Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Leaders acknowledging their mistakes is fine.  They do.  But the finger pointing, fault finding, if A was wrong then B might be also kind of thinking that many seem to engage in is not.

So if a leader says they were wrong, then it is acceptable to speak about it but if they never say they are wrong then we must believe that they never have been?  Am I understanding you correctly?

Link to comment

Has slavery every been "right"? How about racism? The older generation of the church, at times, still holds on to some pretty awful teachings. Just because it was accepted and legal at a period (even long period) of time, does not mean it was moral. As long as slavery has been around, I would venture to guess there were people who opposed it. People who proclaim to be the source of eternal (and I lump moral into this) should be held to a constant standard, that should be for the benefit of all mankind. 

The priesthood  ban to protect the church from addiotnal violence? I am just not buying it. Those affected by the ban were still allowed to attend church. Outsiders would have no clue nor care about internal ordinances. They would just know that congregations were mixed. When people in power enable an imbalance of power and authority, something is wrong, and has always been wrong regardless of the time and place. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think you are confusing the lifting of the ban with its creation. The essay (and the Church) are pretty clear that revelation was the basis for lifting it. On the other hand, the essay is pretty clear that revelation was not the reason why the ban was implemented.

This aligns with what I thought it was, unless I misunderstood. I thought it was because of racism that the ban was created. 

Link to comment
On 11/8/2022 at 5:05 PM, Bernard Gui said:

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?

She was right.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have to say, it is no surprise to me when critics accuse members of being blind followers of the prophet after reading stuff like this.   

Its ok for leaders to do so, but members should never acknowledge, point out, or otherwise publicly question the actions of historical leaders, else they become "finger-pointers" and "fault finders' and pseudo saints.  Got it!   That doesn't sound cultish at all!

One can only use reason/rational thinking (If A then B...) if one comes to the conclusion that the prophet didn't make a mistake.  Got it!  That doesn't sound cultish at all either!

So it is ok to come up with theories regarding the ban only if one concludes that it was revealed from God?  That doesn't sound...well...you get it! 

When is it right for a member to publicly question or believe that a historical leader made a mistake?  When is it ok to explore such ideas and express personal belief with others?  When is it ok to push back against theories which justify the ban when one believes the ban was a mistake and views such theories as harmful?  If the answer is "never", why not?  Please come up with a non-circular answer that doesn't point back to a prophets statement. 

I think that culture of never publicly questioning is an old and tired culture in our church that needs to be retired once and for all.  I understand its good-intention origins of wanting to protect faith and build up hedges against doubt, but this over-emphasis on just trusting our leaders and being afraid to question, I am convinced, is the source of many-a-lost-testimony and disillusionment.  It props our leaders up on an unsustainable pedestal.  When one freely realizes that faith and acknowledging mistakes are not mutually exclusive, one becomes strengthened against disillusionment and malleable to history.  One can properly frame and even publicly acknowledge (GASP!) that our leaders are both fallibly human and prophet.  One can properly frame and publicly acknowledge that the church is an imperfect organization that makes mistakes, even big ones, and faith can still endure in patience.  That is incredibly strengthening.  But to continue to reinforce this facade of perfection by questioning the sainthood and faithfulness of anyone who points out a mistake NEEDS TO END!.  We have had enough.  Enough damage has been done already.  Let it go.  IT is incredibly liberating when one can embrace faith and history and reason and mistakes and fallibility and humanness without fear and feel spiritually strengthened in doing so. 

 

 

Oh boy, preach Pogi!! I'm listening. :)

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

She was right.

About what?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

Has slavery every been "right"? How about racism? The older generation of the church, at times, still holds on to some pretty awful teachings. Just because it was accepted and legal at a period (even long period) of time, does not mean it was moral. As long as slavery has been around, I would venture to guess there were people who opposed it. People who proclaim to be the source of eternal (and I lump moral into this) should be held to a constant standard, that should be for the benefit of all mankind. 

The priesthood  ban to protect the church from addiotnal violence? I am just not buying it. Those affected by the ban were still allowed to attend church. Outsiders would have no clue nor care about internal ordinances. They would just know that congregations were mixed. When people in power enable an imbalance of power and authority, something is wrong, and has always been wrong regardless of the time and place. 

Unfortunately, slavery has always been and continues to be a reality. It will end when the Lord comes and declares his kingdom. I would be interested in your thoughts about Joseph's letter to Oliver.

Yes, to protect the Church from further contention within and without while it was in its infancy.

Everything inside the Church is now and has been revealed to outsiders by disaffected fellow members. Haven’t you noticed? 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

About what?

The patriarchy. I'd love to have you listen to part 2 of this podcast with LDS women that called in with their feelings about it and they're for the most part, active and believing. There might be one or two that are struggling with staying that were part of the callers. I wish the leaders of the church, male and female that could listen as well. I haven't been a feminist but probably would be a good thing to examine how oblivious I've been. https://atlastshesaidit.org/episode-115-meeting-your-feminist-self-part-1/

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yet those blessings were promised to come, and they did come at the right time. 
 

