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

[HappyJackWagon]

On 11/18/2022 at 10:05 PM, OGHoosier said:

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.

Was he? Or are you confusing different disciples names James? Or am I?

There were 2 James apostles, but James the brother of Jesus was not one of them.

 

[OGHoosier]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Was he? Or are you confusing different disciples names James? Or am I?

There were 2 James apostles, but James the brother of Jesus was not one of them.

 

There was James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus among the original Twelve. However, in Galatians 1:19 James the brother of Christ was explicitly identified as an apostle. 1 Cor. 15:7 has Paul saying that the risen Christ appeared to James and then the apostles (1 Corinthians is nigh-universally accepted as a genuine Pauline epistle). Christian historical tradition dating back to the second century (afaik, might be older) maintain that James the Just (as he was known) was the paramount leader of the church in Jerusalem. The other Pauline epistles (Galatians especially) have James appearing as an authority in the precincts of Jerusalem to whom even Paul is subject. This is, in light of the dominant historical tradition and Paul's attestation of James' apostleship, probably James the Just, brother of Christ.

[Eschaton]

12 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

There was James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus among the original Twelve. However, in Galatians 1:19 James the brother of Christ was explicitly identified as an apostle. 1 Cor. 15:7 has Paul saying that the risen Christ appeared to James and then the apostles (1 Corinthians is nigh-universally accepted as a genuine Pauline epistle). Christian historical tradition dating back to the second century (afaik, might be older) maintain that James the Just (as he was known) was the paramount leader of the church in Jerusalem. The other Pauline epistles (Galatians especially) have James appearing as an authority in the precincts of Jerusalem to whom even Paul is subject. This is, in light of the dominant historical tradition and Paul's attestation of James' apostleship, probably James the Just, brother of Christ.

Yes,  James the brother of Jesus, mentioned by Paul in Galatians (dating to the mid-first century CE), is one of the stronger pieces of evidence that Jesus was in fact a historical person. James and Peter were leaders of the Jerusalem church - apparently Paul didn't like them very much, although he seemed obliged to recognize their prominence. 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Eschaton

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

There was James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus among the original Twelve. However, in Galatians 1:19 James the brother of Christ was explicitly identified as an apostle. 1 Cor. 15:7 has Paul saying that the risen Christ appeared to James and then the apostles (1 Corinthians is nigh-universally accepted as a genuine Pauline epistle). Christian historical tradition dating back to the second century (afaik, might be older) maintain that James the Just (as he was known) was the paramount leader of the church in Jerusalem. The other Pauline epistles (Galatians especially) have James appearing as an authority in the precincts of Jerusalem to whom even Paul is subject. This is, in light of the dominant historical tradition and Paul's attestation of James' apostleship, probably James the Just, brother of Christ.

Thanks for the Galatians reference.

I knew he was a church leader but didn't realize he was an official apostle. (or if I did I had long forgotten ) 

In reference to Peter, James, and John- is that James this same James or a different James?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I think in a model that eschews the need for personal revelation, that the bold would be true.

[OGHoosier]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for the Galatians reference.

I knew he was a church leader but didn't realize he was an official apostle. (or if I did I had long forgotten ) 

In reference to Peter, James, and John- is that James this same James or a different James?

Depends on the period of reference. The James that appeared in the Gospels along with Peter and John was James the son of Zebedee. He was the first of the apostles to be martyred, and the only one whose death is mentioned in the canonized Bible (Acts 12:2). One of the Herods killed him within a decade of so of Christ's crucifixion. The "James, Cephas, and John" referred to by Paul almost certainly has James the Just in the place of James son of Zebedee. 

With regard to the trio who conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood on Joseph Smith, that's probably James the son of Zebedee. The whole Melchizedek Priesthood restoration  experience seems to consciously echo the Mount of Transfiguration, for which James ben-Zebedee was present.

[Peacefully]

Perhaps this article was already mentioned, but it highlights members who have seen activism work to bring about changes in the Church. 
 

I like the way it talks about us being both a top-down and a bottom-up organization. One member-activist says the best way to affect change is to start by voicing concerns to local leaders and then it starts making its way up the chain. Interesting perspective. 

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/11/24/is-pushing-change-within-lds/

[MrShorty]

Maybe it is because so much of this thread has talked about the relationship between ATC and the history of the priesthood and temple ban, but I found some of what was reportedly said by Darius Gray in @Peacefully's Tribune article interesting. In particular, this: "Without Genesis, an exhaustive historical examination by Lester Bush in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and countless other leaders and members praying and asking for change, Gray says, Kimball, the church’s 12th president, might not have been open to erasing the ban, through what has been termed a revelation, in 1978."

[JustAnAustralian]

27 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

"Without Genesis, an exhaustive historical examination by Lester Bush in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and countless other leaders and members praying and asking for change, Gray says, Kimball, the church’s 12th president, might not have been open to erasing the ban, through what has been termed a revelation, in 1978."

I keep coming back to this part of the talk

Quote

Does it seem more geared to advancing a narrative rather than the cause of Christ?

All those things I read seem to be more along the lines of Blacks wanting/needing access to the same blessings as everyone else.

