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

[Benjamin McGuire]

17 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It's quite probable that you have forgotten more about formal logic than I ever will know.  However, saying that "None of the[  ] [proffered] explanations [for the Priesthood and Temple ban] is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church] of Jesus Christ" is not the same thing as saying (or, at least it does not follow, automatically) that there was no "revelatory basis for the [P]riesthood ban."

Lack of revelation for proffered explanations is one thing; lack of revelation for the ban itself is another.  (To be clear, I'm not saying that revelatory provenance underlies [or does not underlie] the ban.  I'm saying, simply, that whether revelatory provenance underlies the ban itself is a separate issue from whether revelatory provenance underlies explanations for the ban.)

The reality is that the single most frequent claim made by Church leaders in the first half of the 20th century about the origins of the ban was that it was revealed. The Church here makes the statement (and yes, it is probably intentionally a little bit ambiguous) that this claim itself is not accepted.

However, that is just the Church. Really, anyone with enough time can go through and do the reading about the intersection between the American Christian defense of slavery, the use of the Old Testament as justification for that slavery, Brigham Young's adoption of those arguments, and finally, Brigham Young's claims that there was a revelatory basis for slavery rooted in the Old Testament.

While it is true, that in general practice, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in this case, it isn't merely an absence of evidence. We have pretty clear historical references to what was believed to be the revelatory source. And most of us reject those interpretations of the Old Testament as flawed and racist interpretations used to defend a grossly offensive practice.

[rodheadlee]

On 11/6/2022 at 9:01 AM, Teancum said:

Whose job is it?

The head of the Church, Jesus Christ. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The 60s and early 70s were not good times to make a change. 

To oppose the lifting of the ban required a death sentence?

There is no revelatory that we know of at the present time.

These statements aren't factual, they are merely speculative - and they are speculative in a way that is designed to protect the Church from criticism.

The 60's and 70's were just fine in terms of making this sort of change. I did not say that it was a death sentence - old age takes care of that - but that is the problem. The resistance to this change wasn't so much from the membership as it was from the leadership, and as I noted, all it took for the change to occur was for three already very old men to die. And if we think that there was some bad understandings of even one of those leaders - who could then prevent change from occurring on their own, how does this reflect a positive circumstance? Do we really want our doctrine and policy to be determined by the worst among our leadership? Do we think that one individual should be able to impede positive change? The Church could have been progressive on this issue. They could have contested racist ideas. Instead, they continued to embrace them - and these policies had other real-world complications. Consider that it wasn't until 1978 (and the lifting of the ban) that Utah finally dropped it segregated blood banks (heaven forbid that a white priesthood holder would have a drop of African blood put into his body ....).

With two hundred years of documents and claims, do you really think that we have some hidden cache of revelations that will back up the idea (already rejected by the Church) that there was a revelation that caused the ban?

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When  it was successfully sustained, some who had disagreed but were still alive (perhaps they got the message😬) turned to be supporters because it was a revelation. The fact that was a revelation brought them into unanimity. I believe the same thing would have happened with President McKay.

Perhaps there were apostles who were ordained after 1969 who disagreed with lifting the ban but agreed in the context of revelation. I don't know of any. Perhaps you have some insider information that isn't available to the rest of us?

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The reality is that the single most frequent claim made by Church leaders in the first half of the 20th century about the origins of the ban was that it was revealed. The Church here makes the statement (and yes, it is probably intentionally a little bit ambiguous) that this claim itself is not accepted.

However, that is just the Church. Really, anyone with enough time can go through and do the reading about the intersection between the American Christian defense of slavery, the use of the Old Testament as justification for that slavery, Brigham Young's adoption of those arguments, and finally, Brigham Young's claims that there was a revelatory basis for slavery rooted in the Old Testament.

While it is true, that in general practice, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in this case, it isn't merely an absence of evidence. We have pretty clear historical references to what was believed to be the revelatory source. And most of us reject those interpretations of the Old Testament as flawed and racist interpretations used to defend a grossly offensive practice.

Okay.  Your virtue signaling on your own behalf and on behalf of "most of us" is duly noted.  If your goal was for you and for those of your ilk to draw a line that you can come down "on the right side of" (my phrase) and to have something to feel morally superior about as compared to those benighted souls whom, Alas!, you consider to be "on the wrong side" of that line (again, my phrase), mission accomplished!

