Calm Posted November 16, 2022 Share Posted November 16, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, Calm said: Unfinished thought as at doctor’s appt, may add to it in a bit. Will proof later for sure. Started a new post as too long of a gap to just add to my previous post even though this is continuing my thought. Pure speculation…. The importance of unanimity in the highest councils of the Church is why I believe it took as long as it did to remove the ban. I believe God was allowing leadership to struggle with their beliefs and behaviours as they did, even when they deepened their error rather than corrected it because mortality is meant to give us the experience of living independently to a great extent from God in order to learn the true value of our choices and our desires. One of the most important things we are learning in mortality is what is our relationship with the rest of mankind, do we truly accept them as brother and sister, as children of God or do we divide them into categories of “my real family” and “not quite good enough for me” and worse? And it was not that he valued unanimity in the councils more that the salvation of his black children, but that he allows mortal men as much freedom as he can to make stupid mistakes, to hurt each other, to feel hurt, etc because we will only turn our back on selfishness and arrogance when we figure out the cost to all of us and experience is the best teacher. Add to that my belief (which has little foundation for me save it makes sense to me and feels elegantly right) that somehow we are figuring that out together in a great family web where even what happens to individuals distant from our own place in the web sends signals to us (just as a web vibrates as a whole when even a wee creature gets trapped in it) as well as in our individual ways and we have the mess that was the ban, that was and is war, slavery, abuse, that includes all forms of oppression and neglect and all other behaviours rooted in selfishness and the willingness to see people as things. Unanimity has a much bigger part in our personal salvation than we generally think of it, imo the emphasis in our teaching is usually on the individual or the immediate family…no one is punished eternally for Adam’s transgression, or Brigham’s or mine, but we also cannot be saved without our dead family that spreads back before us according to Joseph…which implies we can’t be saved without our living family that extends all around us as well because we are all family, all children of God. Looking at how God works in the lives I know best around me, I have come to believe he is mostly hands off, even with important lessons like a parent helping a child learn how to walk. If the parent never lets go of the child’s hands, the child will never learn how to balance or be willing to go off exploring on their own. I think he stepped in when he did (if he stepped in and was not invited because leaders were ready for a heart and mind total paradigm change) because we got to a time where the ban would screw up God’s timetable if allowed to continue. What we call “tender mercies” are in my view the equivalent to a parent quickly touching and letting go again, adding just enough stability or familiarity to prevent instability eventually leading to a sprawl and a bawl. But a good parent also allows the bawls because we learn how sweet life can be because we have an awareness of the bitter as well. So how and why did it happen the way it did and when it did? Did it need to be a revelation simply because it was thought to need a revelation by some and therefore if a revelation, unanimity would be achievable? Or was a revelation needed because God wanted that lesson to be learned so ban type of mistakes wouldn’t happen again? Timing….My guess is that was the first time where all 15 could get truly behind the revelation whether or not they had been willing to get ahead of it, where all doubt in any of the 15 that God had spoken would be removed, where their minds would be united as much as their hearts…not just accepting the revelation out of obedience and faith in their prophet, but allowing themselves to receive enlightenment from the Spirit as well. Not only did they need such unanimity for themselves, but the absolute certainty about the revelation as expressed by any who shared the experience with the Church was needed imo to reassure membership that this wasn’t the Church giving into pressure or wishful thinking. Falling asleep as I do so often after doctors’ appts….Hopefully this is a complete thought that makes sense. If someone wants to rip it apart, I have no problem with that as this is reasoned rather than inspired and I am well aware reasoning is too often informed by how I want things to be rather than how they are and even more often there are tons of gaps I don’t see because of my lack of experience. Edited November 16, 2022 by Calm 2 Link to comment
Calm Posted November 16, 2022 Share Posted November 16, 2022 (edited) One last comment or rather question… For those who see the Ban as useful to the spread of the Gospel in Africa, can you please explain in detail how that works? I am not seeing it as necessary to delay large scale proselytizing until a time doors would open (this is how I am interpreting comments made viewing the ban in a positive way and tying it to Africa now so far)because we did not have much proselytizing in India during this same time period without the Ban imposing difficulties or reluctance to proselyte. Edited November 16, 2022 by Calm Link to comment
