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

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Lots of inattentive folks died, then.

Does that bother you?  I don’t see the problem myself.  They didn’t die because they were inattentive to the fact mosquitoes are a big part of the food chain. Or the logic in why you said that.  Can you explain the point of that comment please?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Something beautiful indeed came from the Brethren’s suffering. Same for the pioneer exodus west. Same for the destruction that preceded the coming of Jesus to the Nephites. Something about beauty for ashes? As Joseph said concerning slavery,

“Having spoken frankly and freely, I leave all in the hands of God, who will direct all things for his glory and the accomplishment of his work.”

So do you interpret that to mean God tells everyone what to do?  He directs and we act as he directs?  We are essentially puppets?  If not, then missteps/mistakes can occur, correct?  
 

Maybe you should explain your reasoning more fully rather than throwing out bits and pieces so I can engage with it rather than trying to guess your point.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for your comments. I have explained my thoughts about the reason. The Southern converts would not have been the only ones disturbed by mixed marriages,  integrated congregations, and Blacks in leadership positions. I’m not sure how European converts, especially northern, would have reacted. IMO, of course.

And here the racism resurfaces again.

We know for a fact (due to the historical record) that the Church was struggling to expand in Africa because of the policy. So we are putting the white members in the South over the Black members (and the potential black members) everywhere else. The challenge is that you don't even see what it is that you are saying, or the message that this sends.

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Talking about the finer things of life, why do you think syphilis and other diseases were created? Did they just evolve? I would like to ask God why mosquitoes and fleas were created. They seem to serve no purpose other than to kill…a lot more folks than Treponema ever did.

Yes, I believe they just evolved. There is such irony in your comments here. Why? Because you seem to be asserting that they must have been created for some reason - that there is a master plan which incorporates every detail, and every outcome. The fact that you have to take the question that Voltaire raised in satire seriously is part of this issue. This is not LDS theology. It isn't necessary for LDS theology. But here you are following this rabbit.

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What do you think the appropriate reaction should be to Joseph and Brigham? How would you answer the question, “Why did God allow the prophets to make such  grievous mistakes and then let the error persist for so many years without correction?” 

I would say this - the grievousness of the error isn't with Joseph or Brigham. In fact, their errors are probably small, cultural, and understandable. What started small became more problematic over time. In many ways, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young could be included in the progressives of their day. The challenge is that the Church stopped being progressive. And what was a small problem in the distant past grew until it became a much larger problem in the more recent past. Had the policy continued today, the Church would be shrinking now at a phenomenal pace.

There is a second, much more problematic subtext here. That subtext is that everything that is going on in the Church must be the best route - the best course of action - because, if it wasn't, 'why would God have allowed those errors to persist for so many years without correction?' This attitude is why it was so difficult to lift the priesthood ban. But just as importantly, it is this kind of thinking that reinforces discriminatory thought and practice: the idea that if God hasn't corrected me, then what I am doing and thinking must be okay. God allows people including prophets to persist in their errors because God gives us agency. There is a fascinating discussion in the Book of Mormon dealing with Lehi's dream. After sharing it, we get two different responses - Nephi asks to receive the vision, and Laman and Lemuel argue about it. The option that you present isn't even considered here. We should not, as members of the Church, be forced to wait on official declarations from the Prophet to be progressive in our faith - because we shouldn't be reliant on them for revelation about how to live our lives. The more important part of the discussion about Lehi's vision, I described in this way:

Quote

 

Seen in this way, this revelation by vision is a personal experience. Since we are all different people, our interactions will not conform to some universal standard — our individual experience of the vision will be different from everyone else’s. While we may have greater overlap with those who share our backgrounds and knowledge, the experience may be quite different when compared with those who don’t. The narrator can only provide us with the details that he is aware of. He cannot give us the details of his father’s vision that he missed. And he certainly cannot provide us with a reasonable telling of the vision as we might experience it.

The inclusion of this narrative of the vision within Nephi’s book, along with an interpretation, isn’t an invitation to stop. In fact, in following Nephi’s explanation, if we stop with his text, we have in fact become no better than Laman or Lemuel asking Nephi for meaning (or, since we really cannot ask a text anything, we are left to dispute one with another as to its meaning). Even if we look to authoritative sources for interpretations (including the interpretation provided by Nephi himself), we are left with something that is best used only if the “Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.”

