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

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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. 

I believe spiritual independence is one of the primary lessons of the First Vision. If any of you lack wisdom, ask God...and all of that. It doesn't say go ask the prophet or a bishop, or wait for an authority figure to feed you the wisdom you seek.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

At least that way each individual is responsible for their own choices instead of abrogating their morality to the decisions of others.

How does looking to prophets abrogate our morality to the decisions of others?  We still choose what we accept and don’t accept, we choose whether to explore moral ideas or just accept what our parents, schools, peer group, media teach us, etc.

God will judge us by the laws of God we are aware of and there is no reason to assume that his standard for followers of prophets will be solely how well we accept and follow everything they say.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I believe spiritual independence is one of the primary lessons of the First Vision. If any of you lack wisdom, ask God...and all of that. It doesn't say go ask the prophet or a bishop, or wait for an authority figure to feed you the wisdom you seek.

But Joseph learned he could go to God by reading the words of a prophet, did he not?

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I believe spiritual independence is one of the primary lessons of the First Vision. If any of you lack wisdom, ask God...and all of that. It doesn't say go ask the prophet or a bishop, or wait for an authority figure to feed you the wisdom you seek.

But, there was no prophet or bishop for JS to ask, right?  So we can't really compare apples to oranges and expect to the result to be useful.  But even if in our current configuration, we eschew "waiting for an authority figure to feed us the wisdom that we seek".  

 

 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

But Joseph learned he could go to God by reading the words of a prophet, did he not?

 

God didn't need to wait for JS to learn it from a prophet.  He could have shown up at any time and told Joseph what He needed to tell him.  That He did wait, and used the words of a prophet to facilitate the vision, seems very relevant.

[Snodgrassian]

1 hour ago, gav said:

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.

There are definitely aspects of culture and society that are products of their time, but that does not mean that labels like -isms -ists and -obias cant be applied. Just because things were accepted by the mainstream (or those in power) doesn't change the fact that those labels could be applied. My argument is: How can it be that our brothers and sisters that had physical access to fulness of the Gospel were prevented from obtaining that fulness because the message was impeded by "products of their time?" Just because society accepts something, doesn't mean it is morally upstanding. Once again, the early saints were willing to risk everything to maintain polygamy. There was violence, the threat of violence, the loss of property, etc. and they were willing to risk it all to maintain it. But allowing black people, or those with a certain amount of black blood, to obtain the fullness the gospel was just too risky.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, gav said:

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.

I agree that these labels can be used as weapons in the way that you described, but they can also be descriptive words to better explain the context of the ban in a way that is much less vague and dismissive than "it was simply a product of its time".   The cancelling/condemnation/name calling that are often associated with these words are not necessarily tied to their use.   What other language would you use to shortly and concisely describe, without being dismissive and vague as to what the motivations and causes were behind the ban, without using "-sms -ists and -obias"?  

I don't think using the term racism, oversimplifies this issue.  Racism in that time period is a very complex issue and we need to be careful about how we judge and condemn people in that time period, I agree.  But, I think it is also critically important to plainly identify it for what it was and not vaguely beat around the bush so as to protect those entangled in such damaging paradigms.  God will be their fair judge, but we need to be honest about what actually happened.  We should not minimize it or avoid labeling it, because this is to minimize and avoid learning from the real lived experiences of the victims on the other side of these cultural beliefs/perspectives/practices/paradigms.  We can't learn from it and avoid it in the future if we can't properly identify it, label it, and call it what it REALLY is. 

I think avoiding these terms is what is "dumbing down" what really went on.  Racism is a highly charged word, and rightfully so.  We should not brush it under the table and soften its edges.  The victims deserve a full reckoning and realization of what actually happened to them, just as much as the perpetrators deserve proper contextualization and understanding of the paradigms and times that they were entangled in before condemnation and judgments are made. 