Edited November 8, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Benjamin McGuire]

33 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  Your virtue signaling on your own behalf and on behalf of "most of us" is duly noted.  If your goal was for you and for those of your ilk to draw a line that you can come down "on the right side of" (my phrase) and to have something to feel morally superior about as compared to those benighted souls whom, Alas!, you consider to be "on the wrong side" of that line (again, my phrase), mission accomplished!

Ditto.

Edit: Look, you can say whatever you want to justify something that is wrong. I just don't feel any obligation to do so. Racism, past and present is wrong. This is not me being critical of the leaders of the Church, I am just being critical of the practice. And the Church today has clearly sided with the idea that the practice and the justification given for the practice was wrong. If you want to go a different route and claim that it was justified in some way, more power to you. At least have the backbone to actually respond to what I wrote rather than going off on how I have some need to feel morally superior ...

Edited November 8, 2022 by Benjamin McGuire

[Snodgrassian]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, it's kind of like first aid and a penetrating foreign body wound.

I think that most adults know that when someone gets impaled by a foreign object, the worst thing you can do is remove it too soon.  It's instinctual, when coming upon someone with a metal rod or wooden stick sticking out of their body, to want to take it out.  Clearly it's not supposed to be there.  Clearly it is causing damage that can't be ignored.  Clearly it is going to have to come out for the person to ever have a chance to heal. 

But all the same, if you pull that thing out too soon it's likely to kill the person rather than make them better.  It's not just the removal, but also the timing of the removal, that is absolutely paramount to the person's health.  You've got to wait until you have people or resources available that can deal with the blood loss that is likely to happen once the thing is removed.  Otherwise, they will die anyway, and it won't matter at all that you fixed the initial problem.

In terms of the priesthood ban, I don't believe that it was of God.  At the same time, I think that once in place and kept there for so long, it could not just be removed at any old time without causing major, maybe even irreversible, damage.  I think that it didn't just need to be removed, but needed to be removed at the right time, to enable the church to heal and move forward. 

I think there is still healing to be done from that wound but I can't state as fact that removing it in the 1950s would have created a shorter recovery time. 

I am wondering what type of damage do you mean? Is it the type of damage that God can't fix? We are talking about the most important ordinances of the gospel, and the children of our Heavenly Father were excluded from partaking of these ordinances. Christ constantly rocked the boat during his ministry, yet in the current form of the Gospel the brethren needed to keep things in the norm as to not cause damage? 

It would hope that if the Lord expects the brethren to act, he has the means to make his will known at that exact moment. Either 1978 was the exact time the Lord wanted the ban removed, meaning it was the Lord's will to have the ban all along, or the leadership of the Church is/was out of touch with His will. 

Joseph Smith often revealed that Lord made his will known and there were repercussions for not abiding by it. I would think the Lord would treat the current/recent leadership the same way. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Perhaps there were apostles who were ordained after 1969 who disagreed with lifting the ban but agreed in the context of revelation. I don't know of any. Perhaps you have some insider information that isn't available to the rest of us?

I have my sources but they shall remain confidential.🥸

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Of course, I’d love if the church to had a process where members can be more easily heard. To my understanding, talking with local leaders doesn’t have a chance of going anywhere, but a formal complaint process sounds positive. Has anyone here ever gone through that process?

@smac97 mentioned an instance in which he was involved, but it has been long enough that I don't remember the details and I wouldn't even begin to know where to look for the thread (if it has survived the Board's various iterations).

Edited November 8, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

I am wondering what type of damage do you mean? Is it the type of damage that God can't fix? We are talking about the most important ordinances of the gospel, and the children of our Heavenly Father were excluded from partaking of these ordinances. Christ constantly rocked the boat during his ministry, yet in the current form of the Gospel the brethren needed to keep things in the norm as to not cause damage? 

It would hope that if the Lord expects the brethren to act, he has the means to make his will known at that exact moment. Either 1978 was the exact time the Lord wanted the ban removed, meaning it was the Lord's will to have the ban all along, or the leadership of the Church is/was out of touch with His will. 

Joseph Smith often revealed that Lord made his will known and there were repercussions for not abiding by it. I would think the Lord would treat the current/recent leadership the same way. 