 

As I suggested, there are certain fundamental flaws with the idea that everything is the way it is for a specific reason or purpose other than as consequences of our own agency. And, when we talk about an appropriate response to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, our response should include, among other things, a recognition that many of the social constructs that they believed were wrong (both in a spiritual and in a scientific sense). We shouldn't feel any obligation to defend those wrong views on the basis that this is the way that we should defend the honor of those dead prophets. As Bruce R. McConkie stated (in that often quoted remark): "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation." I think that you may be having trouble following this advice. Forget everything they said. It doesn't matter how long that God allowed what they may have said to stand - it is irrelevant to the fact that it was wrong. I suppose that this is why I persist in participating in this discussion. As long as you keep suggesting that there was a purpose in God's allowing the priesthood ban to persist for so long, I will keep arguing that this persistence had nothing to do with God, and had everything to do with (as McConkie called it): "all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past."

We shouldn't be Laman and Lemuel - asking the prophets for understanding, we should emulate Nephi and get our own revelations on which to base our perspectives.

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Good things come from really bad things all the time.

But this shouldn't ever be used as an argument that we should engage in really bad things so that we can create good things, should it. This is perfect Leibniz. Perhaps if I lay out the argument more completely you will understand it -

Leibniz argued that:

1: God could have created the universe in an infinite number of ways (taking into account of all of the different variations that could occur).

2: God, being perfect, would have chosen the most perfect creation out of those infinite number of choices.

3: The most perfect creation is defined by the concept of the greatest good.

Consequently,

4: When good things come from really bad things, it was because they could only come from those really bad things.

This is why a statement like this doesn't do much for me in a discussion like this - because it presupposes the idea (in order to be relevant) that this really bad thing was somehow necessary for the really good thing to happen. And on some level, this is why, when you are asked why the ban began in the first place, your response is that we don't know, but it must have been necessary. And my response (along with the official response of the Church) is that not only was it not necessary, but it was not instituted by God. That Good thing (all worthy men having the priesthood) actually existed (as the Church statement notes) during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. It was changed later. It's clear that the really bad things aren't necessary to create the good. And of course, to bring this back, this is the idea that Voltaire was mocking when he suggested that only by getting syphilis could we also have chocolate. It is an absurdity both in Candide and in the discussion about the priesthood ban.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Can you explain the point of that comment please?

 

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We shouldn't be Laman and Lemuel - asking the prophets for understanding, we should emulate Nephi and get our own revelations on which to base our perspectives.

So many questions, so little time. I have to learn my parts for The Firebird, Glazunov saxophone concerto, and Danse Bacchanale, but I will respond with a longer post later.

Some might presume one has not sought one’s own revelation after study and reflection; nevertheles, whatever conclusions I have come to are not something I would impose on others. I hope for the same consideration.

Perhaps it is better to seek our answers from the philosophies of men.

Quote

We know for a fact (due to the historical record) that the Church was struggling to expand in Africa because of the policy.

We also know for a fact (due to the historical record) that the early Church leaders struggled with this issue, but even with some later comments during his presidential run, Joseph died before he could do more….leaving Brigham with the responsibility. The notes accompanying the Joseph Smith Papers publication of the letter to Oliver make this clear.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps it is better to seek our answers from the philosophies of men.

The problem is that the priesthood ban was a "philosophy of man". It kinds of makes a jab like this a bit less effective.

[pogi]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

At the same time, I find it interesting that Americans insist on seeing this matter through an exclusively American lens. What if it actually had little or nothing to do with America?

Seeing it through a global lens is actually what precipitated its inevitable downfall as it became more and more evident that it was established on an unsustainable premise - that anyone with any black heritage is banned from the priesthood.  In South Africa and Brazil it became intensively difficult to determine lineage and if someone had "one drop" of black blood.  As a result, very many were given the priesthood, only to find out later that their ancestry did have black lineage.  Sometimes the priesthood was revoked, and in some cases priesthood authority was determined to over-ruled geneology, thus defying the ban.

There was a massive effort and primary goal of missions in Brazil to "preserve racial purity".   Where have I heard that before?  What it boiled down to was racial profiling.  Missionaries and leaders "were to scrutinize the color of the skin, eyes, and hair, the shape of the nose and face, color lines on the hands and feet, and the texture of the hair." 

