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

[Eschaton]

22 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

I think preventing multiple generations from obtaining the fullness of the Gospel is a bit more than an "error." For me, it makes me really think about and consider other "policies," teachings, and behaviors in the church. Exclusionary behaviors are the least Christ-like actions one can take, in my opinion. Will God allow the cultural and human prejudices rule the Church? It appears he has up to this point. It is tough to wrap one's head around. 

Yes, I would call it a major sin. Churches are human organizations, run by human beings, subject to human ideas, for good or ill. 

[BlueDreams]

47 minutes ago, gav said:

The church in Africa is growing at rates in some areas not matched anywhere, ever, since the Kirtland expansion, these are record levels of growth.

Africa is not a continent of rich people, the church in Africa weighs heavily on the purse strings of the church. The growth in Africa is one of those "rainy days" the church has been and continues to prepare for. Members and communities alike receiving substantial support in education and vocational training. "BYU Pathways" is open to members and non-members alike and is heavily subsidised. I have 4 dependants studying through BYU and they altogether cost me less than my other child in regular non-subsidised college. The perpetual education fund assist those pursuing vocational and trade qualifications and short courses. There are numerous other programs to help members and non-members alike improve their skills, find better employment or develop entrepreneurial ventures.

The humanitarian activities in Africa are huge, bore-hole drilling for remote villages and the like. The list goes on...

In short, if the continent of Africa has been opened up before the church was sufficiently well established in the wealthy developed world, the financial burdens and explosive growth there would have outrun the resources of the church in a very short time and the progress of the church worldwide would have been retarded.

 

I remember listening to a lecture at BYU about this for one of my classes (i think in international development...but i can't fully remember). I remember them talking about how they were working to stagger growth in areas of Africa, particularly in less literate areas, to be able to maintain growth a rates that were sustainable and healthy for the area. Rapid growth was seen as something that could inadvertently lead to serious problems. That I definitely can confirm, based on what I've heard in the past. 

What i'd disagree with is the assumed necessity of the ban based on this concern now. Africa would not have been the first place that the church grew into that was relatively poor. There are plenty of areas in the Americas, the pacific islands, etc that also meet that description (including much of the early church membership). The work there found other means and reasons that slowed growth till it could be better handled. This Ranged from geographical/technological access limitations; to cultural, political, and language barriers; to size of the nascent church in general limiting how far and quick the church could spread. Staggered or limited growth would have likely still been a thing, as it's still a thing today in many of these (and other) regions. Including Africa. 

 We will truly never know what would have happened if we hadn't had the ban. It could have been as you mentioned. That it delayed the work in areas for a better time that would have been better for it to arrive. It could have been that the prejudices and other practical limitations in the early church members as well as the countries currently seeing growth would have still kept that work extremely limited until a time that it could have been better spread. It could have been that some of this growth we're seeing would have happened a little earlier in the 1900's, leading to a larger spread. But it doesn't equal that just because the work is good now in parts of Africa then what happened in the past was equally a good thing and represents a proper order.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited November 15, 2022 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

46 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

I think preventing multiple generations from obtaining the fullness of the Gospel is a bit more than an "error." For me, it makes me really think about and consider other "policies," teachings, and behaviors in the church. Exclusionary behaviors are the least Christ-like actions one can take, in my opinion. Will God allow the cultural and human prejudices rule the Church? It appears he has up to this point. It is tough to wrap one's head around. 

Personally, it was one of my most valuable shifts....along with several other experiences in my life that allowed for healthy shifts around this, per se. 

God never promised us a perfect church (or at least near perfect), just a true one. It was our assumptions hinging on what it means to be "true" that leads us to struggle with a messy church. It's easier for me to explain this look at the micro and extrapolating out. I believe my experiences have been true and good in terms of growing and becoming as God would have me. I believe it is just as true to day as it was when I was a itty bitty learning really basic things, to a teen when I was proactively seeking God on my own, and so forth. I was by no means perfect back in the day. In fact I held some major issues and errors, including sins, under my belt at the time. Some would take me years to work out. But because I was pointed at God and still am I trust that that it will end up well. And it has, again and again. Even at times that it looked like it would do anything but turn out right. My wrongness, in short, did not and could not overpower the right that God was growing within me through both personal revelation and the larger body of the church. And the work within me was one that happened at a rate that I could manage and was willing to do.