When asking what type of damage, I think of the parable of the wheat and the tares, or the teaching by Jesus that you can't put new wine into old bottles because the bottles will burst and the wine and bottles will be ruined.  I don't know the exact damage; I only know that there is scriptural precedent for the importance of timing and preparation before some things should be done. 

I don't know if pulling out the tares before the right time and damaging the wheat, to continue with the analogy, is something that God can't fix, but I have to believe He gave the warning for a reason either way.  The scriptures seem clear that there is much that God could do, but that He won't do.  And if studying the OT this year has taught me anything, it's that God is playing the long game.  

As to the bold, I think that is a false dichotomy.  1978 could have been the exact time the Lord wanted the ban removed and the ban could still not have been the Lord's will all along.  

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

These statements aren't factual, they are merely speculative - and they are speculative in a way that is designed to protect the Church from criticism.

The 60's and 70's were just fine in terms of making this sort of change. I did not say that it was a death sentence - old age takes care of that - but that is the problem. The resistance to this change wasn't so much from the membership as it was from the leadership, and as I noted, all it took for the change to occur was for three already very old men to die. And if we think that there was some bad understandings of even one of those leaders - who could then prevent change from occurring on their own, how does this reflect a positive circumstance? Do we really want our doctrine and policy to be determined by the worst among our leadership? Do we think that one individual should be able to impede positive change? The Church could have been progressive on this issue. They could have contested racist ideas. Instead, they continued to embrace them - and these policies had other real-world complications. Consider that it wasn't until 1978 (and the lifting of the ban) that Utah finally dropped it segregated blood banks (heaven forbid that a white priesthood holder would have a drop of African blood put into his body ....).

With two hundred years of documents and claims, do you really think that we have some hidden cache of revelations that will back up the idea (already rejected by the Church) that there was a revelation that caused the ban?

Perhaps, but you did associate their deaths with lifting the ban. That is reprehensible, IMO. There is a sense of divine retribution in your comments about those men. I may have misunderstood but it comes across that way. On the other hand, what you propose actually supports my position. The Church was not ready if what you say is true. I believe they would have supported Pres. McKay had it been revealed to him. I trust their faithfulness and integrity. For example, Elder McConkie.

I have no problem protecting the Church from criticism. Knowing what Brigham and others suffered and sacrificed for the Kingdom, I am not prepared to throw them under the Cancel Bus of Presentism. Maybe when I have given as they gave, I’ll join the chorus of condemnation.  It is a covenant I have made. I am very happy to wait for a conversation with Brother Brigham and others to sort out the truth.  

Lifting the ban during the turmoil of the 60s and early 70s would have caused great division in the Church and impede its missionary efforts. The same is true for the era of abolition, the Civil War, Reconstruction, the rise of the KKK, Jim Crow, the early Civil Rights efforts, etc. 

There were reasons for the ban other than racism and when the time was right it was removed without damage to the Church. I would say that God was protecting the Church rather than faulting a few “racist old men” or impugning those who disagree with you.

Your example of Utah laws supports my position. In 1959 or earlier such a thing would have caused huge dissension in the Church. The members had to be prepared for the change and that happened in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. My generation not only anticipated it but also welcomed it when it came. Now is the time for rejoicing, not retribution.

All the promises God has made to his children wiil be fulfilled, but not always in the ways we expect. Every person who was denied the Priesthood or temple covenants will have those privileges offered them, not only black Africans from 1830 to 1978, but also the billions who came before the Restoration  who had no access to the Priesthood nor temple covenants, and those who have come after. Of that I am certain.

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps, but you did associate their deaths with lifting the ban. That is reprehensible, IMO. There is a sense of divine retribution in your comments about those men. I may have misunderstood but it comes across that way. On the other hand, what you propose actually supports my position. The Church was not ready if what you say is true. I believe they would have supported Pres. McKay had it been revealed to him. I trust their faithfulness and integrity. For example, Elder McConkie.

I have no problem protecting the Church from criticism. Knowing what Brigham and others suffered and sacrificed for the Kingdom, I am not prepared to throw them under the Cancel Bus of Presentism. Maybe when I have given as they gave, I’ll join the chorus of condemnation.  It is a covenant I have made. I am very happy to wait for a conversation with Brother Brigham and others to sort out the truth.  

Lifting the ban during the turmoil of the 60s and early 70s would have caused great division in the Church and impede its missionary efforts. The same is true for the era of abolition, the Civil War, Reconstruction, the rise of the KKK, Jim Crow, the early Civil Rights efforts, etc. 