Snodgrassian Posted November 16, 2022 Share Posted November 16, 2022 22 hours ago, gav said: 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 understand the underlying sentiment of what you are saying, but what you may find as "good for a giggle" is heartbreaking, damaging, life altering to others. I have family members who still believe some of the crazy things taught in the sunday school, and they try and pass off some these teachings to my children. The church and its teachings mirror the zeitgeist of the era they were produced in. Some of that could/should be expected, but not all of it. 2 Link to comment
gav Posted November 16, 2022 Share Posted November 16, 2022 12 hours ago, Calm said: One last comment or rather question… For those who see the Ban as useful to the spread of the Gospel in Africa, can you please explain in detail how that works? I am not seeing it as necessary to delay large scale proselytizing until a time doors would open (this is how I am interpreting comments made viewing the ban in a positive way and tying it to Africa now so far)because we did not have much proselytizing in India during this same time period without the Ban imposing difficulties or reluctance to proselyte. From personal experience in South Africa. When the ban was lifted there was way too much overzealous proselytizing by overseas missionaries (not enough local missionaries yet) in the decade following the lifting. Widespread cultural norms allowed for easy proselytizing and baptizing without much nearing anything resembling a permanent or effective conversion. Many of these baptized on mass in these areas were women and children (men were often working away in the mines). Of the men that were baptised and ordained many were in still in polygamous relationships as that was still a strong cultural norm in more rural settings. The high prevalence of polygamy was only picked up later due to the initial overzealousness in this seemingly endless and bountiful harvest of souls by inexperienced and unsuspecting outsiders. Some saw themselves as Ammon and his brethren among the lamanites and acted accordingly. Enough "members" were baptized on weekly baptism days to establish an entire ward every week in remote villages far and wide and very far from any sort of support. When the ban was lifted Apartheid still had not yet reached its zenith. The Church had lost many members of european descent to emigration to Utah during the early years and only in the 60's and 70's did a core of local membership begin to form. "Whites only, Blacks only" segregation was still very much alive and well and so these proselytizing expeditions by inexperienced non locals were conducted in the "Black Homelands" far away from any semblance of a core of strength. It would only be in the late 80's and after a temple dedicated in Johannesburg, in 1985, that apartheid would begin to crumble and the "white core" of the church could begin to integrate fully without breaking the law and members of either race could enter "no go" zones. The early 90's, when I was on mission, was spent learning from these mistakes. It was not uncommon while out doing the rounds to find members on the copious records to turn up another apostate congregation. Complete with paid ministry, uniforms, drums, chickens slaughtered on the sacrament altar and the like. Entire wards were simply dissolved. The missions began to develop "growth from centers of strength" strategies and more careful proselytizing methods among more urbanised, westernised and less traditional areas, closer to local leadership support and mentorship. The lessons learned from the South African experience, where the church was most established, became highly useful in the rest of sub-saharan Africa where the church was still very small, immature or nonexistent. From the core that developed in the 70's and garnered experience from the ban lifting challenges and post apartheid integration challenges came the future leadership that was spread far and wide over Africa and made sure that inexperience "Ammon's" would not run amok across the entire continent. Now that these "centers of strength" are well established in many countries, there are enough seasoned local leaders across the continent to mentor the newly ordained, and proselytizing strategies have been refined, the work goes forward at a record pace but in a very sustainable way. From my perspective it was wisdom in the Lord to keep the church out of Africa during the 19th and most of the 20th century. The entire continent was in turmoil for most of this period. Sending the church into Africa during the colonial period and the scramble for Africa by the imperial powers of Europe would not have been pretty. Then came the world wars, collapse of imperialism and the cold war liberation struggles across the entire continent. Very few of the colonials stayed behind after liberation except in the south. The south, as the strongest and most advanced economy, became the gateway to Africa after Apartheid was got out of way. Over zealous missionaries before then could easily have created a glorious mess of continental proportion amongst a culturally receptive but still very traditional population by opening the floodgates when no seasoned membership, with decades of experience, existed either in the south and in West Africa. It is my understanding that West Africa developed a core of committed black membership without the priesthood and they also served as a tempering local leadership core once the ban was lifted and before the floodgates opened. When you look at the ban through a lense based in Africa, given its history and the churches history, it looks very different, and the timing makes more sense. 2 Link to comment