I don't think I'm that special. I see that with others as well and assume that when you expand out, that's also what will be seen in the church at large. But it definitely isn't with the same assumption that places human prejudice and problems as somehow being divorced from the experience of the building of the Church. It's one that incorporates and assumes it's always been apart of it. No church body that held God's truth was led or proclaimed to be otherwise, IMHO. Okay maybe like 2 times, maybe, in all of our religious stories, and neither population started that way.  

Basically The Church = Become and learn to be perfect together through Me. It is not "join the perfect body by Me."

 

With luv,

BD

[gav]

11 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I remember listening to a lecture at BYU about this for one of my classes (i think in international development...but i can't fully remember). I remember them talking about how they were working to stagger growth in areas of Africa, particularly in less literate areas, to be able to maintain growth a rates that were sustainable and healthy for the area. Rapid growth was seen as something that could inadvertently lead to serious problems. That I definitely can confirm, based on what I've heard in the past. 

What i'd disagree with is the assumed necessity of the ban based on this concern now. Africa would not have been the first place that the church grew into that was relatively poor. There are plenty of areas in the Americas, the pacific islands, etc that also meet that description (including much of the early church membership). The work there found other means and reasons that slowed growth till it could be better handled. This Ranged from geographical/technological access limitations; to cultural, political, and language barriers; to size of the nascent church in general limiting how far and quick the church could spread. Staggered or limited growth would have likely still been a thing, as it's still a thing today in many of these (and other) regions. Including Africa. 

 We will truly never know what would have happened if we hadn't had the ban. It could have been as you mentioned. That it delayed the work in areas for a better time that would have been better for it to arrive. It could have been that the prejudices and other practical limitations in the early church members as well as the countries currently seeing growth would have still kept that work extremely limited until a time that it could have been better spread. It could have been that some of this growth we're seeing would have happened a little earlier in the 1900's, leading to a larger spread. But it doesn't equal that just because the work is good now in parts of Africa then what happened in the past was equally a good thing and represents a proper order.

 

With luv,

BD 

What you can mix into the African continent equation is that many from the tribe of Judah are being gathered in Black Africa. From communities that claim Jewish ancestry and from others that are totally dumbfounded by it.

“But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.” (Matthew 19: 30)

Judah would principally be gathered after ephraim... Judah's gathering to the church in Africa as well as the exponential growth in Africa are a clear signal that the times of the Gentiles is coming to an end, also signalled by growing western self loathing and abandoning of western principles and values.

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As always, you're free to disagree with the views of these African Saints, informed by their lived experience, but I'm not willing to let their voices be absent from this conversation.

Duplicate post

Edited November 15, 2022 by Navidad
duplicate post

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Well said, no one's lived experiences should ever be excluded from conversations, so long as they are not treated as normative.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Well said, no one's lived experiences should ever be excluded from conversations.

My wife grew up in the church in a mixed race household and felt both less than (personally) as well as that her parents sinned. Her Dad, who is still a conservative Christian, left the church over its racism after my wife left home. But I guess they weren’t important in the lords calculus. Only the racists living in the 1900’s of the church needed to be accommodated by God. 

[BlueDreams]

14 minutes ago, gav said:

What you can mix into the African continent equation is that many from the tribe of Judah are being gathered in Black Africa. From communities that claim Jewish ancestry and from others that are totally dumbfounded by it.

“But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.” (Matthew 19: 30)

Judah would principally be gathered after ephraim... Judah's gathering to the church in Africa as well as the exponential growth in Africa are a clear signal that the times of the Gentiles is coming to an end, also signalled by growing western self loathing and abandoning of western principles and values.

I don't claim to know much about this. But again, nothing you've said necessitates the placement of the ban.

