I wonder, have the Church's powers-that-be said, in essence, "It's ours: We might as well own it"? :huh: :unknw: 

P.S.: By the way, Brother Corbitt's first name is spelled with two "a's" ... one stickler and wordsmith to another! ;) 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Posted
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That was, and is, a masterful, much needed, and directly on point address.  All of us would do extremely well to take that counsel to heart.  Not to derail your thread, of course, Scott, but Brother Corbitt's address reminded me of this:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

It's funny ... I could have sworn that I looked for the address I link to above and had an absolute devil of a time :diablo: finding it.  Perhaps, on that occasion, my Google-foo simply failed me, but I remember seeing it discussed on several sites that offer, shall we say, supposed "faithful opposition" critiques of the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders, but not on the Website of the Church of Jesus Christ.  I was prepared to go through the same thing when I looked for it again, but it came right up this time.  I wonder, have the Church's powers-that-be said, in essence, "It's ours: We might as well own it"? :huh: :unknw: 

P.S.: By the way, Brother Corbitt's first name is spelled with two "a's" ... one stickler and wordsmith to another! ;) 

Aargh! I had it spelled two different ways, and I corrected the wrong one 🙄 .

Posted (edited)

I really like this guy.  He’s very articulate.  I want to here more talks from him.

I’m really tempted to say, “Take that progmo’s!”  But that would be contrary to what he taught.  

Edited by Rivers
Posted
33 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I really like this guy.  He’s very articulate.  I want to here more talks from him.

I’m really tempted to say, “Take that progmo’s!”  But that would be contrary to what he taught.  

He who hath ears to hear. …

Posted
12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not just “any organization.” 
 

And if Jesus Christ is an “activist” for anything, it’s for His own doctrines and principles as propounded in the church He founded during His mortal ministry and restored in latter days. 
 

Finally, in principle, activism in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing, though it can be. If it opposes God, goodness and truth, it is not. 

You could use that argument to shut down any criticism valid or not, as has been done in LDS church history, blacks and the priesthood being one excellent example.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The church was being criticized previously to the revelation, and that criticism was shut down. While I believe a sincere revelatory experience occurred, I don’t see any historical or even reasonable basis to claim that the original policy was God given, inspired, good, or anything along those lines.

Those criticisms of the policy that happened throughout its duration were valid but were shut down, when a policy that was only hurting people could have been shutdown much earlier.

What “historical basis” do you have to claim that criticism was “shut down” by the Church?

Posted
19 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The church was being criticized previously to the revelation, and that criticism was shut down. While I believe a sincere revelatory experience occurred, I don’t see any historical or even reasonable basis to claim that the original policy was God given, inspired, good, or anything along those lines.

I agree with this.  At the same time, I think the Lord revealed the lifting of the ban on His timetable.

Posted
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with this.  At the same time, I think the Lord revealed the lifting of the ban on His timetable.

I believe that, even now, we cannot without additional revelation fully understand the ban, the reason(s) why it was not lifted earlier, etc. That’s cause enough for me not to form any hardened conclusions about it.
 

Meanwhile we have evidence that beginning with President McKay, if not earlier, prophets were earnestly seeking revelation from God on this matter, revelation that of course was not forthcoming until June 1978. 
 

And getting back to the topic of this thread, I’ll mention that President Kimball indicated in quoted comments subsequent to the announcement of the revelation that he would have been willing and prepared to stand up to opposition from the world if the revealed answer had been that it was not yet time for the change. And that argues against the supposition that it was activist pressure that drove the lifting of the ban. 

Posted (edited)

Thanks for posting this talk. I listened to the full version. He is quite an articulate speaker. I both enjoyed and found just a bit of disappointment in it.

I found it to be similar in many places to a poignant critique of CRT. As I am working on a book on CRT, I could not help but hear point after point that relates directed to the postclassic period of CRT that we are in right now. Every time he said ACT, I could relate it to CRT. It was so clear to me that I could not help wonder if he might also have had CRT shortcomings on his mind as he developed it. His description of that movement and its impact on institutions, especially education was inescapable. If I knew him, I would ask him.