Calm Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, gav said: When you look at the ban through a lense based in Africa, given its history and the churches history, it looks very different, and the timing makes more sense. And yet India, which was in turmoil for the same time period did not need the Ban for leadership to gain experience and learn they needed a different strategy than ones used in Europe or the States. And if it was such a poor job of missionary work for the first decade or so, how can that be a sign that the timing was perfect? If the ban hadn’t existed, there would have been perhaps an additional 100 years of experience in proselytizing in Africa, perhaps even preparing a solid core of local leadership so that when Apartheid lifted or whatever you see as the key factor in Africa now being ready (there is still massive turmoil in Africa***, so I am not seeing that as a huge difference, but my viewpoint is from afar, so I am willing to be educated) Your reasoning has some major gaps and therefore is not really explanatory to me at this point. ***Many African countries are still in the top numbers for deaths due to armed conflict according to wiki https://issafrica.org/pscreport/psc-insights/african-conflicts-to-watch-in-2022 Famine still exists and may get worse. https://www.caritas.org.au/global-issues/famine-in-africa-the-causes-history-and-how-you-can-help/ Displacement https://www.nrc.no/news/2022/june/the-worlds-ten-most-neglected-crises-are-all-in-africa/ Edited November 17, 2022 by Calm 4 Link to comment
gav Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 2 hours ago, Calm said: And yet India, which was in turmoil for the same time period did not need the Ban for leadership to gain experience and learn they needed a different strategy than ones used in Europe or the States. India does not have the same cultural and therefor growth dynamics. That is the point 2 Link to comment
gav Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 2 hours ago, Calm said: If the ban hadn’t existed, there would have been perhaps an additional 100 years of experience in proselytizing in Africa, perhaps even preparing a solid core of local leadership so that when Apartheid lifted or whatever you see as the key factor in Africa now being ready (there is still massive turmoil in Africa***, so I am not seeing that as a huge difference, but my viewpoint is from afar, so I am willing to be educated) I suggest a bit of research into African pre-colonial, colonial and post colonial history. 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, gav said: India does not have the same cultural and therefor growth dynamics. That is the point Of course. My question though is why a ban would be required at all though when they were able to adapt without it in other places? Why was the ban needed to slow missionary work in Africa, but not India, not in China, etc? And could not God have accomplished the same thing by inspiration assuming he is guiding where missionaries are and are not sent now? If there wasn’t a ban, but slowed missionary work like in other continents, then missionary work among blacks and later other races in America (North, Central, and South) wouldn’t have been slowed (and we know there were some who were ready to be local leadership in the States because there were some and there was good reports from the locals iirc about their leadership). Edited November 17, 2022 by Calm 3 Link to comment
gav Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 5 hours ago, Calm said: Of course. My question though is why a ban would be required at all though when they were able to adapt without it in other places? Why was the ban needed to slow missionary work in Africa, but not India, not in China, etc? And could not God have accomplished the same thing by inspiration assuming he is guiding where missionaries are and are not sent now? If there wasn’t a ban, but slowed missionary work like in other continents, then missionary work among blacks and later other races in America (North, Central, and South) wouldn’t have been slowed (and we know there were some who were ready to be local leadership in the States because there were some and there was good reports from the locals iirc about their leadership). I'm not suggesting that "a ban would be required" but the fact that it was in place was very fortuitous. It prevented a second great apostasy on a continental scale in Africa. By divine design we have local leaders and general authorities. The local leadership is self sufficient to a degree once ordained. General authorities, area authorities, travel and communication infrastructure are required to maintain the unified general direction of the church. Persecution and weak infrastructure prevented the early apostles from getting around and the church spread far faster than its centralised structures could manage. Without the centralised guidance from those early general authorities the rapidly expanding early church with its lay clergy quickly began assimilating existing practices and doctrines from pagan and other sources. We know how that turned out... This is exactly the same thing that happened once the priesthood ban was dropped and missionary work began in the traditionalist areas in South Africa. It quickly spiraled out of control and "the church" was assimilated into or assimilated local traditional culture. This not only happened with the Church but with Catholicism, Methodism etc. in the centuries before. They look very little like their european counterparts in the more traditionalist areas in Africa and they don't even have the lay clergy element. During colonial times most of Africa was still very traditionalist and locals were second class citizens of the colonies. Infrastructure to manage the rapid growth that would have ensued in tribal areas was non-existent. Travel by ship would not cut the cake and then getting into the rural areas would be impossible. Rapid growth followed by rapid apostasy would have been guaranteed. I saw it with