For example, in the essay on race and the priesthood, the church uses the words "racism" and racial prejudice" as labels which help us identify and clearly understand the context of the times and the source of the attempts to justify the ban.  Would you accuse them of being guilty of "childhood name-calling" in reference to our founding prophets, or simply being concisely descriptive of the times?  

Edited November 17, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, gav said:

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.

I will also note this from the article:

Quote

Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

But according to you, we shouldn't call it "racism" because it was in the past.  How can the church condemn it without labeling it?  How does that work? Or, are they wrong to condemn it?

Edited November 17, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

God didn't need to wait for JS to learn it from a prophet.  He could have shown up at any time and told Joseph what He needed to tell him.  That He did wait, and used the words of a prophet to facilitate the vision, seems very relevant.

Yep, could have gone all burning bush on him. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I believe spiritual independence is one of the primary lessons of the First Vision. If any of you lack wisdom, ask God...and all of that. It doesn't say go ask the prophet or a bishop, or wait for an authority figure to feed you the wisdom you seek.

"Spiritual self-reliance" is the term the church uses.  The prophets are adjuncts of and catalysts towards spiritual self-reliance, as we learn from the first vision being inspired by the words of a prophet in James 1:5 (as Calm points out). 

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

"Spiritual self-reliance" is the term the church uses.  The prophets are adjuncts of and catalysts towards spiritual self-reliance, as we learn from the first vision being inspired by the words of a prophet in James 1:5 (as Calm points out). 

This concept is illustrated in the new For the Strength of Youth Pamphlet, which says in the beginning, in part:

"The purpose of For the Strength of Youth is not to give you a “yes” or “no” about every possible choice you might face. Instead, the Lord is inviting you to live in a higher and holier way—His way. This guide will teach you about His way. It explains truths He has revealed. Make these truths your guide for making choices—big choices, such as making covenants in the temple and serving a mission, as well as daily choices, such as how to treat people or how to spend your time.

While others can help you, your spiritual growth is personal. It’s between you and the Lord."

Unlike what HJW says, the church is not interested in teaching members to "wait for an authority figure to feed us the wisdom that we seek", despite our belief in and reliance on prophets.

[gav]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think using the term racism, oversimplifies this issue.  Racism in that time period is a very complex issue and we need to be careful about how we judge and condemn people in that time period, I agree.  But, I think it is also critically important to plainly identify it for what it was and not vaguely beat around the bush so as to protect those entangled in such damaging paradigms.  God will be their fair judge, but we need to be honest about what actually happened.  We should not minimize it or avoid labeling it, because this is to minimize and avoid learning from the real lived experiences of the victims on the other side of these cultural beliefs/perspectives/practices/paradigms.  We can't learn from it and avoid it in the future if we can't properly identify it, label it, and call it what it REALLY is. 

I think avoiding these terms is what is "dumbing down" what really went on.  Racism is a highly charged word, and rightfully so.  We should not brush it under the table and soften its edges.  The victims deserve a full reckoning and realization of what actually happened to them, just as much as the perpetrators deserve proper contextualization and understanding of the paradigms and times that they were entangled in before condemnation and judgments are made. 

Given that I grew up in South Africa, when Apartheid was alive and well, was conscripted into the military, as all white school leavers were, to continue the perpetuation of this malignant abomination, lived through the turmoil of its demise and continue to live in the the limping attempt at recovery from this disastrous ******* child of the british colonial class system.

I have seen enough racism to last for many a lifetime. It's effects continue to linger and metastasize in my country. It's spectre permeates our society, past and present.

I have also seen enough facets to racism to reject the weaponised and oversimplified "box with a neat bow" that the term has become in general use today. I detest the results of its now inextricable entanglement with victimhood and perpetratorship. In my mind it is way to overcharged and comes with way too much baggage to be a useful descriptor. These power words -isms -ists and -obias are now the equivalent of a set of Aces. Once played, the game ends, discussion is over and nuance is sacrificed on the twin altars of victimhood and perpetratorship.