There were reasons for the ban other than racism and when the time was right it was removed without damage to the Church. I would say that God was protecting the Church rather than faulting a few “racist old men” or impugning those who disagree with you.

Your example of Utah laws supports my position. In 1959 or earlier such a thing would have caused huge dissension in the Church. The members had to be prepared for the change and that happened in the 50s, 69s, and 70s. My generation not only anticipated it but also welcomed it when it came. Now is the time for rejoicing, not retribution.

All the promises God has made to his children wiil be fulfilled, but not always in the ways we expect. Every person who was denied the Priesthood or temple covenants will have those privileges offered them, not only black Africans from 1830 to 1978, but also the billions who came before the Restoration  who had no access to the Priesthood nor temple covenants, and those who have come after. Of that I am certain.

 

Is this the same reasoning why God has not lifted the priesthood and temple ban on LGBT couples?

[Benjamin McGuire]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps, but you did associate their deaths with lifting the ban. That is reprehensible, IMO. There is a sense of divine retribution in your comments about those men. I may have misunderstood but it comes across that way. On the other hand, what you propose actually supports my position. The Church was not ready is what you say is true. I believe they would have supported Pres. McKay had it been revealed to him. I trust their faithfulness and integrity. For example, Elder McConkie.

Elder McConkie didn't become an apostle until 1973. But that aside, there is, I think, a big difference between saying that the Church was not ready (I think it was) and saying that the Church leadership was not ready (and its clear that they weren't). But, I think it's wrong to conflate these issues.

The priesthood ban was implemented without revelation. It was implemented without a vote from the quorums of the Church. The question is why we think that a revelation should be necessary to reverse this policy. Most of the leadership of the Church did not think it was necessary in 1969. And the fact that the Church today recognizes that there was no revelatory basis for this policy, or that there was a unanimous decision by the leadership of the church to enact this policy speaks volumes to this question.

The problem that I have is that there are people, like yourself, who want to insist that the policy was somehow necessary, and therefore that the racism that it created was necessary. That is wrong.

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have no problem protecting the Church from criticism. Knowing what Brigham and others suffered and sacrificed for the Kingdom, I am not prepared to throw them under the Cancel Bus of Presentism. Maybe when I have done as they did, I’ll join the chorus of condemnation.  It is a covenant I have made. I am very happy to wait for a conversation with Brother Brigham and others to sort out the truth.  

The funny thing about presentism is that it isn't what you are portraying it to be here. I have not criticized Brigham Young. I have not thrown him under the bus. And my approach doesn't violate my covenants. And you should be ashamed of yourself for insinuating that I am doing all of this.

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Lifting the ban during the turmoil of the 60s and early 70s would have caused great division in the Church and impede its missionary efforts. The same is true for the era of abolition, the Civil War, Reconstruction, the rise of the KKK, Jim Crow, the early Civil Rights efforts, etc. 

Ahhh yes, the good of the many (in particular the Church and its primarily white membership) outweighs the good of the few (the black membership of the Church). This is classic racism. And really this isn't likely to be true at all. It is clear that by 1969, not only was the ban not helping with missionary work, it was actively preventing missionary work in many parts of the world.

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There were reasons for the ban other than racism and when the time was right it was removed without damage to the Church. I would say that God was protecting the Church rather than faulting a few “racist old men” or impugning those who disagree with you.

This is such a convenient argument, isn't it. God can be racist, right? For the good of the Church? So why did God allow polygamy in the Church? That didn't damage the Church at all, did it? This sort of argument from convenience is a black box. You can just place it all on God, and not at all on the imperfect leaders of the Church. Heaven forbid that we allow those leaders to make mistakes.

44 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Your example of Utah laws supports my position. In 1959 or earlier such a thing would have caused huge dissension in the Church. The members had to be prepared for the change and that happened in the 50s, 69s, and 70s. My generation not only anticipated it but also welcomed it when it came. Now is the time for rejoicing, not retribution.

No, they didn't need that preparation. Things would have changed the moment that the leadership of the Church changed the policy. And, guess what, the Church still has white nationalist members in Utah today. There is nothing about retribution in my comments - but there is something to be said about correcting the views of the past so that they no longer inform the views of the present. Presentism may be a bad thing in terms of passing judgment on the figures of the past - but using the past to justify misplaced beliefs in the present is also wrong. By claiming that God wanted the racist policies to continue in the Church to protect the Church from whatever imaginary bad things you think could have happened, we don't do very much to teach the wrongness of racism.