 

With luv,

BD

[Navidad]

Perhaps it may be of interest to add to the conversation that the Mennonite church in Africa is also growing rapidly. There are now more non-Anglo Mennonites in the world than Anglo. I believe the largest Mennonite church in the world is now in Ethiopia. I also believe the largest Mennonite community as a percentage of population is now either in Belize (our Mexican neighbor) or Ethiopia - I am not sure which. I also believe the Pentecostals are growing quite rapidly in Africa as well as is Islam. I believe the Animists are shrinking in population quite rapidly as well. The tribal/ethnic group in which I ministered in 1969 was almost 100% animist. It is now majority Islamic, heavily influenced by Fulani presence in the area, with a sizable Protestant group (on the Benin side of the border). The growth of non-traditional religions in Africa is an area for much deeper study.

[Rain]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

See the first comment in my post above!

To be honest, I don't know have an answer for you. I have lived in America, and it was always my experience that Latter-day Saint doctrines and practices work exactly the same there -- reliably, consistently, and predictably -- as they do anywhere else. (I've lived/studied/worked in three of the world's four 'quadrants': both above and below the equator in the eastern hemisphere and above the equator in the western hemisphere.)

One thing I did notice in America was that there wasn't much social cost to being a Church member there, making it possible to be active for reasons of culture, identity, or even just familiarity.

This goes along with the shame culture in more eastern countries I talked with you about before. In fact, many of the experiences written about were from Indonesia.  

I do think though that it will depend on where you live in America.  My parents and siblings lived in the south for some years and there was a big social cost to them as members of the church.  Not as great as other places, but still plenty.

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's quite difficult in many other places. An extreme example: in the last branch that I belonged to in Indonesia, it took our branch president 25 per cent of his income getting his family of five to and from church each week. Being a 'cultural Mormon' in such circumstances is simply not sustainable.

Beyond that, I'm not sure it's healthy, as I implied above, to view everything through an exclusively American lens ... coloured as it is by increasingly strident political and social tensions.

 

[gav]

41 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

But again, nothing you've said necessitates the placement of the ban.

Agreed, but sometimes the Lord leaves us to stumble along in our imperfections because imperfections are part of the growth process and serve his purposes. The prophets, apostles and consequently the church are not infallible. The bible if overflowing with examples of fallible leaders, called by the Lord, making big bloopers and yet retaining his favour and blessings. It is members, disaffected members and enemies of the church that tend to equate church calling with infallibility. This is a false, unbiblical and unscriptural notion.

That is why, when it comes to the BIG doctrinal questions and other major moves and pronouncements, the first presidency and twelve in unanimity decide the matter. Many things are not Official Doctrine of the church and remain subject to further light and knowledge on the subject or a change in circumstances. The restoration after 200 years is still not complete.

So my point is, once the ban was in place, however it came about and likely through fallible means, the Lord only saw fit to lift it  according to his own timing. Hence no Official Declaration for the placement but an OD for its lifting.

[gav]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps it may be of interest to add to the conversation that the Mennonite church in Africa is also growing rapidly. There are now more non-Anglo Mennonites in the world than Anglo. I believe the largest Mennonite church in the world is now in Ethiopia. I also believe the largest Mennonite community as a percentage of population is now either in Belize (our Mexican neighbor) or Ethiopia - I am not sure which. I also believe the Pentecostals are growing quite rapidly in Africa as well as is Islam. I believe the Animists are shrinking in population quite rapidly as well. The tribal/ethnic group in which I ministered in 1969 was almost 100% animist. It is now majority Islamic, heavily influenced by Fulani presence in the area, with a sizable Protestant group (on the Benin side of the border). The growth of non-traditional religions in Africa is an area for much deeper study.

Africa's time for blessing has arrived. It's palpably obvious when you live here and also reading the dedicatory prayers of the various countries of Africa and later the temples in those countries can be a very insightful exercise. Unfortunately few chose to do this but prefer to look at the world through the polarised glasses of victimhood, racism, oppression and guilt.

But this warping lense of past injustices will continue to grow stronger until it bursts upon the USA. (The BOM contains a type in the Lamanite eternal hatred of the Nephites born out of past injustices, perceived or real)

D&C 87:

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

The sequence is clear: After the US civil war and after the European based world wars and after yet many days... slavery etc. will become a big deal again, as it was in the civil war. Then the current US minorities will vex the majority Gentiles(of European origin) with a sore vexation.