my own eyes a century later only on a much smaller scale in the geographically limited Apartheid "blacks only" homelands and only the presence of modern infrastructure and a strong local presence allowed for comparatively quick detection and remediation. Decolonization and the ensuing liberation struggles and civil wars became cold war theaters with much meddling and backing from the USSR and USA. That USSR backed side most often won. How would a perceived American church have fared under those circumstances? How would it have supported its members and kept ever increasing numbers of wards and branches from falling into apostasy. The church was banned multiple times in Ghana, the other and West African node of growth. Once the liberation struggles were won colonists left rapidly, in many instances almost overnight. And there were huge disruptions to governance and general functioning of entire countries. Also conditions not conducive to maintaining a good hold on an explosively growing church. Which would have been more desirable, a few tens of thousand saints denied priesthood and other blessings or a continent full of ordained melchizedek priesthood holders practicing priestcraft and other forms of apostasy? Once again, not saying the ban was required but in this instance it prevented a major mess and its lifting came at a time when all the necessary infrastructure was in place to quickly understand and manage the explosive growth that continues here. 2 Link to comment
pogi Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 (edited) 22 hours ago, gav said: From my perspective it was wisdom in the Lord to keep the church out of Africa during the 19th and most of the 20th century. Attempting to justify the ban for this reason is hugely problematic for me. For one accusing others of being Amero-centric, it is kind of ironic how entirely Afro-centric your perspective is which doesn't consider the ramifications of the ban in a global church which affected the rest of African Diaspora in really harmful ways for well over 100 years, including Brazil, the US, Haiti, the DR, other Caribbean nations, Colombia, etc. etc, Second, it is a bit like robing Peter (millions and millions of Peters for over a century) to pay Paul, when Peter didn't need to be robed to slow the progression of missionary work in Africa for the reasons you mentioned. The Lord could have simply revealed that missionary work in Africa will be slowed or halted until the continent is better prepared to receive the gospel. The same results could have been reached without the long-term negative global impact and spiritual injustice (if your theory is true) that has been the cause of so much spiritual distress and impaired growth among many of African decent and others who rightly are distressed by the history of the ban. No need to rob the blessings of the gospel from those in other continents and nations who were worthy of receiving such blessings to accomplish the results of delaying/slowing missionary work in Africa. If the church told you that they were going to revoke the priesthood and temple blessings upon you and your family and your posterity for over a century because another continent is not quite ready yet to receive missionaries, would that explanation make sense to you? You wouldn't find that explanation troubling and misguided at all??? "Why does their spiritual welfare/blessings matter more than me and my posterity and the rest of African Diaspora?" would never come to mind? I served my mission in the Philippines and many of the same problems you describe of overly rapid growth was experienced there. Much of our focus was on reactivation and development of local church leadership instead of proselyting, for that reason. And when we did proselytize, we learned to not branch out far from church buildings and established church leadership centers. I had branches with over 350 baptized members and only around 10-15 in attendance each Sunday. Many of these members lived hours from the church with no roads, but hiking trails through jungle. We had to learn many of the same lessons that you learned in South Africa all over again.a Apparently the church didn't learn from the mistakes over there. The ban didn't seem to help in that regard at all. Edited November 17, 2022 by pogi 1 Link to comment
pogi Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, gav said: I'm not suggesting that "a ban would be required" but the fact that it was in place was very fortuitous. It prevented a second great apostasy on a continental scale in Africa. I didn't read this before posting my last response. Either way, this is still a very Afro-centric perspective of timing, fortuitousness, and effects of the ban. In no way does it soften the ban in my eyes or make it any more inspired, if that is what you are attempting to do. If that is not what you are attempting to do, then what is your concern with my perspective of the ban exactly? In the context of the ban you said: Quote From my perspective it was wisdom in the Lord to keep the church out of Africa during the 19th and most of the 20th century. To me that says you think the ban was "wisdom in the Lord" because of "fortuitous" effects it had in Africa. Is that a fair assessment of your position? Edited November 17, 2022 by pogi 1 Link to comment
Eschaton Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 It seems that if for some reason God/the church had wanted to delay missionary work to Africa, there would have been much better ways to accomplish that than to adopt false ideas about the origins of African people via American slavery propaganda and bad Biblical eisegesis. An example of that would be simply to say: "We are delaying missionary work to the African continent until some time in the future." It's like using a jackhammer to pry open a soda bottle. 2 Link to comment