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

All the promises God has made to his children wiil be fulfilled, but not always in the ways we expect. Every person who was denied the Priesthood or temple covenants will have those privileges offered them, not only black Africans from 1830 to 1978, but also the billions who came before the Restoration  who had no access to the Priesthood nor temple covenants, and those who have come after. Of that I am certain.

I am also certain. But, the priesthood ban was not given by revelation. It was not a policy created by unanimous decision by the leadership of the Church. So do we really want to make this the will of God? That is something I have a problem with.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Every person who was denied the Priesthood or temple covenants will have those privileges offered them, not only black Africans from 1830 to 1978, but also the billions who came before the Restoration  who had no access to the Priesthood nor temple covenants, and those who have come after. Of that I am certain.

 

Is there any benefit from an eternal perspective to making temple covenants in this life? If the answer is yes, then can you acknowledge that every year the priesthood ban continued, real, actual harm was done? If the answer is no, can you explain what the point of missionary work is?

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

There were reasons for the ban other than racism and when the time was right it was removed without damage to the Church. I would say that God was protecting the Church rather than faulting a few “racist old men” or impugning those who disagree with you.

Your example of Utah laws supports my position. In 1959 or earlier such a thing would have caused huge dissension in the Church.

IMO, this isn't necessarily better. We can sit down here pointing fingers at which humans were truly at fault for God's inability and/or unwillingness to grant revelation, but the observation that humans who were members of the church somehow influenced what God could/would reveal to the church still stands. Whether it be kings vs. judges, or prematurely showing manuscripts of new scripture to friends and family, or lesser laws of performances and ordinances (including laws related to owning other humans), or racial prejudices that lead to segregation, apparently God can and will grant us whatever revelation we want. It is at about this point in the discussion that I start to wonder if there are any truly eternal moral truths that God cannot override in His need/desire to accommodate our human biases.

I really don't know what to think at this point. On one hand, it is nice to know that God can be compassionate towards my (and our) weaknesses and false traditions as I (we) learn and grow. On the other hand, it seems that there will always be some uncertainty around whether or not we are truly understanding eternal moral truth or if God is accommodating something less than perfect within us as a church. It seems to me that there are times when the priesthood line of revelation is more in line with eternal truth and sometimes the ATC line of revelation (if I dare say it that way) is more in line with eternal truth. Perhaps, rather than some blanket proscription against ATC, we ought to be more diligent about weighing to two lines of revelation to see if we can get a clearer picture of truth by weighing these paradoxes.

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is there any benefit from an eternal perspective to making temple covenants in this life? If the answer is yes, then can you acknowledge that every year the priesthood ban continued, real, actual harm was done? If the answer is no, can you explain what the point of missionary work is?

I sincerely struggle with answers to these questions, mostly because I think they can be applied to almost everything in this life.  

• Are there benefits from having children in mortality?  If yes, can we acknowledge that every year someone who wants a child but is unable to have one, has had real, actual harm done to them?
• Are there benefits to being born in these days?  If yes, can we acknowledge that everyone who was born in previous times had real, actual harm done to them?
• Are there benefits to being born male (or female)?  If yes, can we acknowledge that everyone not born male (or female) has had real, actual harm done to them?
• Are there benefits to being born in America?  If yes, can we acknowledge that everyone not born in America has had real, actual harm done to them?
• Are there benefits to being born white (aka white privilege)?  If yes, can we acknowledge that everyone not born white has had real, actual harm done to them?

I think the answers to all of those questions, including the one that you asked about temple covenants, is yes (in some way or another).  But my belief in God and the promises that He has made, and the miracle of the Atonement means that I can't answer the second questions in the same way.

And I fully recognize that there is no reasonable way to argue the veracity of my answers, that they are not at all logical, and are even contradictory (especially to anyone who doesn't believe in God or eternal promises or the Atonement).  It's not a satisfying answer but it's my answer all the same.

[Benjamin McGuire]

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

IMO, this isn't necessarily better. We can sit down here pointing fingers at which humans were truly at fault for God's inability and/or unwillingness to grant revelation, but the observation that humans who were members of the church somehow influenced what God could/would reveal to the church still stands.