 

[OGHoosier]

13 minutes ago, gav said:

Agreed, but sometimes the Lord leaves us to stumble along in our imperfections because imperfections are part of the growth process and serve his purposes. The prophets, apostles and consequently the church are not infallible. The bible if overflowing with examples of fallible leaders, called by the Lord, making big bloopers and yet retaining his favour and blessings. It is members, disaffected members and enemies of the church that tend to equate church calling with infallibility. This is a false, unbiblical and unscriptural notion.

We must remember that the leaders God calls are still mortal, and presumably God has His own lessons to teach them through imperfection just as He has for us. 

That being said, the ramifications of their imperfections definitely sprawl out and affect a disproportionate amount of people relative to the imperfections of us little people. So it could be said that it's not the same thing. I'm going to blast this counterargument.

For the same would undoubtedly be true of presidents, monarchs, sheiks, warlords, and thought leaders (whatever imperfections were present in Marx and Augustine surely impacted their work, which had disproportionate effect, no?) If human action is to be meaningful at all, then we must accept not merely the risk but the certainty that the imperfection of one person can have disproportionate effects. I don't think it's possible for human society to have organization (social or conceptual) without leaders, and those leaders must be rendered superhuman or  be left with their imperfections. And if leaders were always rendered superhuman then the temptation to simply follow as opposed to growing would be far too strong.

Coming to grips with the organizational realities that underly dealing with diverse populations has helped me a lot with just about every issue of divine communication. It's left me looking a bit cold and insensitive at times (stone-throwers, have at me) but I truly believe that even in principle there is no way for God to make a perfect church. I honor those who have the short straw in such situations and stayed faithful. I cannot bring myself to condemn those who do not.  

[MustardSeed]

Sometimes we take the idea that prophets will never lead us astray to mean that prophets will never do any harm, act independently of God, make a mistake, make a choice that could have been replaced by a better choice etc. 
 

IMO.  Leading us astray would be more akin to something like another great apostasy or another era of darkness like the Middle Ages.  There is room in my world for bad moves in the organization’s decisions. I don’t like such decisions, but it doesn’t shake my testimony that those do and will exist.  So, I would appreciate more authentic ownership about bad moves from the church. HOWEVER, I think because so many people could not handle acknowledgment of mistakes, and would surmise that “the church is not true” under circumstances of admitted error, the church will not offer such.  
So… will the rest of you black and white thinkers evolve please so we can all grow?  Thank you 😊 

Edited November 15, 2022 by MustardSeed

[Snodgrassian]

1 hour ago, gav said:

That is why, when it comes to the BIG doctrinal questions and other major moves and pronouncements, the first presidency and twelve in unanimity decide the matter. Many things are not Official Doctrine of the church and remain subject to further light and knowledge on the subject or a change in circumstances. The restoration after 200 years is still not complete.

Does the priesthood ban fit into this 'BIG doctrinal questions?" I would hope that with 15 leaders, and the requirement for unanimity, the prejudices would not eeek out to the masses. 

We always talk about leaders are not infallible, the church is not infallible. So when is it ok for the members of the church to point out areas where the Church and/or brethren have made a mistake? Only after the time has past and the mistake was in distant past? The Nov 2015v policy is recent example. If the church members are at the whim of the presiding 15, and they (as a group/position) have a history of policies that are not doctrine and can cause harm to the membership or prospective membership of the church, should we not raise our voices? 

I guess, when it comes down to it, I would hope that the Church, as an organization, one that does provide a great amount of good in the world, would lead from the front. 

 

[pogi]

19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I currently have a housemate who grew up in Ghana and joined the Church here. I have a former housemate (married now) who grew up in Sierra Leone and joined the Church there. My GP and his wife both joined the Church in Nigeria and then worked for several years in the Caribbean before migrating here. I have discussed this matter in depth with all four of them, and all four of them strongly disagree with you for a variety of reasons, including rejecting that past priesthood restrictions were in error.