This was one minor example of the consequences of the ban, which turned members into racial profilers and suspicious/invasive of each others histories :

Quote

Standing before the Mormon congregation, the young man exhibited the excitement and appreciation for life most fourteen-year-old teenagers have. One could sense the willingness, even yearning, to confront the challenges which would be placed before him. He was ready to be made a deacon. The young Brazilian branch president standing beside him reviewed for the congregation the importance of the Aaronic priesthood and the impact such a responsibility should have on the life of a young man. He briefly described what he considered to be the exceptional courage and behavior of this boy. He had joined the Church without parental support and maintained activity despite unusual pressure and adversity. The branch president explained that during the worthiness interview held earlier, the young man had expressed depth and knowledge of the spiritual aspects of life, exceptional for someone just fourteen years old. There was no question in the mind of the branch president and most of the Brazilian congregation of his worthiness to receive the Mormon priesthood. The request for congregational approval by the raising of the right hand was to be little more than a mere formality.

Events did not go as planned. When the obligatory request for negative votes was made, four in the congregation, all American missionaries, indicated opposition. The branch president, surprised and unsure of how to proceed, had the young man sit down and indicated that the problem would be cleared up after the meeting. The congregation was stunned, most having never seen a negative vote cast in church. The boy was confused and not quite sure what was happening.

In a conference held after the sacrament meeting, the elders explained the problem. During visits with the boy's family they had noticed that two younger brothers exhibited some negroid physical features. Even though the youn man was fair-skinned with brown wavy hair, it was not uncommon for African ancestry to show itself in one member of a family and not in another. If their suspicions were correct, he would be ineligible to hold the Mormon priesthood
because of African ancestry. The branch president had never visited the family and had never seen the younger brothers. He decided that his Brazilian counselor and one American elder should visit with the family and very tactfully determine the lineage of the boy before any further action could be taken. A week later the elders returned. They had spent one evening with the boy's parents talking about genealogy and viewing family photos and felt that they could see in the family pictures evidence of black ancestors. Thus, according to the policy of the Church, the priesthood could not be given to any of the children in the family. The young boy was informed of the decision, explained the reasons for the priesthood denial, and counseled to continue his activity in the Church.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V17N03_25.pdf

The same problems were happening in South Africa.  In Nigeria, where people started getting pamphlets and converting by the thousands, it became evident that church growth in Africa could not be sustained without local priesthood leadership.  It took leaving America before it became evident that the ban was not viable in a global church.  It became a necessity that it was revoked. 

The ban, which required that all otherwise worthy men who held any black lineage be prohibited from holding the priesthood, would itself extinguish the church's priesthood authority from the earth upon further research as all of humankind descended from black Africa.  It was a self-imploding false-practice which had no other alternative than to be revoked if the priesthood was to even exist, let alone thrive.   The hoops that must be jumped through to sustain the ban as the revealed word of God, even when the church refuses to do so, are untenable and unnecessary.   The church will not fall by admitting the error.  I believe its continued growth will by enhanced by it, actually. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem is that the priesthood ban was a "philosophy of man". It kinds of makes a jab like this a bit less effective.

Of course, I was referring to your excursion into Candide and the Leibniz lecture.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Of course, I was referring to your Leibniz lecture.

Of course you were. I am simply pointing out that it is more applicable to the justifications of the Priesthood ban raised by various individuals over the past 150 years (including your own).

[pogi]

On 11/12/2022 at 9:17 PM, Bernard Gui said:

I do not believe he would allow the Restoration to be derailed by its first two prophets.

What do you mean by "derailed"?  

Instead of being agnostic about it, what If the church was to admit that the ban was a mistake - what are your concerns as to what would happen?  

On 11/12/2022 at 9:17 PM, Bernard Gui said:

It also helps me cope with so much injustice that has plagued so many billions of our brothers and sisters, every single day since Cain killed Abel.

How does the priesthood ban help you cope with injustices?  I am pretty sure that you are not linking the priesthood ban to the curse of Cain, as the church has official disavowed such false ideas, so I am confused as to the reference here in the context of the ban.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.   