gav Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 7 minutes ago, pogi said: I didn't read this before posting my last response. Either way, this is still a very Afro-centric perspective of timing, fortuitousness, and effects of the ban. In no way does it soften the ban in my eyes or make it any more inspired, if that is what you are attempting to do. If that is not what you are attempting to do, then what is your concern with my perspective of the ban exactly? I am not attempting to justify the ban, I am attempting to broaden perspectives by offering, as you put it "a very Afro-centric perspective of timing, fortuitousness, and effects of the ban." This fumbling attempt is to illustrate that the matter is complex and more nuanced than what generally gets raised on the subject. I reject the almost default and quick and easy out of simply attributing -isms -ists and -pobias. Could the Gentiles cry racism because they got the gospel second. Can Judah, cry antisemitism because Ephraim and Manasseh representing Joseph are to be gathered before they receive all their restored blessings? What of the so called "heathen nations" that may only receive their blessings in the millenium. What of the countless millions that lived during the great apostasy? It appears the Lord discriminates and has His timing according to His plan... I can look at those timings and see why He might have chosen to do it that way. Shem, Ham and Japhet would represent great divisions of blessings and timing. I don’t need to throw stones about things I don’t fully understand or have all the fact because I accept that on many things we will never have all the facts this side of the Millenium. Sometimes the challenges of this life are to overcome perceived or even real injustices... sometimes a real injustice in the church is a person's "abrahamic test" or cross to bear. 4 Link to comment
Eschaton Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 21 minutes ago, gav said: Could the Gentiles cry racism because they got the gospel second. What we might call the Christian gospel was developed jointly between early Jewish and Gentile followers of "The Way." Link to comment
gav Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 1 minute ago, Eschaton said: What we might call the Christian gospel was developed jointly between early Jewish and Gentile followers of "The Way." Christ specifically barred his disciples from going to the Gentiles and Samaritans. Matt 10: 5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It requires a revelation to Peter after the resurrection to lift this "ban" see Acts 10 1 Link to comment
MrShorty Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 (edited) 43 minutes ago, gav said: It appears the Lord discriminates I would venture to say that this might be the heart and soul of the whole discussion. If we assume that the scriptural examples you cite are inerrant examples of God's will and not somehow influenced by the people involved in receiving and recording scripture, then, yes, it appears that the Lord discriminates. Which is why I think these kinds of questions really get at the heart of scriptural inerrancy and prophetic fallibility and any of the other ways that we mortals impact and influence what gets called "God's will." Edited November 17, 2022 by MrShorty 3 Link to comment
MrShorty Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 13 minutes ago, gav said: It requires a revelation to Peter after the resurrection to lift this "ban" see Acts 10 One of the interesting questions I've had about this is whether or not the revelation in Acts 10 was truly necessary. In the great commission given before His ascension, Christ commanded the apostles to take the gospel to all nations. Why was the revelation in Acts 10 necessary? Didn't Peter recognize that the great commission was enough to authorize preaching to the Gentiles? Was it possible for the apostles to significantly misunderstand the great commission for some time? Again, what does this say about how prophets, apostles, the recorders of scripture, and the rest of us impact the flow of revelation from God to His people? 2 Link to comment
BlueDreams Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 6 minutes ago, gav said: I am not attempting to justify the ban, I am attempting to broaden perspectives by offering, as you put it "a very Afro-centric perspective of timing, fortuitousness, and effects of the ban." This fumbling attempt is to illustrate that the matter is complex and more nuanced than what generally gets raised on the subject. I reject the almost default and quick and easy out of simply attributing -isms -ists and -pobias. I've read this paragraph 3 times and don't get it. My sleep pattern was bad last night, so it may be making my brain sluggish in comprehension, but I'm struggling to understand how this represents a means to "broaden perspectives." Don't get me wrong, your anecdotes around south africa's early work is interesting to read, but it doesn't really do much to inform what place the ban has...minus that it happened and changed when the initial work and mistakes in said work first happened. It also doesn't say much about the ban and racism in general. All it says to me is that you see a divine unfolding of the work in which the ban didn't necessarily hinder in Africa. Which is a) impossible to prove and b) ignores that the work may have had very different results in other areas with large populations of the black diaspora c) includes a lot of oversimplified adjacent thoughts to make this work. I also don't get how rejecting potential forms of prejudice informing human decisions is not it's own form of maintaining a blindspot and creating it's own over-simplified message. That literally reduces the explanations to a more simplified and sterilized narrative. And from personal experience, acknowledging racism is by no mean the "simple" answer. 