We agree that racism a century or two ago was a very complex issue and so NO, as for me, I won't be playing the present day racism Ace. I think if people want to discuss the issue of the priesthood ban it should be a discussion free from today's baggage around the word RACISM. Were there racial influences to the thinking back then? Undoubtedly, but those were not the only considerations and perhaps not the most important considerations.

What is my issue with Victimhood? It disempowers the victim, destroys agency and often, in my experience, binds the victim in a bondage of inability to act or influence their own future circumstances. Victimhood inflames the fires of resentment, entitlement and desires for revenge.

We only have to look to the Book of Mormon to see the bitter fruits of victimhood. Laman and Lemuel were always "the victims". They passed this onto the succeeding generations and countless dead, numberless missed blessings and a thousand years later only genocide of "the perpetrators" would suffice.

Fueling the fires of victimhood is the USA's death sentence and any american does so at their own peril.

 

The Book of Mormon is in many instances a type and a shadow of things to come on the american continent. I case we missed the types and shadows the Lord spells it out in D&C 87:

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

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

Racism, slavery, victimhood etc. are again becoming a currency, rallying cry and marshaling point in a now ridiculously polarised USA. Mesoamericans are pouring into the USA in record numbers. Many of these are actual indigenous peoples of Book of Mormon lands. The "remnants who are left of the land" and "slaves ris(ing) up against their masters" chess pieces are on the move. Vexing with a sore Vexation does not have pleasant scriptural cross references...

I don't want to have anything to do with the marshaling of these disgruntled groups and the terrible woe's that follow, do you?

[gav]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

I will also note this from the article:

But according to you, we shouldn't call it "racism" because it was in the past.  How can the church condemn it without labeling it?  How does that work? Or, are they wrong to condemn it?

Racism isn't a good thing so naturally church leaders will call it out, incase anybody is confused on that point... but then they move on and focus on many many other things

[pogi]

10 hours ago, gav said:

Given that I grew up in South Africa, when Apartheid was alive and well, was conscripted into the military, as all white school leavers were, to continue the perpetuation of this malignant abomination, lived through the turmoil of its demise and continue to live in the the limping attempt at recovery from this disastrous ******* child of the british colonial class system.

I have seen enough racism to last for many a lifetime. It's effects continue to linger and metastasize in my country. It's spectre permeates our society, past and present.

I have also seen enough facets to racism to reject the weaponised and oversimplified "box with a neat bow" that the term has become in general use today. I detest the results of its now inextricable entanglement with victimhood and perpetratorship. In my mind it is way to overcharged and comes with way too much baggage to be a useful descriptor. These power words -isms -ists and -obias are now the equivalent of a set of Aces. Once played, the game ends, discussion is over and nuance is sacrificed on the twin altars of victimhood and perpetratorship.

We agree that racism a century or two ago was a very complex issue and so NO, as for me, I won't be playing the present day racism Ace. I think if people want to discuss the issue of the priesthood ban it should be a discussion free from today's baggage around the word RACISM. Were there racial influences to the thinking back then? Undoubtedly, but those were not the only considerations and perhaps not the most important considerations.

What is my issue with Victimhood? It disempowers the victim, destroys agency and often, in my experience, binds the victim in a bondage of inability to act or influence their own future circumstances. Victimhood inflames the fires of resentment, entitlement and desires for revenge.

We only have to look to the Book of Mormon to see the bitter fruits of victimhood. Laman and Lemuel were always "the victims". They passed this onto the succeeding generations and countless dead, numberless missed blessings and a thousand years later only genocide of "the perpetrators" would suffice.

Fueling the fires of victimhood is the USA's death sentence and any american does so at their own peril.

 

The Book of Mormon is in many instances a type and a shadow of things to come on the american continent. I case we missed the types and shadows the Lord spells it out in D&C 87:

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

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

Racism, slavery, victimhood etc. are again becoming a currency, rallying cry and marshaling point in a now ridiculously polarised USA. Mesoamericans are pouring into the USA in record numbers. Many of these are actual indigenous peoples of Book of Mormon lands. The "remnants who are left of the land" and "slaves ris(ing) up against their masters" chess pieces are on the move. Vexing with a sore Vexation does not have pleasant scriptural cross references...