Hamba, you are not the only one with black friends who are members of the church from Africa.  I can testify from personal acquaintance/experience that black African members are not a monolith of belief or experience.   The parable of the blind men and the elephant applies to them equally.  They all have different perspectives, experiences, beliefs, biases, exposure to history surrounding the ban, and the ban affects them on different levels of intensity for many different reasons.  

They are free to disagree, but while being black and from Africa might give them personal insight into the effects of the ban on them personally and within that region, it doesn't give them some special insight on whether there was a revelation to justify the ban.  While they may have more direct experience with the effects of the ban from a black perspective, they are further separated from the context of the origins of the ban which happened from a white, Utah context and perspective, than I am.  Both perspectives and contexts are important to consider.   The context of the ban was a Utah legislative session where slavery was made legal and deemed to be divinely instigated, along with the ban, long before the gospel ever reached the shores of the African continent.   What makes your housemates more qualified to speak of that context and those times than I am? 

I am happy to consider how the ban has personally affected them and the growth of the church in the parts of Africa they have lived and why they think it is inspired, but in regard to the divinity of the ban itself, I am just as qualified to have an opinion after much research, contemplation, and prayer.  To assume that I have not prayerfully considered different perspectives and viewpoints from different continents, age groups who lived during the ban, and experiences would be a serious mistake

19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My former housemate first met missionaries at age 17 whilst studying at an Islamic boarding school. After his conversion, he served a mission in Nigeria, returned to Sierra Leone, and then spent time in Guinea before migrating here. He certainly has more experience with the 'continued growth' of the Church in Africa (and with West African ways of thinking) than either you or I do, and he adamantly disagrees with your statements. In fact, he has said that the demonstrated willingness of Church members and leaders to resist outside pressure (and their own dislike, in many cases) whilst awaiting revelation is actually a 'selling point' when it comes to missionary work in West Africa.

So, they found a selling point that was effective for them.  I wonder how much more effective the sell would be if the ban never happened in the first place?  The fact that they have to "sell" the ban before people will accept the gospel proves that it is a stumbling block for many.

19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

His response (cleaned up for this board): It's disgusting that a small number of predominantly white American Saints are willing to damage missionary work in Africa just so they can feel better about themselves.

As always, you're free to disagree with the views of these African Saints, informed by their lived experience, but I'm not willing to let their voices be absent from this conversation.

Is that your opinion of what I am doing Hamba?  You know me better than your housemates.  Do you think I am willing to damage missionary work in Africa just so that I can feel better about myself?  Is that what I am all about?  I am less concerned about the judgments of those I have never met, never spoken with, who don't know my heart, my history, my own personal acquaintances...  

My opinions and conclusions on this matter have not come easily, and are not the conclusions that I wanted or hoped for.  If this was just about me and feeling better about myself, I would have chosen the easy path in defending my team, my church, my leaders whom I sustain and support from any criticism of error in this regard.  I would feel a lot better about all of this if I could persuade myself to believe that it was divinely inspired.  But I cannot erase my very personal experience, which your roommates are quire frankly ignorant of.   There is a real sense of "silence and shame the disgusting white guy" going on here which I find very troubling coming from people whom I have never met and don't know my history. 

"Willing to damage missionary work in Africa" presumes they are right and that I know that I am wrong but am "willing" to damage the faith of others for selfish reasons.  But by all means, invite them to join us and share their perspectives.  I have many questions for them. 

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by pogi

[gav]

21 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Does the priesthood ban fit into this 'BIG doctrinal questions?" I would hope that with 15 leaders, and the requirement for unanimity, the prejudices would not eeek out to the masses.

The ban likely predates this unanimous 15 protocol, it is the standard now but was not always so.... ongoing restoration etc.

 

24 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

We always talk about leaders are not infallible, the church is not infallible. So when is it ok for the members of the church to point out areas where the Church and/or brethren have made a mistake? Only after the time has past and the mistake was in distant past? The Nov 2015v policy is recent example. If the church members are at the whim of the presiding 15, and they (as a group/position) have a history of policies that are not doctrine and can cause harm to the membership or prospective membership of the church, should we not raise our voices? 

