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

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, McKay supports my view. He wanted very much to end the practice, and believes that he was strongly told no by the Lord. 

I can’t speak to McKay’s experience or its unfortunate result.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nope. A candid response to a letter does not amount to criticism being “shut down.” Dr. Nelson was free to carry forth his criticism in private or in public, even to the point of activism, if it amounted to that. 

Yep, while it may not be a great example of quieting activism, it’s a fantastic example of the church’s knee jerk reaction: we’re right, you’re wrong, very similar to your understandably defensive reaction to my awesome example.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Benjamin Seeker

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Yep, while it may not be a great example of quieting activism, but it’s fantastic example of the church’s knee jerk reaction: we’re right, you’re wrong, very similar to your understandably defensive reaction to my awesome example.

Meh. 

[JustAnAustralian]

Quote

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

This is one of the points that I tend to notice first:

• You see it when coming out testimonies are planned and then covertly video recorded and posted on social media
• You see it when global women wear pants (or purple) to church Sundays are organised
• You see it when when groups of former members get together, sue the church over things like tithing, then go to the media and talk about "unchristlike behaviour"

As opposed to other things like the following which all seem fine to me

• Someone coming out on their ward Facebook group as part of an explanation about why parts of the gospel are harder for some people
• A young women's' leader choosing to wear pants to church to help some of the young women feel more comfortable about the way they dress
• Launching/joining legal action against a church member for abuse (without also running to the media about it)
• A faithful member opposing a sustaining (even in general conference) if they have knowledge about why that person shouldn't be in leadership

Edited November 3, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

If you want to blame God or revelation, feel free, but I believe and hope in a much more perfect God than one that would consent to black people being disallowed from full participation in their church. I’m not on board with that. There is a lot of beauty in Mormonism that I consider inspired and good, but this ain’t it.

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood what I wrote.  I did not say that God initiated the ban.  No where did I write anything about the ban’s origination.  I wrote that the ban ended when the Lord revealed His will to His prophet.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

51 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood what I wrote.  I did not say that God initiated the ban.  No where did I write anything about the ban’s origination.  I wrote that the ban ended when the Lord revealed His will to His prophet.  

Let’s honor Scott’s request. I’m happy to take this to a PM  if you’d like.

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Rather than being the lord’s timetable, I see this as the unfortunate result of an organization to beholden to hierarchy, authority, and tradition. McKay was a nice exception to the rule.

I see you set yourself up as more righteous than the church. This is exactly one of the things brother Corbett was talking about. The proper way to seek change in the church is through prayer and fasting.

[Benjamin Seeker]

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I see you set yourself up as more righteous than the church. This is exactly one of the things brother Corbett was talking about. The proper way to seek change in the church is through prayer and fasting.

I have no problem condemning what’s clearly wrong. If more people put their conscious above loyalty there would be less abuse in the world. Have some courage. Follow the prophet is secondary to choose the right!!!

[The Nehor]

I liked it for the most part. I did groan when he called a belief in activism in the church as people gaslighting themselves. The last thing we need is yet another broadening of what that word means.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for posting this talk. I listened to the full version. He is quite an articulate speaker. I both enjoyed and found just a bit of disappointment in it.

I found it to be a rather cloaked, yet poignant critique of CRT. As I am working on a book on CRT, I could not help but hear point after point that relates directed to the postclassic period of CRT that we are in right now. Every time he said ACT, I could relate it to CRT. It was so clear to me that I could not help wonder if that was a secondary message of the talk. His description of that movement and its impact on institutions, especially education was inescapable.

So we now have general officers of the Church passing down secret messages encoded in their talks? Can the Church’s version of QAnon be far behind?

If you take the first word of every sentence in President Nelson’s talk and translate it into a number and divide that by the number of the words in the sentence and keep only the remainder then you can discern the code. Undoubtedly this will reveal the Date of the Second Coming!

Wait, no, it is nonsensical. But, if I apply this code breaking here I can convert it into letters and the secret message President Nelson planted in his talks is:

”Be sure to drink your Ovaltine”

A crummy commercial? SON OF A ……………..

[california boy]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I notice you say nothing about revelation or the fact that this is the Lord's church and that He leads it.  True that He leads it through imperfect servants, but as the lifting of the priesthood ban show, when He wanted if lifted it was lifted and not before.

So is it your belief that God wanted to withhold priesthood and the blessings because they were black??  And God wanted it that way until 1978?

Is this also the Church's view on the ban as well?