I don't want to have anything to do with the marshaling of these disgruntled groups and the terrible woe's that follow, do you?

10 hours ago, gav said:

Racism isn't a good thing so naturally church leaders will call it out, incase anybody is confused on that point... but then they move on and focus on many many other things

I think you make some valid points, but I think it is oversimplified.  I think that your knee jerk reaction to dismiss these words as "weapons" or some "Ace" card is itself not giving enough nuance to the word which needs to be taken in context of how it is used and the overall tone of the speaker.   It is usually pretty easy to identify how the term is being used.   The church, clearly exemplifies how it can be used effectively.  I will also note how HEALING it has been for many in the church to hear it plainly identify racism for what it is in the history of the church (and in modern times), condemn its history and disavow historical racist words of church leaders.  If the church would have simply said, "well, they were simply products of their time, there is no point in playing victims or pointing fingers", it would not have had the same healing effect. 

From my life experience I have noticed that simply and plainly acknowledging wrongs is often enough for people to heal and move on.  It is when they feel dismissed or confronted for giving voice to injustices and historical wrongs, that they begin to shout because they feel unheard and unseen.  When people refuse to use these labels then it is perceived as if they are being dismissive of the wrongs that occurred.  How in the world is that helpful in healing?  Many in the church wept when the state of Missouri fully acknowledge past wrongs towards the church and apologized.  We felt heard and understood and our pasts griefs were validated.  THAT is healing. 

While victimhood can be toxic, and even become pathologic, it can also serve a purpose and be a healthy part of grieving and a motivating/unifying call for social justice and change.  When one feels validated in their grief, they are freed to healthily evolve from a victim to becoming a survivor.  When one feels invalidated, unheard, dismissed, and belittled or judged for expressing their perspectives of victimhood and grieving, then that simply causes one to become more defensive and more vocal in their victimhood until it can become more toxic and pathologic.   I think that your approach of being indirect about what happened, and invalidating is actually the fuel that is "marshaling these disgruntled groups".  It is what perpetuates victimhood and prevents healing in our communities.  We can't move on as a community until we NAME the problem.

I really love this response by a poster to a post stigmatizing victimhood felt by widows:

Quote

 

There is so much nuance and complex emotion around everything we go through in grief… from the feelings like anger and unfairness that are legitimate and need to be heard to trying to live in life version 2.0. I even hate the use of the word victim because it is used to discredit people’s legitimate feelings here. Feelings of unfairness are a very real and valid part of grief, a very natural part of it… and it is emotionally healthy to let ourselves feel those emotions and express them so that we can work through them. No one can work through something so complicated simply by focusing on blessings and deciding not to be a victim, it doesn’t work that easily. I would worry that the grieving read this and become anxious that no one will understand their pain, or be scared to speak up about still struggling because they don’t want to be seen as fixated on being a “victim”. I also worry about the non-grieving who will read this… who will then understand grief even less than they already do and make judgements on people who need their support.

There are, of course, people who get stuck in their grief, and cannot get over how unfair it really is. I am one of those people… but I do not have a victim mentality, I am simply a human being struggling. For any hardship in life and any mental health problem, the worst thing you can do for someone is say “just get over it” or “choose not to be a victim”… that shuts down the conversation, doesn’t let the pain out and leads to a society where the grieving are silenced. Believe me when I say I have tried hard to focus on the good, but these emotions are far more complex than that. If grief were so easily remedied by simply focusing on positives and being told not to be a victim, then there wouldn’t be anyone in pain or suffering right now.

https://sisterhoodofwidows.com/2017/08/07/victim-mentality/

 

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by pogi

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

From my life experience I have noticed that simply and plainly acknowledging wrongs is often enough for people to heal and move on.  It is when they feel dismissed or confronted for giving voice to injustices and historical wrongs, that they begin to shout because they feel unheard and unseen