I guess, when it comes down to it, I would hope that the Church, as an organization, one that does provide a great amount of good in the world, would lead from the front. 

I Don't know what or when is appropriate... What I do know is that we are encouraged not to accept everything at face value but seek our own spiritual confirmation on the matter and how it applies to us... personal revelation and all.

We all, prophets and members alike, will account for the actions we take based on light and knowledge we receive or choose not to receive, as the case may be.

It's my experience that the Church does get better over time... just take a look at some of the sunday school manual stuff from the 60's and 70's as a case in point. good for a giggle. 🤭  So I see a continuing and ongoing restoration and an evolving Church.

I find it personally very productive to explore and closely examine the words of prophets ancient and modern as that activity is a catalyst to personal revelation and helps me navigate the daily walk of life. Do I get hung up on the specifics? No, I focus on low hanging fruit that's ripe and don’t attempt to squeeze things ripe. If I don't get it or understand it right away I focus on other things, as unripe fruit tends to ripen by itself. Sometimes I just need a little more experience or approach from a slightly different perspective before clarity comes.

[CV75]

20 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I don't know about religious observance and religious elites or even who these supposed "elites" are.  Nevertheless, on other threads, I've pointed out that perhaps having a lot of money isn't a good look for a church.  Seems to me churches need to be in the giving back to society camp and not in the money generation camp.  Perhaps being too aggressive in seeking out tax deductions isn't a good look to potential converts.  It's too easy to compare it to the temple and how the money changers ran it in the new testament.  Perhaps our well-meaning leaders need to change course?  Jesus wasn't about money, seems to me.

This is way off topic -- good luck! But if you can share the examples of Jesus addressing criticism toward Him over fiscal issues, you will see He did not apologize.

[Calm]

“The ban likely predates this unanimous 15 protocol, it is the standard now but was not always so.... ongoing restoration etc.”

My current paradigm about the ban is that the unity of the 15 protocol is the one thing I see as making complete sense in delaying the lifting of the ban until there will be no public disagreement or even hints of disagreement. I believe true unanimity (not the unanimity that comes from one or two or even a majority of individuals dominating others or even the one hold out, but where all are of similar personal views and not just following) at the top level needs to exist as an example of the ideal we are meant to work to have in our families and wards in order to live in Zion in the here and now.  Even more important for church government though, requiring unanimity will likely prevent most major derails and keep presidents and senior apostles from recreating the Church each time a new leader assumes power…checks and balances are needed in church government just as in state government. Even just knowing unanimity needs to be sought will encourage leaders to try and look at their ideas and desires from others’ POV. 

If we had the unanimity tradition from the beginning, we would likely never had have the ban in the first place given at least Orson Pratt’s strong disagreement with the ban.  My guess is Adam-God confusion might not have occurred either, at least not to the point of it being included in the temple ceremony.

Another reason the unanimity principle/tradition is so important now is while in a smaller, localized community vigorous disagreement among leaders may be not be that divisive in the community because everyone can also see easily (or be informed about it) where the same leaders are working together, mid and low ‘rank’ members can also have direct contact with church leaders, so if they have questions they can ask or if members are going off the rails due to taking a leader’s comments to the extreme or other error, a leader is more likely to be aware and be able to correct it before it leads to a splinter group. (Not that the early church didn’t have an issue with those for other reasons.). When the Church is global though and members’ contact with upper leaders is much less immediate, if there were obvious arguments over doctrine and policy among upper leaders, this would likely result in more fractures between members just as politics results in conflict among members of communities big and small and even extremist movements.  By requiring unanimity among leadership and membership knowing that such will be expected and required, this removes significant concerns. For example, we don’t have the issue of wondering which leader’s instructions we should be following because they present a unified policy/guidelines, etc.  and not ideas or practices that conflict with each other. 
 

Unfinished thought as at doctor’s appt, may add to it in a bit. Will proof later for sure. 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Calm

[OGHoosier]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is way off topic -- good luck! But if you can share the examples of Jesus addressing criticism toward Him over fiscal issues, you will see He did not apologize.

 

Quote

 

3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

 

This is the only passage in the Gospels in which Jesus directly addresses fiscal criticisms - at least so far as I know. 