You are correct, it was promised, but in the "far distant" future.

Quote

In the 1958 edition of his book Answers to Gospel Questions, Joseph Fielding Smith taught that the “children of Cain should not have the privilege of bearing the priesthood until Abel had posterity who could have the priesthood and that will have to be in far distant future” and “on some other world.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1958), 2:188.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

You are correct, it was promised, but in the "far distant" future. 

In the 1958 edition of his book Answers to Gospel Questions, Joseph Fielding Smith taught that the “children of Cain should not have the privilege of bearing the priesthood until Abel had posterity who could have the priesthood and that will have to be in far distant future” and “on some other world.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1958), 2:188.

That’s a massaged paraphrase, not a quote.

Later in the same answer he said, “Salvation is open to [the Negro] with the promise that in the due time of the Lord, if he receives the gospel, all restrictions will be removed.” And, “…he is not denied entrance into the Church…and if [he is] true and faithful to the end he may enter the celestial kingdom.”

Something about forgetting what had previously been taught on the subject….in this case the timing.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The patriarchy. I'd love to have you listen to part 2 of this podcast with LDS women that called in with their feelings about it and they're for the most part, active and believing. There might be one or two that are struggling with staying that were part of the callers. I wish the leaders of the church, male and female that could listen as well. I haven't been a feminist but probably would be a good thing to examine how oblivious I've been. https://atlastshesaidit.org/episode-115-meeting-your-feminist-self-part-1/

 

I was asking about Sonia Johnson. She was quiet a virulent and disturbed person.

Link to comment

For what it's worth, OD-2 certainly doesn't sound like, "Oops!  We made a mistake."  And the description of the communal spiritual experience that led to the lifting of the ban by the Brethren involved certainly doesn't sound like, "We were convicted of the error of our ways, and there was much repentance in sackcloth and ashes."

Link to comment

duplicate

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
18 hours ago, pogi said:

Its ok for leaders to do so, but members should never acknowledge, point out, or otherwise publicly question the actions of historical leaders, else they become "finger-pointers" and "fault finders' and pseudo saints.  Got it!   That doesn't sound cultish at all!

One can only use reason/rational thinking (If A then B...) if one comes to the conclusion that the prophet didn't make a mistake.  Got it!  That doesn't sound cultish at all either!

Well I am glad you use the cultish word as I have wanted to but thought it might get me thread banned.

Link to comment

duplicate

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

100%

Joseph's idea in the first place.

I don’t believe they were mistaken. The time will come when we know the whole truth. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

100%

Joseph's idea in the first place.

It’s amazing that all through out history, men in positions of power have used that position to  acquire wives, concubines, and illicit affairs. In all of these cases it was a sin. Except for Joseph Smith who did it only reluctantly under the threat of divine condemnation in order to “restore all things”. Further it’s amazing that God wasn’t satisfied with Joseph acquiring just one additional wife to “restore all things” but required dozens. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well I am glad you use the cultish word as I have wanted to but thought it might get me thread banned.

I think it is ok to apply to a specific line of thinking that condemns others who raise legitimate question or acknowledge fault in leaders, but if one generalizes the church and its followers as cultish - not so much - because the leaders and members of the church have always had several different schools of thought and teachings on this issue.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Something about forgetting what had previously been taught on the subject….in this case the timing.

Yes, let's not forget what was previously taught about the timing.

Here's Brigham Young in 1852: "The Lord told Cain he should not receive the blessings of priesthood until the last of posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of earth. . . . This people that [are] commonly called Negros are children of Cain. I know they are. I know they cannot bear rule in priesthood, first sense of word, for the curse upon them was to continue on them, was to remain, until the residue of [the] posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings" (source).

And here's Joseph Fielding Smith in The Way to Perfection: "A curse was placed upon [Cain] and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures."

Edited by Nevo
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

For what it's worth, OD-2 certainly doesn't sound like, "Oops!  We made a mistake."  And the description of the communal spiritual experience that led to the lifting of the ban by the Brethren involved certainly doesn't sound like, "We were convicted of the error of our ways, and there was much repentance in sackcloth and ashes."

Their reaction is not surprising in that what was asked is if the blacks could hold the priesthood, and not if the ban was a mistake.   The answer to that question was, yes.  It is reported that the saints "wept for joy" and that there was a "collective weight lifted off of the shoulders" of the church.   It felt like a burden was removed.  Why?  Because the ban didn't feel right.  It created an unsettling stupor of thought for so many.  It was an unsettling and discomforting feeling that settled around the thought of the ban - and still does.  So, the reaction of having that lifted makes perfect sense! 

What is telling to me is that the church does not insist that it was not a mistake, but simply that they don't know why it happened.  They make no justification for the ban, not even by simply stating/acknowledging that it is justified by revelation.  They refuse to acknowledge that it was the revealed will of God, so I am confused as to why so many attempt to argue that it was. 

When all of the justifications for the ban made by the man who instigated it have been disavowed, that too is telling.  It leaves nothing but speculation and stupor of thought to support it. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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