6 minutes ago, gav said: Could the Gentiles cry racism because they got the gospel second. Can Judah, cry antisemitism because Ephraim and Manasseh representing Joseph are to be gathered before they receive all their restored blessings? What of the so called "heathen nations" that may only receive their blessings in the millenium. What of the countless millions that lived during the great apostasy? These questions are also ironically over simplified/overgeneralized. Both in the terms used and the circustances described 6 minutes ago, gav said: It appears the Lord discriminates and has His timing according to His plan... I can look at those timings and see why He might have chosen to do it that way. Shem, Ham and Japhet would represent great divisions of blessings and timing. I don’t need to throw stones about things I don’t fully understand or have all the fact because I accept that on many things we will never have all the facts this side of the Millenium. Sometimes the challenges of this life are to overcome perceived or even real injustices... sometimes a real injustice in the church is a person's "abrahamic test" or cross to bear. Of course god discriminates at least in the definition that God "recognizes distinctions and differentiates". That's why we believe there will be 3 degrees of glory. Why there's righteous and unrighteous actions, etc. But God is not discriminatory in the use of the term as making an "unjust or prejudicial distinction." By very nature, God is not unjust and thus cannot discriminate in unjust ways. The question would then be was the ban a series of unjust or prejudicial distinctions? For me, though the answer is complex, I would generally say yes. It's initial reasons were not made from clear command by god, but from a culture and political climate steeped in unjust and prejudicial distinctions that slowly reduced participation of current saints. The reasons and actions taken were unjust and quite often prejudicial. The legacy fed unjust and prejudicial justifications, pre-existing assumptions, reasonings, and blindspots that we're still at times stumbling over and color our views. This view doesn't exclude the idea that part of the challenge in life is overcoming injustices. It's an embodiment of it. And a real injustice ending up being a cross to bear does not make the test something God approves of. Maybe part of this is just hard for me to follow because the line of reasoning you're mentioning was the line of reasoning I somewhat started off with...seeking something that makes the ban okay. Study, nuance, pondering, prayer, and a little more study did the opposite. Expanding my view meant coming to terms that the ban has many of the markings on human error. With luv, BD 3 Link to comment
gav Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 7 minutes ago, MrShorty said: One of the interesting questions I've had about this is whether or not the revelation in Acts 10 was truly necessary. In the great commission given before His ascension, Christ commanded the apostles to take the gospel to all nations. Why was the revelation in Acts 10 necessary? Didn't Peter recognize that the great commission was enough to authorize preaching to the Gentiles? Was it possible for the apostles to significantly misunderstand the great commission for some time? Again, what does this say about how prophets, apostles, the recorders of scripture, and the rest of us impact the flow of revelation from God to His people? Precisely, and then they revisit the matter again in Acts 15 and deliberate to eventually get to a point of consensus. Seems like scriptural precedents to me. Discrimination, repealing, difficulty to change and eventual consensus and wide acceptance. 2 Link to comment
bluebell Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 12 minutes ago, MrShorty said: One of the interesting questions I've had about this is whether or not the revelation in Acts 10 was truly necessary. In the great commission given before His ascension, Christ commanded the apostles to take the gospel to all nations. Why was the revelation in Acts 10 necessary? Didn't Peter recognize that the great commission was enough to authorize preaching to the Gentiles? Was it possible for the apostles to significantly misunderstand the great commission for some time? Again, what does this say about how prophets, apostles, the recorders of scripture, and the rest of us impact the flow of revelation from God to His people? This is a question that many other Christians (and Christian scholars) have as well. I haven't been able to figure out any answers from reading anything they have had to say on the subject. Most seem to believe that Peter understood the commission to mean to seek out the Jews that had been scattered through other nations, not to preach the gospel to everyone. Many also believe that the great commission has nothing to do with missionary work but is all about Kingdom building and that's why it only applied to the Jews. Whether Christ meant to include gentiles in that or He wanted Peter to wait a bit, our scriptural sources do seem to suggest that God works with or allows discrimination at some points in the history of the world. That doesn't really bother me. Everything in its time and season. As a woman, and a woman with a degree in history, it's just a fact that women were discriminated against throughout almost all of history, and that includes Jewish history and Christian history. God let that go on without stepping in to definitively correct it (and even in these last days, the correction has been slow going). I don't know why that is, and it is frustrating and sometimes even maddening, but I've made my peace with it. 4 Link to comment