The opposite view should also be on the table right? That perhaps God doesn't direct the Church in such a micromanaged way - and, when the risk to the Church (to its missionary programs, to its membership, and so on) reached a certain point, God had to provide a correction through revelation. That is, it should have happened earlier, but because it didn't, God was forced to sort it out through revelation.

41 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I really don't know what to think at this point. On one hand, it is nice to know that God can be compassionate towards my (and our) weaknesses and false traditions as I (we) learn and grow. On the other hand, it seems that there will always be some uncertainty around whether or not we are truly understanding eternal moral truth or if God is accommodating something less than perfect within us as a church.

Something I wrote quite some time ago (2010) -

Quote

Just as personal revelation can alter our individual perceptions of our faith and the world around us, so too revelation alters the perception of the LDS Church as a whole. The risk isn't that the Church or its members continue searching and asking for more truth, it is that at some point the Church stops searching, believing that it has found all there is to find, and concludes that God has said all that He is going to say.

I think that often we believe that we have the Fullness, only to have a correction made.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The opposite view should also be on the table right? That perhaps God doesn't direct the Church in such a micromanaged way - and, when the risk to the Church (to its missionary programs, to its membership, and so on) reached a certain point, God had to provide a correction through revelation. That is, it should have happened earlier, but because it didn't, God was forced to sort it out through revelation.

Sure. As I see it, this all fits under the broader question of what it means that the church is "built on the rock of revelation" with "a foundation of prophets and apostles." I'm less comfortable with a "viceroy" type of model (like this one where God is hands off or even absent), but I agree that it belongs on the table of ideas to discuss. Overall, the main question I see is --  What does the process of revelation to the church and the role of prophets and apostles really look like? And, again trying to stay focused on Elder Corbitt's talk, how does his proscription against ATC fit into that? If God is mostly absent or standing by letting us muddle along without interfering, why do we think ATC would be inappropriate? If God accommodates our weaknesses and false traditions by revealing things that we can accept that may or may not represent eternal truth, why should ATC be considered antithetical to the doctrine of Christ? In a broad sense, these are the kinds of things I wonder about.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Is this the same reasoning why God has not lifted the priesthood and temple ban on LGBT couples?

No. That is a different issue.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is there any benefit from an eternal perspective to making temple covenants in this life? If the answer is yes, then can you acknowledge that every year the priesthood ban continued, real, actual harm was done? If the answer is no, can you explain what the point of missionary work is?

As far as I can tell, the temple covenants as we know and practice them have been available to mankind both living and the dead only after the Restoration. I do not believe there was any real harm done, but if there was it will be rectified by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The purpose of missionary work is to gather Israel, to invite everyone to join the Kingdom of God, and to manifest the power of God through His saving ordinances. It also gives young men and women the opportunity to serve others, to build their testimonies, and to begin to learn about the Laws of the Lord, Sacrifice, Obedience, Chastity, and Consecration. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

IMO, this isn't necessarily better. We can sit down here pointing fingers at which humans were truly at fault for God's inability and/or unwillingness to grant revelation, but the observation that humans who were members of the church somehow influenced what God could/would reveal to the church still stands. Whether it be kings vs. judges, or prematurely showing manuscripts of new scripture to friends and family, or lesser laws of performances and ordinances (including laws related to owning other humans), or racial prejudices that lead to segregation, apparently God can and will grant us whatever revelation we want. It is at about this point in the discussion that I start to wonder if there are any truly eternal moral truths that God cannot override in His need/desire to accommodate our human biases.

I really don't know what to think at this point. On one hand, it is nice to know that God can be compassionate towards my (and our) weaknesses and false traditions as I (we) learn and grow. On the other hand, it seems that there will always be some uncertainty around whether or not we are truly understanding eternal moral truth or if God is accommodating something less than perfect within us as a church. It seems to me that there are times when the priesthood line of revelation is more in line with eternal truth and sometimes the ATC line of revelation (if I dare say it that way) is more in line with eternal truth. Perhaps, rather than some blanket proscription against ATC, we ought to be more diligent about weighing to two lines of revelation to see if we can get a clearer picture of truth by weighing these paradoxes.