And if the Priesthood Ban never was a revelation, why didn't God end it 25 years earlier when President McKay prayed about it?  Did God thing it was just a good idea to. keep it around for another 25 years?

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Before we get too far afield, I would caution that this thread was not intended to be yet another tedious rehearsal of arguments pertaining to the priesthood ban. It is about activism targeting the Church of Jesus Christ, particularly as identified and discussed in the linked-to address by Brother Corbitt. 
 

I would ask that comments stay on topic. 

Quote

“Masquerading as a higher and nobler cause, ATC instigates distrust of these leaders,” he said. “By seemingly customizing this deceptive approach to the valiant, he (the adversary) cleverly diminishes their real power (faith) and robs them of their true mission (the gathering). He effectively turns the gatherers into scatterers.”

ATC with respect to the Priesthood ban unjustly calls into question the stature, righteousness, service, sacrifice, wisdom, and integrity of every prophet from Brigham Young to Harold B. Lee, including David O. McKay, but especially Brigham Young. Some comments here bear this out. 

Whatever the reason for the ban, it was ended when the Lord wanted it to end. I believe there was a reason for it and that the timing of the end was spot on. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So we now have general officers of the Church passing down secret messages encoded in their talks? Can the Church’s version of QAnon be far behind?

If you take the first word of every sentence in President Nelson’s talk and translate it into a number and divide that by the number of the words in the sentence and keep only the remainder then you can discern the code. Undoubtedly this will reveal the Date of the Second Coming!

Wait, no, it is nonsensical. But, if I apply this code breaking here I can convert it into letters and the secret message President Nelson planted in his talks is:

”Be sure to drink your Ovaltine”

A crummy commercial? SON OF A ……………..

I reread my post and realize that I did not word it well. I used some terms that would imply what you are suggesting. I will amend it. I was not referring to anything secret, hidden, or coded. I found great similarities between his concern about ACT and my concern about CRT. Identity issues, failure to introspect, failure to appreciate other's perspectives, failure to see the good and positive in the viewpoints of the defined other, normalizing, generalizing, and on and on. I found the similarities stunning. If I knew the gentleman, I would ask him.

If I had more time, I would do a content analysis of the speech to highlight the point-by point-similarities. I don't have time, and it isn't that important to me to take the time. Just an observation from someone who is currently immersed in researching and writing about a particular subject. Of course, that skews my perspective. I acknowledge that. I admire your acerbic wit. I walked into that one!

Edited November 4, 2022 by Navidad
change of tone

[ksfisher]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

So is it your belief that God wanted to withhold priesthood and the blessings because they were black??

Where did I say that?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just encountered this report of an insightful talk on a topic that deserves more attention, the perils of activism toward (or against) the Church of Jesus Christ. It was delivered by Brother Ahmed S. Corbitt of the Young Men general presidency to a group of Church-endorsed chaplains. 

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2022/11/1/23424931/brother-ahmad-s-corbit-activism-discipleship?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cn-social&utm_campaign=facebookpage-en&utm_content=churchnews-en&fbclid=IwAR1jT1UV8G3UnXgZxcy4rb04ozUa-Isaq3jPH_i5kkMrL3Bh_spi1tZ85iI

Activism has become so ingrained in our culture over the past two of three generations that some among us have failed to understand when it is inappropriate. 

"Activism" has become so ingrained in our culture that many of its manifestations have become merely performative expressions of conformity.  See here:

Quote

Performative activism is activism done to increase one's social capital rather than because of one's devotion to a cause.^[1] It is often associated with surface-level activism, referred to as slacktivism.  The term gained an increased usage on social media in the wake of the George Floyd protests.

There are certain types of "activism" that have a certain measure of social cachet, such that merely mouthing platitudes about the subject (the environment, climate change, animal rights, feminism, gay pride)  is often all that is expected or required.

Some cathartic benefit for the individual aside, I'm not sure this sort of thing is very effective.  If anything, I wonder if it is becoming counterproductive in a Boy Who Cried Wolf kind of way.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What “historical basis” do you have to claim that criticism was “shut down” by the Church?

Throughout church (broad sense) history and in the first 150 years of LDS church history the use or threats of disfellowshipping, excommunication, or loss of position were effective methods by which churches shut down criticism. In the LDS tradition, from Kirtland through the plural marriage controversies into the late 1920s, these were used by the LDS church to stifle criticism. Many early leaders and apostles felt the sting of that from Kirtland to Far West to Nauvoo. Then into the twentieth century Zion/Utah setting and even into the ERA controversies, folks who criticized felt its sting.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Navidad

[california boy]

44 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Where did I say that?