[MrShorty]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Even more important for church government though, requiring unanimity will likely prevent most major derails and keep presidents and senior apostles from recreating the Church each time a new leader assumes power…checks and balances are needed in church government just as in state government. Even just knowing unanimity needs to be sought will encourage leaders to try and look at their ideas and desires from others’ POV. 

I agree with the idea here, but I see it more as establishing strong institutional inertia (or something like it that makes us strongly conservative/resistant to change). This is, of course, a very good thing if we are on the rails to begin with and want to stay on the rails. The question could be about when we are not on the rails to start with. In that case, strong inertia hinders us from getting on the rails, and we can get stuck going the wrong direction.

I don't recall it coming up in this discussion, but I know other discussions of Elder Corbitt's talk have included some discussion of how Elder Corbitt conflates "the doctrine of the church" with "the doctrine of Christ" -- in other words, Elder Corbitt seems to operate from the starting assumption that the church is (and has always been??) on the rails. Perhaps one concern about the talk that maybe goes beyond ATC is the starting assumption that the church must be right at the outset.

I don't know what the church ought to do here. Clearly there is value in having some institutional inertia so we are not "blown about by every wind of doctrine" as St. Paul so eloquently put it. But it seems to me that our institutional inertia is so strong that we would rather quell dissenting voices (or box them up in the bureaucratic "chain of command"**) than possibly consider what the dissenters have to say and seriously consider whether they may be pointing out that we have gone off the rails (if we were ever on the rails to begin with).

 

** this comment about bureaucracies reminds me of the scene from The Incredibles when Bob is getting chewed out by his boss because his "customers are experts in Insuracare's inner workings." The boss eventually shouts, "They're penetrating the bureaucracy!!"

[pogi]

10 hours ago, gav said:

Hear, hear.

I am a South African, well traveled in Africa (11 countries), born before the ban and have watch everything unfold before my very own eyes across the entire continent. To the people "living it" you have no idea how ridiculous this "contortionist, navel gazing, quasi social justice, amero-centric" side discussion sounds to those most affected thereby. Instead of endless circular debating get on a plane, or at least do a little research... find out what's really going on in Africa and you will see that whatever the bans origins the timing of its implementation and lifting was perfect.

Just curious, since he was responding to my post, am I mistaken that you are classifying my comments here as a "contortionist, navel gazing, quasi social justice, amero-centric side discussion"?  If so, can I ask why?  Do you know my history and research into this topic? Are you familiar with my travels and acquaintances/discussions and pain staking efforts I have taken to understand the history and effects of the ban from different perspectives?  Would you judge and denigrate every white American who believes that the ban was a mistake in the same way, or just me? 

I am puzzled by your last comment though.  You say that "whatever the bans origins the timing of its implementation...was perfect"?    If the ban was uninspired, and thus unnecessarily hurtful, short/blind-sighted, tarnishing of the churches reputation, and excluding of righteous black saints from enjoying the full blessing of the gospel in mortality, how can you acurately describe such a harmful "implementation" as "perfect"? 

Forgive me for not finding such attempts to justify or soften the ban particularly comforting or convincing.   Speaking of "contortion", I think your attempt to make an uninspired ban to be somehow inspired in timing fits the bill nicely. 

7 hours ago, gav said:

Agreed, but sometimes the Lord leaves us to stumble along in our imperfections because imperfections are part of the growth process and serve his purposes. The prophets, apostles and consequently the church are not infallible. The bible if overflowing with examples of fallible leaders, called by the Lord, making big bloopers and yet retaining his favour and blessings. It is members, disaffected members and enemies of the church that tend to equate church calling with infallibility. This is a false, unbiblical and unscriptural notion.

That is why, when it comes to the BIG doctrinal questions and other major moves and pronouncements, the first presidency and twelve in unanimity decide the matter. Many things are not Official Doctrine of the church and remain subject to further light and knowledge on the subject or a change in circumstances. The restoration after 200 years is still not complete.

So my point is, once the ban was in place, however it came about and likely through fallible means, the Lord only saw fit to lift it  according to his own timing. Hence no Official Declaration for the placement but an OD for its lifting.