If Darius had spent all his time just calling the church racist, rather than

Quote

work[ing] to reactivate and support disaffected members of African descent in the 1960s before the priesthood/temple ban was lifted

then people might think of him very differently.

[MrShorty]

So, ATC is only bad when performed by someone who refuses to help others in the church? In some ways, I agree with you, that someone serious about helping the church will be helping individuals with their struggles -- even helping them with their struggles with testimony of things the church teaches. Is this a principle that Elder Corbitt simply neglected to include in his talk? Because I'm not seeing in this discussion very many, "before accusing someone of (the bad kinds of) ATC, see if they are serious about helping people with their concerns with the church" moderating statements. I guess I wonder if we would all agree that the problem of ATC is mitigated by a desire to help people come back or stay in the church?

Edit to add -- I guess I see a lot of people who want to help people stay constructively engaged in the church in spite of their own concerns about the church who feel stung by Elder Corbitt's talk. Could I safely tell such people that, as long as they are trying to help others stay in the church, that Elder Corbitt's talk does not apply to them?

Edited November 30, 2022 by MrShorty

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

So, ATC is only bad when performed by someone who refuses to help others in the church?

Using only my dotpoint from the article, I see ATC as bad when for instance:

1. The person/group is making themselves the focus
2. The person/group is only focusing on the negative aspect (e.g. the church is racist) rather than what the christlike goal is (i.e. allowing Blacks to have all blessings that others can)
3. The methods of activism don't actually do anything to actually progress towards that goal.

So for instance if Darius had set himself up as a counter prophet, or put up "mormons really suck" signs in his garden, etc then that would be bad ATC.

His method of trying to meet with leaders, trying to help Blacks in the church etc as part of the progress sounds pretty good to me.

Edited November 30, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[pogi]

11 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Using only my dotpoint from the article, I see ATC as bad when for instance:

1. The person/group is making themselves the focus
2. The person/group is only focusing on the negative aspect (e.g. the church is racist) rather than what the christlike goal is (i.e. allowing Blacks to have all blessings that others can)
3. The methods of activism don't actually do anything to actually progress towards that goal.

So for instance if Darius had set himself up as a counter prophet, or put up "mormons really suck" signs in his garden, etc then that would be bad ATC.

His method of trying to meet with leaders, trying to help Blacks in the church etc as part of the progress sounds pretty good to me.

I think the concern is that Elder Corbin's talk dismisses ATC in general, making all those righteously engage in spiritually healthy ways (as Darius did) appear to be deceived.  Elder Corbin is making it taboo by not giving room for righteous forms of ATC, or any way to actively disagree with policy, words, or actions of our leaders. 

Darius, as you point out was focusing on a real unfairness - and thus you argue that his ATC was justified.  I agree.  But Elder Corbin says that ATC, even when it addresses a "real unfairness", is a distraction from the doctrine of Christ and destroys faith in our leaders by pointing out imperfections. 

Quote

Does it seem more geared to advancing a narrative rather than the cause of Christ?

My question is this - does advancing a narrative and advancing the cause of Christ have to be mutually exclusive?  Will all changes centered in the cause of Christ be inspired from a top-down approach?  I think history proves otherwise. 

While I agree with many of the warning and risks that Elder Corbin addresses with ATC, I am concerned that his talk is advancing the engrained culture that wrongly conflates addressing imperfections in our leaders with "undermining faith in Church leaders". as Brother Corbitt put it.  He equates it with sewing "distrust" in our leaders.   It is all black and white, which I rarely find helpful.   Trust or distrust.  It doesn't give room for more nuanced  approaches to where we trust that our leaders are called of God, directed by God, but also are mortal men with human fallibilities to where we need to seek our own personal revelation on what to trust and distrust.   I am of the conviction that being afraid to discuss causes that may highlight imperfections in our leaders generates and perpetuates an unhealthy spirituality of blind faith - it perpetuates the narrative of "when our leaders speak the thinking has already been done".   

I think the sustaining faith that can only come through personal righteousness and a firm integrity to the spirit of the Lord, rather than a blanket black-and-white "trust in our leaders" is what will sustain us as a people of the Lord.  Faith in the church and blanket trust in our leaders appear to be conflated in this talk.   That is my concern. 

People will undoubtedly point out the slippery slope of not always trusting our leaders in everything, or questioning them at times.  But I am convinced that a faith which can endure all things requires that we navigate such slopes.  We must learn to live in the more nuanced reality that is not always black and white if we are to endure these end times where it will become more and more prevalent that a blanket black and white doesn't exist where humans are involved.  I have a concern that these kinds of talks will perpetuate the judgement that people are enemies of the church and misguided activists who are deceived by Satan if they say anything contrary to the current narrative of the church and its leaders - which narrative is not mutually exclusive with the cause of Christ (as I pointed out before), but neither is it necessarily always aligned with it either.  A firm relationship with the spirit of the Lord is required to navigate such things, always looking to our prophetic leaders and heeding their words, but letting our conscience and commitment to integrity to the Spirit of the Lord be our ultimate guide.   

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by pogi