Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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

Luke Chapter 6 finds Jesus being criticized for picking corn and eating it and healing on the Sabbath by the Pharisees.  He responded to their criticisms, using them as teaching moments, and didn't prohibit them.  If you need more, there are many in the New Testament.

Do you think Jesus would prohibit criticism if he were here or would he respond to the criticism and attempt to teach the critics?  I think the later.  Obviously, however, he led a perfect life and didn't have to respond when the critics were correct.   But that shouldn't be an excuse as to why church leaders don't want to deal with hard questions.  Further, I think showing a little contrition and admitting mistakes gains respect from those wronged.  It also disciplines the leaders to be careful and avoid mistakes.

Posted
2 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Luke Chapter 6 finds Jesus being criticized for picking corn and eating it and healing on the Sabbath by the Pharisees.  He responded to their criticisms, using them as teaching moments, and didn't prohibit them.  If you need more, there are many in the New Testament.

Do you think Jesus would prohibit criticism if he were here or would he respond to the criticism and attempt to teach the critics?  I think the later.  Obviously, however, he led a perfect life and didn't have to respond when the critics were correct.   But that shouldn't be an excuse as to why church leaders don't want to deal with hard questions.  Further, I think showing a little contrition and admitting mistakes gains respect from those wronged.  It also disciplines the leaders to be careful and avoid mistakes.

That is a good example; how can that be applied to a recent example of a Church leader doing something contrary to religious elites' expectation for religious observance?

Posted
2 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Do you think Jesus would prohibit criticism if he were here or would he respond to the criticism and attempt to teach the critics?  I think the later.  Obviously, however, he led a perfect life and didn't have to respond when the critics were correct.   But that shouldn't be an excuse as to why church leaders don't want to deal with hard questions.  Further, I think showing a little contrition and admitting mistakes gains respect from those wronged.  It also disciplines the leaders to be careful and avoid mistakes.

There were times when Jesus taught the criticizers, times that He called them "white sepulchers filled with dry bones" and hypocrites (and other things they found highly offensive), and times when He refused to speak to them or answer their questions at all.

Posted (edited)
31 minutes 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.

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 whilst awaiting revelation is actually a 'selling point' when it comes to missionary work in West Africa.

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.

Lived experience seems to be a negative with this issue. 

Thank you for taking the time to talk with these Saints and sharing their thoughts. I have not had the opportunity to speak with the members of our African branch about their feelings on the matter. I will make a point to learn something about them.

The faithful Black members I knew at the time of the lifting were waiting patiently for the revelation to come. They were not  agitating or demonstrating against the Church. That mostly came from outsiders.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have not had the opportunity to speak with the members of our African branch about their feelings on the matter. I will make a point to learn something about them. 

Do that. And then, when your relationship is developed, don't be surprised if you learn some things from them as well! :good:

ETA: I just looked. To date, the Church has created 27 new stakes in 2022. Nine of them (exactly one-third) are in West Africa: six in Nigeria, two in Cote d'Ivoire, and one in Liberia. All three new districts created this year are in West Africa, including our first in Senegal (with a population that is 97.2 per cent Muslim).

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do that. And then, when your relationship is developed, don't be surprised if you learn some things from them as well! :good:
 

 

Thanks. I’m  expecting as much. 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

That is a good example; how can that be applied to a recent example of a Church leader doing something contrary to religious elites' expectation for religious observance?

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.

Edited by Harry T. Clark
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I've pointed out that perhaps having a lot of money isn't a good look for a church ... Perhaps being too aggressive in seeking out tax deductions isn't a good look to potential converts.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I visited a couple in my ward Friday evening to have a ministering interview with the husband. They are both migrants. His family joined the Church when he was a young man. She's an adult convert who hated all things 'Mormon' until she met her future husband and started attending church with him.

After we finished the interview, the wife brought in Milo and biscuits and joined us for further conversation. She asked if I had heard about the Australian 60 Minutes hit piece. I told her I had. She asked if I had watched it. I told her I had. They had too, she said. I asked them what they thought of it. It was laughably bad, they agreed. Then the wife: 'I feel so proud to have joined a church that is so wise and careful with money!'

My housemates are both adult converts. As I posted on the other thread, I discussed this issue with one, and I have since discussed it with the other. Their reactions have been similar to hers.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I visited a couple in my ward Friday evening to have a ministering interview with the husband. They are both migrants. His family joined the Church when he was a young man. She's an adult convert who hated all things 'Mormon' until she met her future husband and started attending church with him.

After we finished the interview, the wife brought in Milo and biscuits and joined us for further conversation. She asked if I had heard about the Australian 60 Minutes hit piece. I told her I had. She asked if I had watched it. I told her I had. They had too, she said. I asked them what they thought of it. It was laughably bad, they agreed. Then the wife: 'I feel so proud to have joined a church that is so wise and careful with money!'

My housemates are both adult converts. As I posted on the other thread, I discussed this issue with one, and I have since discussed it with the other. Their reactions have been similar to hers.

I need to move to where you are. Sounds heavenly. 

Plus it would be nice to see the Church outside America for a bit. 