I understand what you are saying. Certain understanding will come in the next life, IMO. In the meantime, we do the best with what we have and rely on the Atonement to cover our sins and errors. I’m trying to imagine what form ATC takes so that it does not become publicly critical of the Prophet or the Church or divisive among Church members. I remember Sonia Johnson chaining herself to the gate at our Seattle temple to protest “the patriarchy.” ATC on steroids. What do you think is appropriate?

[Kenngo1969]

On 11/7/2022 at 11:35 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

It's quite probable that you have forgotten more about formal logic than I ever will know.  However, saying that "None of the[  ] [proffered] explanations [for the Priesthood and Temple ban] is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church] of Jesus Christ" is not the same thing as saying (or, at least it does not follow, automatically) that there was no "revelatory basis for the [P]riesthood ban."

Lack of revelation for proffered explanations is one thing; lack of revelation for the ban itself is another.  (To be clear, I'm not saying that revelatory provenance underlies [or does not underlie] the ban.  I'm saying, simply, that whether revelatory provenance underlies the ban itself is a separate issue from whether revelatory provenance underlies explanations for the ban.)

 

11 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The reality is that the single most frequent claim made by Church leaders in the first half of the 20th century about the origins of the ban was that it was revealed. The Church here makes the statement (and yes, it is probably intentionally a little bit ambiguous) that this claim itself is not accepted.

However, that is just the Church. Really, anyone with enough time can go through and do the reading about the intersection between the American Christian defense of slavery, the use of the Old Testament as justification for that slavery, Brigham Young's adoption of those arguments, and finally, Brigham Young's claims that there was a revelatory basis for slavery rooted in the Old Testament.

While it is true, that in general practice, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in this case, it isn't merely an absence of evidence. We have pretty clear historical references to what was believed to be the revelatory source. And most of us reject those interpretations of the Old Testament as flawed and racist interpretations used to defend a grossly offensive practice.

 

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  Your virtue signaling on your own behalf and on behalf of "most of us" is duly noted.  If your goal was for you and for those of your ilk to draw a line that you can come down "on the right side of" (my phrase) and to have something to feel morally superior about as compared to those benighted souls whom, Alas!, you consider to be "on the wrong side" of that line (again, my phrase), mission accomplished!

 

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Ditto.

Edit: Look, you can say whatever you want to justify something that is wrong. I just don't feel any obligation to do so. Racism, past and present is wrong. This is not me being critical of the leaders of the Church, I am just being critical of the practice. And the Church today has clearly sided with the idea that the practice and the justification given for the practice was wrong. If you want to go a different route and claim that it was justified in some way, more power to you. At least have the backbone to actually respond to what I wrote rather than going off on how I have some need to feel morally superior ...

Sigh.  Translation?  "He's defending the ban.  No reasonable person possibly could defend the ban."  (I can't think of any other reason why you would go off on a tangent attempting to convince me where the ban came from [i.e., its nonrevelatory provenance].  Perhaps you can enlighten me on that score.)  Here, again, for the third time in this thread, is what I wrote.  Perhaps my adding emphasis will help.

Quote

... (To be clear, I'm not saying that revelatory provenance underlies [or does not underlie] the ban.  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969, in a (perhaps futile) effort to persuade his interlocutors actually to read, and hopefully to understand, what he writes] I'm saying, simply, that whether revelatory provenance underlies the ban itself is a separate issue from whether revelatory provenance underlies explanations for the ban.)

If you would like, when you get the opportunity, you may tell off all of the unenlightened Brethren of former times.  I wish you all the best with that endeavor if that is what you wish to do.  Meanwhile, as for me, I hope to have a front row seat at a fascinating Millennial fireside, "Brother Brigham, What Were You Thinking ?" 

To each his own.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

The head of the Church, Jesus Christ. 

Maybe Jesus is prompting activism.

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Maybe Jesus is prompting activism.

Maybe he would rather reveal his will to the Prophet who is his designated representative. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I remember Sonia Johnson chaining herself to the gate at our Seattle temple to protest “the patriarchy.” ATC on steroids. What do you think is appropriate?

I don’t know, but look at the changes the church has made in regard to the patriarchy in the last 20 years. Temple covenants have changed. Temple practices have changed. Women pray in general conference. The importance of ward council has been elevated while PEC was diminished. Did Sonia get these results? Doubtful. But the broader conversation among the church faithful certainly did. That all looks like bottom up revelation to me.