You didn't say that, which is why I asked if you could clarify your belief.  You said that you believe the Church is lead by revelation when discussing the priesthood ban.  So I am curious how that belief actually works, which is why I asked

So is it your belief that God wanted to withhold priesthood and the blessings because they were black??  And God wanted it that way until 1978?

Is this also the Church's view on the ban as well?

And if the Priesthood Ban never was a revelation, why didn't God end it 25 years earlier when President McKay prayed about it?  Did God thing it was just a good idea to. keep it around for another 25 years?

I am trying to figure out how you believe revelation about this subject works in your mind.

.

[HappyJackWagon]

I didn't read the talk BUT it would be truly troublesome for any person making the claim that any organization should be exempt from criticism or what it perceives as activism, which brings attention to the criticism.

Claims that the church is exempt, or that it is inappropriate for people to criticize leaders or the organization, would only be valid for a PERFECT organization. The church can claim many things. It can claim that its leaders are prophets led by God, but it is still run by men who are imperfect. The church as an organization is not and cannot be perfect. Therefore, criticisms may be valid. If leaders don't listen to those criticisms, then activism to shine a light on the criticisms may be appropriate. 

There is really NO way of knowing how much activism may have led to church leader's earnestness in taking the issue of race and the priesthood to God. Did public or government activism have some role in the church ban on polygamy. Did the culture of the prohibition period lead the church toward taking a harder stance on the WoW? 

Claiming that men cannot be influenced by outside sources is ridiculous. Claiming that they are perfect in their understandings and implementations of God's will throughout the church is also ridiculous. Criticisms lead to improvements and change. The level of arrogance it takes to claim perfection is mind-boggling.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There are certain types of "activism" that have a certain measure of social cachet, such that merely mouthing platitudes about the subject (the environment, climate change, animal rights, feminism, gay pride)  is often all that is expected or required.

I’d say virtue signaling is a problem for all sides of every aisle. Very human. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d say virtue signaling is a problem for all sides of every aisle. Very human. 

So is "cancel culture." 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You didn't say that, which is why I asked if you could clarify your belief.  You said that you believe the Church is lead by revelation when discussing the priesthood ban.  So I am curious how that belief actually works, which is why I asked

 

So is it your belief that God wanted to withhold priesthood and the blessings because they were black??  And God wanted it that way until 1978?

Is this also the Church's view on the ban as well?

And if the Priesthood Ban never was a revelation, why didn't God end it 25 years earlier when President McKay prayed about it?  Did God thing it was just a good idea to. keep it around for another 25 years?

I am trying to figure out how you believe revelation about this subject works in your mind.

.

We were discussing the ending of the priesthood ban.  That's what I was addressing.

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d say virtue signaling is a problem for all sides of every aisle. Very human. 

You are quite right.  I should have provided illustrative examples that include other "aisles."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

I’d say virtue signaling is a problem for all sides of every aisle. Very human. 

So is "cancel culture." 

One example:

Quote

Perspective: Kanye West and the politics of expedience

Some Republicans have ignored Ye’s antisemitism because he had other views they like. But conservatism must adhere to its foundational principles

And here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

One example:

And here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I swear I could hear the brain cells screaming as they died while I was listening to Ben Shapiro. 

[BlueDreams]

On 11/2/2022 at 6:23 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I just encountered this report of an insightful talk on a topic that deserves more attention, the perils of activism toward (or against) the Church of Jesus Christ. It was delivered by Brother Ahmad S. Corbitt of the Young Men general presidency to a group of Church-endorsed chaplains. 
 

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2022/11/1/23424931/brother-ahmad-s-corbit-activism-discipleship?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cn-social&utm_campaign=facebookpage-en&utm_content=churchnews-en&fbclid=IwAR1jT1UV8G3UnXgZxcy4rb04ozUa-Isaq3jPH_i5kkMrL3Bh_spi1tZ85iI

 

Activism has become so ingrained in our culture over the past two or three generations that some among us have failed to understand when it is inappropriate. 

I definitely have mix feelings with this talk. 

Let me start with the part I most agree with:

Quote

“Please do not misunderstand. I am not at all saying ATC’s causes are not important or good or often pursued in good faith,” he said. “A light bulb must be changed to avoid darkness and restore light. My simple point is a hammer is not the right tool for that job. All needed and appropriate changes in the kingdom of God are God’s work to bring to pass.”

This I can thoroughly agree with, taking steps that are gradual, sensitive, and collaborative generally has a better staying power when shifting large and diverse communities moreso to abrupt and directive changes. Both in terms of backlash and actual implementation.