Posted
4 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.

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.

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.

I’ve been on this board for over a decade now, and when it comes to your posts one thing I’ve always noticed is that they seem to always show LDS ideas and practices in the most positive light, often as compared to Saints in America that post here. Do you mind me asking why? Why do LDS doctrines and practices work better where you live? Why is everything LDS better in your part of the world?

Posted
5 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I need to move to where you are. Sounds heavenly. 

That's because I only share the heavenly bits!!! :P

But seriously, the Church (and the community it constructs) makes life really, really, really sweet.

Elders quorum and Relief Society presidents were invited to bishopric training in our stake this past Sunday, and afterwards I was chatting with a bishopric counsellor in another ward about how most people who wander from the Church will come back because, really, what sane person doesn't want to be part of a Zion community?

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why do LDS doctrines and practices work better where you live? Why is everything LDS better in your part of the world?

See the first comment in my post above! :D

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.

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.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps you should share the whole bits?

That's precisely what I do. My comment was in jest! Hence the :P.

Quote

I’m hoping you can acknowledge that many sane people outside of the LDS church can and do live as a Zion community. If not, I invite you to come with me on a retreat at the two Benedictine monasteries I frequent next time you’re in America. It’s an extreme example, I know, but worthy of consideration. 

I genuinely appreciate the invitation, and I'm grateful you have this opportunity in your life.

One of the things I really enjoy about the Church of Jesus Christ is its vision of creating Zion within broader society (including family life), avoiding both the asceticism and cloistering associated (to one degree or another) with monasticism.

About half of the documents I used in researching my PhD were written by Jesuits. I grew to love many of them on an individual level!

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

This is not the only experience. There are many black saints in the US where this is a major stumbling block that it really could help. I've heard it more than once while participating in`

I've never suggested otherwise. But ignoring the experiences/voices of African Saints is not the solution.

Quote

Likewise it may be hard for populations like your friend mentioned who may not be able to be okay with a church that openly acknowledges error while also stating that it is Christ's church in our latter-days ...

This is not the only reason people -- including some African Saints -- may be opposed to what some are suggesting in this thread. I think the quote in your signature is spot-on in this case.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Posted
11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Lived experience seems to be a negative with this issue. 

It isn't - but you seem to be thinking that your lived experience is the gold standard instead of the lived experience of the rest of us. Your views seem to be so one-sided. You speak of the difficulties in accepting desegregation. But, my experience comes through a different narrative - like the Detroit race riots.

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The faithful Black members I knew at the time of the lifting were waiting patiently for the revelation to come. They were not  agitating or demonstrating against the Church. That mostly came from outsiders.

Of course, the Church was actively discouraging proselytizing blacks ... on the other hand, George Romney, who was for a time my Regional Representative (back before we had area 70s), was a strong advocate for civil rights in the early 1960s when he was Governor of Michigan and afterward. Given the large black populations in Michigan, my experience is quite different from yours. Black members were waiting - but I wouldn't call it patiently. They wanted the priesthood ban lifted. And, they wanted discriminatory practices to end. The discriminatory practices of the Church were far less popular in the areas I lived in than they were in the areas you apparently lived in.

Whether or not the threats came from insiders or outsiders is to some extent irrelevant - because those threats weren't leveled against the Church for taking steps at improving the conditions of blacks but were leveled against the Church for not taking those steps. And this goes against your argument that the threat to the Church would have been because of its embracing racial equality earlier.

And let us not forget Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) in which the Supreme Court wrote that the purpose of eliminating discrimination was a significant enough policy objective to the government that it over-rode the University's religious right to discriminate (the school's tax exempt status had been revoked in 1976). The Church was not under attack by the IRS in 1978, but had their discriminatory policies continued, they almost certainly would have been in 1983.

I think in the long run, you may not agree with my positions, but this doesn't mean that you have offered a coherent or reasonable defense of your own position. And the snarky comments that pepper your responses suggest that you have no interest in really trying to defend your views - instead preferring to try and paint those who disagree with you as not being true to the faith. I think you are wrong. But, at least I have tried to point out why my views are not merely anecdotal and connected to my lived experience (even if that lived experience also plays a role in my views).

Posted
14 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.

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.

Posted
21 hours 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.

Yes, American slavery apologetics crept into LDS doctrine. Best to admit the error frankly so we can move on. 

Posted
13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do that. And then, when your relationship is developed, don't be surprised if you learn some things from them as well! :good:

ETA: I just looked. To date, the Church has created 27 new stakes in 2022. Nine of them (exactly one-third) are in West Africa: six in Nigeria, two in Cote d'Ivoire, and one in Liberia. All three new districts created this year are in West Africa, including our first in Senegal (with a population that is 97.2 per cent Muslim).

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.

 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Yes, American slavery apologetics crept into LDS doctrine. Best to admit the error frankly so we can move on. 

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. 

Posted
9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

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.

Bingo! In Africa we don't have the woke, social justice, white guilt, defensive conservatism, white supremacy and overall over politicised and highly polarised little social media cesspools to swim in every now and again. We have real problems that keep us from endless obsessing over trivial things.

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...