As I've been around places with a negative reaction to Elder Corbitt's talk, this seems a pretty solid explanation of many of the negative reactions. Is it possible that the church could help curb ATC by figuring out ways to help people feel less dismissed or confronted on controversial topics? What does that look like for a high demand religion with strongly held beliefs?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As I've been around places with a negative reaction to Elder Corbitt's talk, this seems a pretty solid explanation of many of the negative reactions. Is it possible that the church could help curb ATC by figuring out ways to help people feel less dismissed or confronted on controversial topics? What does that look like for a high demand religion with strongly held beliefs?

Validation can go a long way towards helping people deal with disagreements and anger. And it’s very possible to validate without agreeing with someone.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As I've been around places with a negative reaction to Elder Corbitt's talk, this seems a pretty solid explanation of many of the negative reactions. Is it possible that the church could help curb ATC by figuring out ways to help people feel less dismissed or confronted on controversial topics? What does that look like for a high demand religion with strongly held beliefs?

I think the church itself has come a long way and I am happy with the progress being made by our leaders.

I think a lot of the problem stems from a culture that evolved in our church (didn't start out that way) of - never questioning, the thinking has already been done, being critical of leaders is the road to apostacy, just forget about everything that has been said in the past about the ban and tuck it under the rug and move on, don't look to closely at other perspectives because it is all "anti-Mormon literature" (again, road to apostacy), and strong resistance from the church against historians publishing uncomfortable truths and excommunicating them for not falling-in-line with their demands to not publish.  This culture has bred a strong paranoia and confrontational resistance to the point of almost shunning anyone who gives voice to injustices and hurtful mistakes of the past, or present.  So, instead of finding validation and healing to move on, many have faced this "hush, hush" culture with a stronger determination to be heard and air out their dirty laundry.   I think this culture really backfired in that regard.  It has caused created this unsustainable facade of perfection, which has had other negative consequences with disillusionment.  

While we are starting to see major changes towards this culture in leadership, it is going to take quite some time, I think, before the general membership rids itself from generations of combative paranoia against internal criticism.  Until then, people will be dismissed, confronted, and accused of being "child-like finger-pointers", etc. for voicing their grievances - which will only cause them to speak louder because they want to be heard and understood.  It turns into this terrible feedback cycle that where each group feeds off each other in ways that becomes increasingly divisive and hurtful. 

I believe that as the church continues to exemplify being transparent and validating of grievances that deserve to be acknowledged - being willing to admit mistakes without diminishing them, I hope that the membership will not feel so threatened and scared to admit mistakes over time.   This will lead to more healing, less disillusionment, and less defensiveness by both sides.  Activism will largely lose the wind behind its sails.  There wont be so much shouting when people feel heard and acknowledged.  

Edited November 18, 2022 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

On 11/17/2022 at 1:47 PM, Calm said:

How does looking to prophets abrogate our morality to the decisions of others?  We still choose what we accept and don’t accept, we choose whether to explore moral ideas or just accept what our parents, schools, peer group, media teach us, etc.

God will judge us by the laws of God we are aware of and there is no reason to assume that his standard for followers of prophets will be solely how well we accept and follow everything they say.

A lot of this discussion has been about the priesthood ban, how it wasn't from God and how it took the prophets a very long time to all come to agreement about changing the church policy of exclusion. How many individuals do you think taught that blacks were somehow inferior or less righteous because of this ban, based on the teachings of prophets. If someone disagreed they would run counter to God's chosen mouthpiece so people "Follow the prophet" even though they were wrong. Most people did NOT decide for themselves about the race issue in the church because they instead decided to "Folow the prophet". They abrogated their personal morality in favor of what another man (men) told them.

Do recall the teaching that if we follow the prophet, even if he is in error, we will still be blessed? I do. Am I the only one? That kind of teaching basically absolves individuals from errors as long as they did so following the prophet. Does Mountain Meadows ring any bells?