Eschaton Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, gav said: Christ specifically barred his disciples from going to the Gentiles and Samaritans. Matt 10: 5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It requires a revelation to Peter after the resurrection to lift this "ban" see Acts 10 Yes, Jesus never seemed to enter gentile towns. But he wasn't teaching Christianity - that developed only after his death. He was teaching a kind of cooperative Jewish eschatology that seemed to be based on individual righteousness in preparation for the God's Imperial Rule (ie Kingdom of God), where economic injustice and violence against the innocent would be eliminated. In other words, he wasn't trying to get anyone to change their religion, but rather to live lives of radical righteousness. Edited November 17, 2022 by Eschaton Link to comment
pogi Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 1 hour ago, gav said: I am not attempting to justify the ban, I am attempting to broaden perspectives by offering, as you put it "a very Afro-centric perspective of timing, fortuitousness, and effects of the ban." This fumbling attempt is to illustrate that the matter is complex and more nuanced than what generally gets raised on the subject. I reject the almost default and quick and easy out of simply attributing -isms -ists and -pobias. You say that you are not attempting to justify the ban, but how is this broadened perspective of fortuitous timing in Africa (while neglecting the effects in the rest of the world) supposed to nuance the "issue" for me? Unless you are attempting to justify the ban as being inspired by God, then any gratuitous timing in Africa of an uninspired ban doesn't add any context or nuance to the cause/inspiration behind the ban at all and leaves me confused as to your point. If you are not outright attempting to justify the ban, it seems that you are at least attempting to leave room for the possibility that it may have been inspired by God - is that fair? If that is the case, then once again, I am left with this question for you: If the church told you that they were going to revoke the priesthood and temple blessings upon you and your family and your posterity for over a century because another continent is not quite ready yet to receive missionaries, would that explanation make sense to you? You wouldn't find that explanation troubling and misguided at all??? By outright rejecting the possibility of isms (racism) as a cause for the ban, perhaps you are unnecessarily biasing your judgment and unwisely ignoring the cultural context of the ban in America. As they say, usually the simplest answer is the right one. Even after considering the context of the effects in Africa, and placing that in perspective of the rest of the world, I am still left with the evidence pointing most strongly towards an "ism" cause. The simplest answer doesn't mean the conclusion was arrived at through lazy or ignorant consideration of larger/other perspectives. The simple answer is not the same as an "easy" answer. It is often just the one that makes the most sense. 1 Link to comment
gav Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 12 minutes ago, pogi said: By outright rejecting the possibility of isms (racism) as a cause for the ban, perhaps you are unnecessarily biasing your judgment and unwisely ignoring the cultural context of the ban in America. As they say, usually the simplest answer is the right one. Even after considering the context of the effects in Africa, and placing that in perspective of the rest of the world, I am still left with the evidence pointing most strongly towards an "ism" cause. I tend to observe that people are the product of their time, the ban was likely a product of its time. By going back in time and applying highly charged labels like -isms -ists and -obias from our day to their day confines those long dead people, their problems and actions in a box of our latest making and charged with all the current understanding, issues and baggage. This tends to remove or diminish cultural and other nuances and dumb down what really went on and its greater context. To me it's a bit like childhood name calling. Place a name or label on it and it sticks and potentially limits further perceptions and perspectives. Since he has raised his orange head again look how effectively Trump utilises this tactic against his opponents. By using catchy and derogatory names for his opponents he biases and sways the perceptions of millions. Name calling and labeling to my mind short circuits and oversimplifies matters, that is why I reject them. We name things to categorize and classify them, to put them in a box with bounds around them. Automatically by establishing these bounds we set limits and these limits often eliminate further inputs that may interfere with our now established notions. 