I agree with most of what you say here actually.  Which is why I am surprised at your harsh judgment of me for believing the ban was uninspired (which you seem to agree with).  I have no doubt that the Lord inspired the removal of the ban via answer to prayer.  I am less convinced that the Lord inspired the prayer in the first place.  I think it was great social pressure, obvious social/spiritual injustices, and an unsustainable church in Africa without the possibility local priesthood leadership that inspired the prayer.  At least that is according to the testimony of President Kimball who felt compelled to pray after witnessing the black saints in Africa make incredible sacrifices in donating their monies for the construction of the Sao Paulo temple despite their curse which kept them from attending.  He also spoke of the growth in Nigeria and how unsustainable it was without local leadership.   I think the global spread of the church and all of the unsustainable complications the ban created, the changing cultural/racial climate and pressures of social justice from within and without the church,  had more to do with the timing of the prayer than anything else - if we are to believe the historical records and accounts surrounding its lifting. 

Edited November 16, 2022 by pogi

[CV75]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

 

This is the only passage in the Gospels in which Jesus directly addresses fiscal criticisms - at least so far as I know. 

Yep, that's one I was thinking of, and I think our Church handles them the same way. I find this a good example because a) the criticism came from within the fold; b) He conveyed the eternal perspective; c) did so humbly; and d) without apology.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

I can testify from personal acquaintance/experience that black African members are not a monolith of belief or experience.

I agree 100 per cent.

Quote

It doesn't give them some special insight on whether there was a revelation to justify the ban.

Which is not something anyone I know believes anyway.

Quote

The fact that they have to "sell" the ban before people will accept the gospel proves that it is a stumbling block for many.

You've misunderstood. What my former housemate told me is that the example of obedience and patience on the part of the members and Church leaders is a good selling point for the Church.

Quote

Is that your opinion of what I am doing Hamba?

No. But it can be useful to know how others perceive what we are doing.

Quote

There is a real sense of "silence and shame the disgusting white guy" going on here which I find very troubling coming from people whom I have never met and don't know my history. 

Obviously, African Saints are allowed to have their own histories and read the rest of us within that context. I have a good mate here, a refugee from South Sudan (and now a Baptist elder), who spent years working for the UN in refugee camps in Uganda. He often says really uncomfortable things to me about 'white saviours' and so forth. That's his history, and he has a right to it.

Interestingly, he has great respect for Latter-day Saints in large part because our young, bumbling, naïve, guileless missionaries have, in his opinion, proved themselves so incapable of doing harm under the delusion of doing good.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[gav]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Just curious, since he was responding to my post, am I mistaken that you are classifying my comments here as a "contortionist, navel gazing, quasi social justice, amero-centric side discussion"? 

Nope, speaking in generalities here. I. have no doubt that for some these matters are very well researched but for many one can see their views on many matters are barely skin deep and very amero-centric. i'm sure you have noticed that too.

 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am puzzled by your last comment though.  You say that "whatever the bans origins the timing of its implementation...was perfect"?    If the ban was uninspired, and thus unnecessarily hurtful, short/blind-sighted, tarnishing of the churches reputation, and excluding of righteous black saints from enjoying the full blessing of the gospel in mortality, how can you acurately describe such a harmful "implementation" as "perfect"? 

Here i am speaking in specifics. Since the Lord is all knowing, uninspired even diabolical activities can and do have perfect timing. By perfect timing I mean start, continue or complete astronomical cycles, some of these very large and at exactly the right time. The motions of heavenly bodies form a very exact and precise clock and the major events of history for good or ill are timed to this clock... but that is a whole new can of worms that would best have its own thread if opened.

I would say of the ban, that you characterise as "thus unnecessarily hurtful, short/blind-sighted, tarnishing of the churches reputation, and excluding of righteous black saints from enjoying the full blessing of the gospel in mortality". When all is said and done and we review and look back from eternity we very likely will view it differently, even the individuals affected thereby may view it differently. An eternal perspective, that encompasses all, from the flap of a butterflies wings to the rise and the fall of nations, tends to do that.