On 11/17/2022 at 1:48 PM, Calm said:

But Joseph learned he could go to God by reading the words of a prophet, did he not?

 

He certainly got the idea from the passage. The passage taught him to get his answer from God.

Just a side question- does the church teach James (the brother of Jesus) to be a prophet? Do we know if James actually wrote that or was there another author. In my opinion it doesn't really matter because it was a good idea. Joseph took that idea and followed it. Whether or not the idea originated with a "prophet" is another question. But even that makes my point. Why is it necessary to believe that the idea came from a prophet. Is that the only source of good ideas?

On 11/17/2022 at 1:58 PM, bluebell said:

But, there was no prophet or bishop for JS to ask, right?  So we can't really compare apples to oranges and expect to the result to be useful.  But even if in our current configuration, we eschew "waiting for an authority figure to feed us the wisdom that we seek".  

 

 

But there were many religious authorities during Joseph's time: Pastors and preachers could have advised Joseph but he bypassed them and received an answer directly from God. One might say that those pastors and preachers were wrong and couldn't be trusted. Well guess what, prophets and bishops don't have a perfect track record either.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A lot of this discussion has been about the priesthood ban, how it wasn't from God and how it took the prophets a very long time to all come to agreement about changing the church policy of exclusion. How many individuals do you think taught that blacks were somehow inferior or less righteous because of this ban, based on the teachings of prophets. If someone disagreed they would run counter to God's chosen mouthpiece so people "Follow the prophet" even though they were wrong. Most people did NOT decide for themselves about the race issue in the church because they instead decided to "Folow the prophet". They abrogated their personal morality in favor of what another man (men) told them.

Do recall the teaching that if we follow the prophet, even if he is in error, we will still be blessed? I do. Am I the only one? That kind of teaching basically absolves individuals from errors as long as they did so following the prophet. Does Mountain Meadows ring any bells?

He certainly got the idea from the passage. The passage taught him to get his answer from God.

Just a side question- does the church teach James (the brother of Jesus) to be a prophet? Do we know if James actually wrote that or was there another author. In my opinion it doesn't really matter because it was a good idea. Joseph took that idea and followed it. Whether or not the idea originated with a "prophet" is another question. But even that makes my point. Why is it necessary to believe that the idea came from a prophet. Is that the only source of good ideas?

But there were many religious authorities during Joseph's time: Pastors and preachers could have advised Joseph but he bypassed them and received an answer directly from God. One might say that those pastors and preachers were wrong and couldn't be trusted. Well guess what, prophets and bishops don't have a perfect track record either.

As I noted in my post above, there has been a long culture of what you are describing that has led to many who have abrogated their personal morality in favor of what another man told them because "we will still be blessed" even if he is in error (as you suggest).  However, one can fully reject this culture without fully rejecting prophets.  By acknowledging that they make mistakes, we don't need to reject their mantle because of their mistakes.  What they offer, I believe, is worthy of being "heeded" (serious consideration).   

What the prophets offer are seeds.  We are the testers of the seeds (as the prophets have taught).  Of all the seeds that the prophets have spread in the soil of my heart, almost all of it has resulted in delicious and good fruit.  The gospel is based in spiritual self-reliance as outlined in Alma 32 and elsewhere.  Prophets are not only important for what they teach, as good edifying advice can be found anywhere, but for the keys they hold.  This too is a matter of personal revelation.   

Edited November 18, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

does the church teach James (the brother of Jesus) to be a prophet?

He was an apostle, we teach apostles are prophets.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But there were many religious authorities during Joseph's time: Pastors and preachers could have advised Joseph but he bypassed them and received an answer directly from God. One might say that those pastors and preachers were wrong and couldn't be trusted. Well guess what, prophets and bishops don't have a perfect track record either.

He went to those guys, both before and after the vision.  They were not useful for reasons that were outlined in the vision.  Religious authorities and prophets/apostles are not the same thing.