2 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 On 11/15/2022 at 9:57 PM, Calm said: Started a new post as too long of a gap to just add to my previous post even though this is continuing my thought. Pure speculation…. The importance of unanimity in the highest councils of the Church is why I believe it took as long as it did to remove the ban. I believe God was allowing leadership to struggle with their beliefs and behaviours as they did, even when they deepened their error rather than corrected it because mortality is meant to give us the experience of living independently to a great extent from God in order to learn the true value of our choices and our desires. One of the most important things we are learning in mortality is what is our relationship with the rest of mankind, do we truly accept them as brother and sister, as children of God or do we divide them into categories of “my real family” and “not quite good enough for me” and worse? And it was not that he valued unanimity in the councils more that the salvation of his black children, but that he allows mortal men as much freedom as he can to make stupid mistakes, to hurt each other, to feel hurt, etc because we will only turn our back on selfishness and arrogance when we figure out the cost to all of us and experience is the best teacher. Add to that my belief (which has little foundation for me save it makes sense to me and feels elegantly right) that somehow we are figuring that out together in a great family web where even what happens to individuals distant from our own place in the web sends signals to us (just as a web vibrates as a whole when even a wee creature gets trapped in it) as well as in our individual ways and we have the mess that was the ban, that was and is war, slavery, abuse, that includes all forms of oppression and neglect and all other behaviours rooted in selfishness and the willingness to see people as things. Unanimity has a much bigger part in our personal salvation than we generally think of it, imo the emphasis in our teaching is usually on the individual or the immediate family…no one is punished eternally for Adam’s transgression, or Brigham’s or mine, but we also cannot be saved without our dead family that spreads back before us according to Joseph…which implies we can’t be saved without our living family that extends all around us as well because we are all family, all children of God. Looking at how God works in the lives I know best around me, I have come to believe he is mostly hands off, even with important lessons like a parent helping a child learn how to walk. If the parent never lets go of the child’s hands, the child will never learn how to balance or be willing to go off exploring on their own. I think he stepped in when he did (if he stepped in and was not invited because leaders were ready for a heart and mind total paradigm change) because we got to a time where the ban would screw up God’s timetable if allowed to continue. What we call “tender mercies” are in my view the equivalent to a parent quickly touching and letting go again, adding just enough stability or familiarity to prevent instability eventually leading to a sprawl and a bawl. But a good parent also allows the bawls because we learn how sweet life can be because we have an awareness of the bitter as well. So how and why did it happen the way it did and when it did? Did it need to be a revelation simply because it was thought to need a revelation by some and therefore if a revelation, unanimity would be achievable? Or was a revelation needed because God wanted that lesson to be learned so ban type of mistakes wouldn’t happen again? Timing….My guess is that was the first time where all 15 could get truly behind the revelation whether or not they had been willing to get ahead of it, where all doubt in any of the 15 that God had spoken would be removed, where their minds would be united as much as their hearts…not just accepting the revelation out of obedience and faith in their prophet, but allowing themselves to receive enlightenment from the Spirit as well. Not only did they need such unanimity for themselves, but the absolute certainty about the revelation as expressed by any who shared the experience with the Church was needed imo to reassure membership that this wasn’t the Church giving into pressure or wishful thinking. Falling asleep as I do so often after doctors’ appts….Hopefully this is a complete thought that makes sense. If someone wants to rip it apart, I have no problem with that as this is reasoned rather than inspired and I am well aware reasoning is too often informed by how I want things to be rather than how they are and even more often there are tons of gaps I don’t see because of my lack of experience. This doesn't make a very strong case for Christ leading the church or in favor of prophets and apostles disseminating the will of God. I really like the Bolded line. I agree. But if God's appointed messengers get in the way of that, it would seem to be better to follow God directly instead of 15 men trying to reach some kind of consensus on what they think God wants. At least that way each individual is responsible for their own choices instead of abrogating their morality to the decisions of others. Don't forget, the church has taught that 1- the prophet will never lead us astray. It's not in the program and 2- If we are obedient to the brethren, even if they are wrong, we will be blessed. 1 Link to comment
bluebell Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: This doesn't make a very strong case for Christ leading the church or in favor of prophets and apostles disseminating the will of God. I really like the Bolded line. I agree. But if God's appointed messengers get in the way of that, it would seem to be better to follow God directly instead of 15 men trying to reach some kind of consensus on what they think God wants. At least that way each individual is responsible for their own choices instead of abrogating their morality to the decisions of others. Don't forget, the church has taught that 1- the prophet will never lead us astray. It's not in the program and 2- If we are obedient to the brethren, even if they are wrong, we will be blessed. Scriptural precedent contradicts the idea that we would be better not having a prophet and just relying solely on our relationship with God. Because if that was truly better for us, we should see evidence and examples throughout history of God working that way. 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now