The rest I could technically agree with, accept for how he defines ATC's and pidgeon holes activism into a uniform version that focuses on its most ineffective/worst versions. So with the versions of ATC that he is using, I can agree....but that's not most forms of activism. 

While  googling about, I ran into this article that illustrates different (broad) types of activists. It names in each of these categories effective and ineffective methods to these. Several of the ineffective means are also what Corbitt mentions as well. Of course there are several in the effective category that don't hold much relevancy/equivalents within the church as well. But it still illustrates to me that what he's describing it more poor activism that falls into pitfalls of having a cause and working towards it. But to me this is no different than being a comfortable member who may not immediately see or understand a need for change. If I defined it by the worst examples of those, it would likely be a turnoff to those who may resonate with that category because it then just feeds a stereotype. 

Activists range. 

There are people like KK or dehlin, who took public measures and methods that were combative, subtly (or not so) encouraged doubt over faith, minimized or ignored other perspectives that were not their own, and could easily fit much of the cautions of what corbit is saying. 

But one can also place people like Bushman, Reeves, and many like them in varying fields. Who see a gap, work within the system to address it, are open to feed back, and have some form of humility and balance in sharing their niche fields and maintain spiritual growth. I've been apart of groups that could easily meet definitions of activism that are very much faith centered. Just last night I had a dinner/reunion with one of them, that works to expand understanding and knowledge about minority movements/experiences at BYU. It included engaging byu staff, talking in classes about minority experiences at byu, encouraging changes that would help better support BYU POC's. I at no point saw hammers coming out. I can see my actions to actively promote changes in how talk/understand sexuality as activism...though I again by no means have a hammer approach. In know there are others like me, because the changes I see happening in both mental health and discussing sexuality are obviously more informed by expertise. I see it in other random fields I'm interested in, such as art, where there's been artists like J Kirk Richards, who actively (but quietly) has tried to help promote more diverse art forms and artists within the church. etc. 

That's also why I likely see disonance in this line here: 

Quote

Does this mean activism and advocacy are bad? Not at all, he said.

Brother Corbitt cited several examples from American history, from the Boston Tea Party to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and the civil rights movement.

“The United States was founded on and through activism and advocacy by activists,” and “you and I are beneficiaries of this activism,” Brother Corbitt said.

“But activism or advocacy directed toward or against the Church is a secular, worldly device misapplied in a spiritual, otherworldly context,” he said. “Change in the kingdom of God is not accomplished in the same way as change is in, say, government.”

This seems disjointed....activism is good unless its directed at the church. I get that he distinguishes this by determining activism as inherently secular while change in the church is inherently spiritual/otherworldly. But doctrinally and realistically that seems like a stretch to me. For one when one studies things like the civil rights movement, it becomes clear that it inherently held spiritual undertones and manifestations. We hold up things like Luther and the protestant/reformationist movements as a form of positive change that gave greater space for our church to come later on. Likewise not all things in the church are all that otherworldly, that may need change/tweaking. This doesn't fit scriptures and talks that talk about gathering in all truth and all things that are good are of God and that temporal things are also spiritual, etc. If you're to do that someone is going to have to point out there could be more good had in the church...and it won't always be a general authority first IMHO. 

Don't get me wrong I don't think we need a tea party equivalent to elicit change in the church for several reasons. I do think that how one fosters change in the church around causes or concerns must be different because the organization is different. BUT I don't think this means any form of activism is inherently secular and therefore wrong. It makes more sense of me (and is less disonant) to focus on how one seeks change and why one seeks change moreso than whether one should or shouldn't. I would prefer a talk that shows examples of how leaders can and should learn from others who may have noticed a proverbial "light bulb" that needs changing that they haven't noticed and pointing out how one can more humbly go about sharing this information and perspective to leaders/others in the church and keep balance with seeing larger purposes and value within the church while seeking this. It could focus on learning to recognize the possibility for error or correction in both. That our views will always be fundamentally limited.

From the article that is largely missing and what that can lead to is an erroneous sense that there is no valid method for lay members to express concern around a topic they care deeply about. Not only that, but that if you do have one you may be in the mists of darkness if you seek to actively seek out changes. That it is innately risky to seek for changes. Maybe moreso than the pitfalls that can come from those who don't. That's not really helpful IMHO. 

Again, I don't think Corbitt's view is completely out of hand. I do think it fits pretty well with more combative forms of activism. But that's not all activism.

 

With luv,

BD