On 11/12/2022 at 9:17 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Today, calling a person a bigot, a racist, a hater, a sexist is about as damning as anything one can imagine. I’ve imagined myself speaking with Joseph, Brigham, and others and shouting, “You were bigoted, lying, misogynistic, racist, fraudulent perpetrators of the greatest injustice in Church history.” I  could not do this to their faces in the Spirit world, so why would I do do it here on earth when they cannot explain? I want to hear their side of the story. Lord knows their sacrifices, sufferings, and services for the Kingdom exceed mine like the oceans exceed a drop of rain. 

Acknowledgement of a mistake is not the same as shouting denigrating labels in their faces.  Acknowledging their mistakes (especially considering the context of the times) is not akin to cancelling them or the good that they deserve respect for.  Some may want that and be advocating for that (which you may be speaking to here), but acknowledging their mistakes doesn't require it.  You need not be identified with those folk if you spiritually conclude that the ban was a mistake.  Note how the church was able to disavow the false teachings  of these prophets, which they acknowledge were based in racist ideas without shouting, cancelling, or otherwise denigrating their dignity.

You are free to believe it was inspired, but I would caution about legitimizing it through made up and speculative narratives that have historically and demonstrably caused so much harm to our church over time.  

Edited November 14, 2022 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

43 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem is that the priesthood ban was a "philosophy of man". It kinds of makes a jab like this a bit less effective.

It’s philosophies of men all the way down…

[Bernard Gui]

59 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Of course you were. I am simply pointing out that it is more applicable to the justifications of the Priesthood ban raised by various individuals over the past 150 years (including your own).

I don’t agree.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t agree.

This is what the Church tells us:

Quote

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

You don't have to agree with me. But, my view is not unreasonable, or, I think, inaccurate. If it isn't 'official doctrine of the Church' then it must be something else ... like the 'philosophies of men'. I can say with absolute certainty that your theory to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions is not accepted by the Church.

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

What do you mean by "derailed"?  

Instead of being agnostic about it, what If the church was to admit that the ban was a mistake - what are your concerns as to what would happen?  

How does the priesthood ban help you cope with injustices?  I am pretty sure that you are not linking the priesthood ban to the curse of Cain, as the church has official disavowed such false ideas, so I am confused as to the reference here in the context of the ban.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.   

Acknowledgement of a mistake is not the same as shouting denigrating labels in their faces.  Acknowledging their mistakes (especially considering the context of the times) is not akin to cancelling them or the good that they deserve respect for.  Some may want that and be advocating for that (which you may be speaking to here), but acknowledging their mistakes doesn't require it.  You need not be identified with those folk if you spiritually conclude that the ban was a mistake.  Note how the church was able to disavow the false teachings  of these prophets, which they acknowledge were based in racist ideas without shouting, cancelling, or otherwise denigrating their dignity.

You are free to believe it was inspired, but I would caution about legitimizing it through made up and speculative narratives that have historically and demonstrably caused so much harm to our church over time.  

Many things have caused harm to the Church over time. They still do.  
 

As I said, I will write more when I have time. This issue has not cause me any heartburn. It absolutely does not figure into my faith in God, the Prophets, or the Church, past or present. In fact it strengthens it. I think I remember some issues where you expressed your personal beliefs before. Perhaps it is better to keep them to oneself?

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is what the Church tells us:

You don't have to agree with me. But, my view is not unreasonable, or, I think, inaccurate. If it isn't 'official doctrine of the Church' then it must be something else ... like the 'philosophies of men'. I can say with absolute certainty that your theory to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions is not accepted by the Church.

Nor do I agree with this. I believe there is more to learn, perhaps not in this lifetime.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Nor do I agree with this.

*shrug*

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think I remember some issues where you expressed your personal beliefs before. Perhaps it is better to keep them to oneself?

Fair enough.  I just ask for greater caution with this specific and highly sensitive issue with much historical baggage in relation to what you are attempting.   Historical attempts to justify the ban (even by those prophets/leaders most respected in the church) have not ended well and have created false narratives that took generations and great embracement in acknowledging wrongs and harm to finally extinguish.   As mentioned already, the church is agnostic as to the divine origins of the ban, so I think it is fine to have and vocalize an opinion on that, but justifying it beyond that, I think, merits greater caution.   As one who loves the church and wants to preserve it and enhance its further growth, I am simply offering that you consider it. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

*shrug*

Ditto.