How was it disappointing? I thought from the initial post in the thread that he was also going to speak against activism for, or on behalf of the LDS church by faithful members that leads to criticism of, and condescension against others within the broader community of Christ. But, no that was not to be.  That was in itself disappointing to this faithful non-LDS follower of Christ, but more so were the subtle ways in which he participated in what he was counseling against when discussing non-LDS pastors and leaders about a third of the way through the talk. I heard him dismissing how other churches hire their leaders, insisting that when one lets go of the church (LDS), one loses his or her testimony of Jesus, as if they are one in the same thing. He said that "ATC ignores church leaders' positive features and accomplishments." In the same way it seems to me that he ignored non-LDS church leaders' positive features and accomplishments. He ignored that ATC on the part of any church members of any Christian group towards leaders of another Christian group does harm to the Christian community as a whole. If LDS leaders are prophets for the world, it would be great if they spoke more often about the church-at-large in the world and against its naysayers and critics.

Again, thanks for posting this talk. He is a great speaker. Does he work in the same presidency as Brad Wilcox? What a contrast!

 

Edited by Navidad
removal of poor choice of words.
Posted
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What “historical basis” do you have to claim that criticism was “shut down” by the Church?

Here’s a great example hot off the Wikipedia presses: 

In 1947 the First Presidency, consisting of George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay, in a private communication with Dr. Lowry Nelson,[114] where Dr. Nelson questioned whether "there is no irrevocable church doctrine on this subject [of blacks and the priesthood]" the First Presidency stated:[101]

The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things.

Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-a~vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed. We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does.

Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the preexistence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore.

From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people...

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe that, even now, we cannot without additional revelation fully understand the ban, the reason(s) why it was not lifted earlier, etc. That’s cause enough for me not to form any hardened conclusions about it.
 

Meanwhile we have evidence that beginning with President McKay, if not earlier, prophets were earnestly seeking revelation from God on this matter, revelation that of course was not forthcoming until June 1978. 
 

And getting back to the topic of this thread, I’ll mention that President Kimball indicated in quoted comments subsequent to the announcement of the revelation that he would have been willing and prepared to stand up to opposition from the world if the revealed answer had been that it was not yet time for the change. And that argues against the supposition that it was activist pressure that drove the lifting of the ban. 

There’s the problem. Activist pressure is seen as a negative rather than potential intelligent or inspired thought. What if the church had been more open to activism and criticism throughout its history? For one, the priesthood ban could have been canceled much sooner. Priesthood hierarchy and top down decisions don’t always offer the fastest route to solution nor even the correct answers. Simply put, no one is perfect, and there is no reason to believe that the priesthood hierarchy can operate free of bias of many types.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

There’s the problem. Activist pressure is seen as a negative rather than potential intelligent or inspired thought. What if the church had been more open to activism and criticism throughout its history? For one, the priesthood ban could have been canceled much sooner. Priesthood hierarchy and top down decisions don’t always offer the fastest route to solution nor even the correct answers. Simply put, no one is perfect, and there is no reason to believe that the priesthood hierarchy can operate free of bias of many types.

I notice you say nothing about revelation or the fact that this is the Lord's church and that He leads it.  True that He leads it through imperfect servants, but as the lifting of the priesthood ban show, when He wanted if lifted it was lifted and not before.

Posted
31 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Rather than being the lord’s timetable, I see this as the unfortunate result of an organization to beholden to hierarchy, authority, and tradition. McKay was a nice exception to the rule.

From my perspective, McKay supports my view. He wanted very much to end the practice, and believes that he was strongly told no by the Lord. 

Posted
47 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Here’s a great example hot off the Wikipedia presses: 

In 1947 the First Presidency, consisting of George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay, in a private communication with Dr. Lowry Nelson,[114] where Dr. Nelson questioned whether "there is no irrevocable church doctrine on this subject [of blacks and the priesthood]" the First Presidency stated:[101]

The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things.

Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-a~vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed. We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does.

Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the preexistence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore.

From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people...

 

Nope. A candid response to a letter does not amount to criticism being “shut down.” Dr. Nelson was free to carry forth his criticism in private or in public, even to the point of activism, if it amounted to that. 

Posted

Before we get too far afield, I would caution that this thread was not intended to be yet another tedious rehearsal of arguments pertaining to the priesthood ban. It is about activism targeting the Church of Jesus Christ, particularly as identified and discussed in the linked-to address by Brother Corbitt. 
 

I would ask that comments stay on topic. 

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...