I also don't think we can discuss your "prophets and bishops don't have a perfect track record" statement without bringing in all the examples of the harm and evil that has been done by people claiming to have gone directly to God and who then believed that God told them to kill, kidnap, and abuse, or even just hurt themselves. 

One might say that that means of "revelation" (where the person receiving it is their own standard for measuring what God wants from them) can't be trusted either.

There is no form of revelation from God that has a perfect track record (because there is no form of revelation divorced from the weaknesses of men and women).  But those that come with checks and balances, that require unity of agreement, that measure communications from God against previous scripture, and that ask followers to then receive their own confirmation of what has been revealed by others, have a much better track record for not going off the rails, than those that rely on the "God told me to do it" model.

 

[OGHoosier]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

He was an apostle, we teach apostles are prophets.

He was one of the Big Three (along with Peter and John the Beloved) who called Paul and Barnabas on their missions. Paul described them as "seeming like pillars." James had the last word at the Jerusalem Council, basically closing it in Peter's favor. Traditional ecclesiastical history is unequivocal - James was the first bishop of Jerusalem and leader of the saints in the Holy Land. Only Peter could rival him in authority in the early Church. 

James, the brother of our Lord, a prophet? Most definitely, and more besides.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 11/18/2022 at 5:37 PM, Calm said:

He was an apostle, we teach apostles are prophets.

First- was he? Where do we learn that James, the brother of Jesus, was an "apostle". IIRC there were 2 James' who were apostles but neither were Jesus' brother.

Second- The teaching that apostles are Prophets, seers and revelators is a modern one and wouldn't have been thought of among the Jews and early Christians. Neither among the people, nor the apostles themselves.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 11/18/2022 at 5:37 PM, bluebell said:

He went to those guys, both before and after the vision.  They were not useful for reasons that were outlined in the vision.  Religious authorities and prophets/apostles are not the same thing.

I also don't think we can discuss your "prophets and bishops don't have a perfect track record" statement without bringing in all the examples of the harm and evil that has been done by people claiming to have gone directly to God and who then believed that God told them to kill, kidnap, and abuse, or even just hurt themselves. 

One might say that that means of "revelation" (where the person receiving it is their own standard for measuring what God wants from them) can't be trusted either.

There is no form of revelation from God that has a perfect track record (because there is no form of revelation divorced from the weaknesses of men and women).  But those that come with checks and balances, that require unity of agreement, that measure communications from God against previous scripture, and that ask followers to then receive their own confirmation of what has been revealed by others, have a much better track record for not going off the rails, than those that rely on the "God told me to do it" model.

 

I think this is a fair statement. It may even make one wonder about the value of "revelation" as a reliable mode of communication. And accepting revelations others claim on our behalf might be considered even less reliable.

However I find it interesting the way the role or prophet has been dumbed down over the years. The need for "checks and balances" is an extremely modern teaching by the church. 

As you say, there will invariably be incorrect claims about God's will. The difference is that if I claim revelation for myself on a particular process...and I'm wrong. I am forced to own the wrongness. If a person accepts the revelation from another as God's will, yet it is wrong, then that person can rightly claim they've been led astray by another person.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think this is a fair statement. It may even make one wonder about the value of "revelation" as a reliable mode of communication. And accepting revelations others claim on our behalf might be considered even less reliable.

However I find it interesting the way the role or prophet has been dumbed down over the years. The need for "checks and balances" is an extremely modern teaching by the church. 

As you say, there will invariably be incorrect claims about God's will. The difference is that if I claim revelation for myself on a particular process...and I'm wrong. I am forced to own the wrongness. If a person accepts the revelation from another as God's will, yet it is wrong, then that person can rightly claim they've been led astray by another person.

Recently listened to the podcast with Jim Bennett: https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2022/11/mormonism-live-102-the-greatest-problem-in-the-lds-church/

He mentions that he doesn't like that Pres Nelson uses revelation in his talks often, and said those that were prophet before him, like Monson and Hinckley would use inspiration.