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Fair enough.  I just ask for greater caution with this specific and highly sensitive issue with much historical baggage in relation to what you are attempting.   Historical attempts to justify the ban (even by those prophets/leaders most respected in the church) have not ended well and have created false narratives that took generations and great embracement in acknowledging wrongs and harm to finally extinguish.   As mentioned already, the church is agnostic as to the divine origins of the ban, so I think it is fine to have and vocalize an opinion on that, but justifying it beyond that, I think, merits greater caution.   As one who loves the church and wants to preserve it and enhance its further growth, I am simply offering that you consider it. 

Thank you for your sincere concerns. As I have said before, I do not expect anyone to agree with me. I do consider the comments here very interesting and helpful. I would never publish or even share this with the intent to convince them. I perfectly understand what the Church has said. I along with many others wept for joy when I heard it. I would like to hear Joseph’s, Brigham’s, and others’ sides of the story. Perhaps mingling with Gods they were engaged in making plans for our Black brothers and sisters. Who knows?

Edited November 14, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Snodgrassian]

On 11/11/2022 at 10:40 PM, Bernard Gui said:

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? 

If this is the letter your are referencing, it is awful on so many levels. 

Is it possible to truly "embrace the fullness of the gospel" and agree with the slavery? racism? 

He spreads a common racist saying that freeing the slaved in the south will put people at risk of rape at the hands of these freed slaves. 

Joseph claims that free states cant't truly understand that evil of slave ownership, that the southern states are should take the lead in this.

Quote

And further, what benefit will it ever be to the slave for persons to run over the free states, and excite indignation against their masters in the minds of thousands and tens of thousands who understand nothing relative to their circumstances or conditions? I mean particularly those who have never travelled in the South, and scarcely seen a negro in all their life. How any community can ever be excited with the chatter of such persons—boys and others who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me.

Words of prophet.

And then justifying it all by saying God is ok and sanctions it because he allowed Abraham and other prophets to have "servants..."

I guess per Joseph Smith and the Bible, all christians should be pro-slavery as long as the Masters treat their servants kindly. 

 

If Joseph wanted to protect the church from outside harm, why continue down the path of polygamy? Why not outlaw people of color from attending church meetings? 

[Harry T. Clark]

My two cents:  They are fallible men doing the best they can, but, make mistakes as has been shown time and again.  They should be examples of openness and not hide from criticism.  I believe Jesus was constantly criticized by the Pharisees and responded to their criticisms.  It was the Pharisees that sought to silence the Lord and not the other way around.  

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

My two cents:  They are fallible men doing the best they can, but, make mistakes as has been shown time and again.  They should be examples of openness and not hide from criticism.  I believe Jesus was constantly criticized by the Pharisees and responded to their criticisms.  It was the Pharisees that sought to silence the Lord and not the other way around.  

Please some examples of how He did that, and how those examples would apply to a recent incident of criticism.

Edited November 14, 2022 by CV75

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

. I perfectly understand what the Church has said.

We can never “perfectly understand” anything in this life as fallen beings.  Too have such confidence in our own interpretations of what others mean will set us up for perpetuating misunderstandings, imo.

[Calm]

On 11/12/2022 at 9:17 PM, Bernard Gui said:

 I do not believe he would allow the Restoration to be derailed by its first two prophets.

 

How would the Church and the Restoration be any different in your view than it is today if the ban was a mistake?

Is it not possible in your view for mistakes to be made by prophets in guiding the Church without derailing the Restoration?  If it is not possible, why?

For me, looking at Israel and then Judah as they prepared the world to receive Christ, it is obvious there were massive mistakes made by their leaders (unless one thinks turning the nation’s people towards idol worship is somehow not a mistake) and yet Christ was still born into a devout family willing to sacrifice all to serve the Lord; he taught, died and was resurrected; his mission was fulfilled as needed. If multiple apostasies by leaders didn’t derail God’s work before Christ, if the Great Apostasy didn’t derail it afterwards, why assume any mistake by prophets and leaders since the Restoration would be allowed to derail it no matter how big?  
 

If God can turn all things to our good, he can even turn a ban that was a mistake by prophets to our good.  If you don’t believe this, can you explain why you believe there are limits on God’s ability to do this?  Or why in this case he would use a different method than his usual (the new method being prevent men he has called to lead from making mistakes in the first place, forcing them to be in essence infallible in leading the Church)?