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

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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

I dunno.  He is taking into account Kanye's apparent mental health issues.  That seems reasonable.

Some years ago I was interviewing a sister in my ward who had moved in just a few months prior.  The conversation was going just fine until she abruptly started cussing a blue streak (f-bombs and all).  It was, as you can likely imagine, fairly startling (we were in the bishop's office in the church building, after all), so I immediately stopped her and asked her to not swear.  She seemed sort of confused/surprised, but agreed, and we continued our conversation.  

It took me a little while to put 2 and 2 together and ascertain that she had a fairly serious mental health condition (in the main, she came across as articulate and intelligent, and seemingly quite put together).  I hadn't been holding a grudge or anything, but if I had I would have, at that point, set it aside.  Mental illness can manifest in all sorts of strange ways, which may or may not reflect the content of the individual's character or thought processes.  So it may be with Ben Shapiro.

I am decidedly less impressed by Candace Owens.  She is obviously a very smart and articulate person, but c'mon.  Don't try to justify/equivocate on this sort of thing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 4, 2022 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I dunno.  He is taking into account Kanye's apparent mental health issues.  That seems reasonable.

Some years ago I was interviewing a sister in my ward who had moved in just a few months prior.  The conversation was going just fine until she abruptly started cussing a blue streak (f-bombs and all).  It was, as you can likely imagine, fairly startling (we were in the bishop's office in the church building, after all), so I immediately stopped her and asked her to not swear.  She seemed sort of confused/surprised, but agreed, and we continued our conversation.  

It took me a little while to put 2 and 2 together and ascertain that she had a fairly serious mental health condition (she was very articulate and intelligent).  I hadn't been holding a grudge or anything, but if I had I would have, at that point, set it aside.  Mental illness can manifest in all sorts of strange ways, which may or may not reflect the content of the individual's character or thought processes.  So it may be with Ben Shapiro.

I am decidedly less impressed by Candace Owens.  She is obviously a very smart and articulate person, but c'mon.  Don't try to justify/equivocate on this sort of thing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I very much disliked his attempts to make light of the situation. But I’m probably biased, as I find him a poor representative of conservatism. Still, much smarter than Charlie Kirk. 

Definitely not a fan of Candace Owens. She strikes me as playing a part in order to make money. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

One example:

And here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Cancel culture is not new. Saying repugnant things has always led to social scorn. Somehow it suddenly stopped being “fair” though and we hear a lot more complaining about it.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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

 

9 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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

So you can't answer my questions???

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

 

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

So is "cancel culture." 

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

One example:

And here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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

While it is quite possible to discuss this thread topic without violating the board’s “No Politics”  directive, the topic might by nature be unusually prone to having commenters stray into the realm of politics. 
 

I therefore earnestly ask that thread participants avoid that tendency. And I’ll be vigilant about watching for and reporting it if need be, if for no other reason than I don’t want to see the thread shut down prematurely. 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

This is pretty broad assertion. While it would be difficult to discuss its pros and cons without something more concrete to go on, it could be argued that Church discipline (or the threat thereof) has been by and large not used to stifle mere dissent or activism targeting the Church, but rather, in response to extreme behavior under which Church leaders were viciously defamed, the Church’s work undermined, etc. 

For example, you bring up the ERA. I’m old enough to have a fairly clear memory of that episode, particularly the excommunication of one Sonia Johnson. My recollection is that the action stemmed not from her activism as such, but from her defaming Church leaders as “savage misogynists” and from her going about trying to undermine the Church’s missionary efforts. 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

On 11/3/2022 at 12:06 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

Without openness to criticism any organization becomes an echo chamber. Also, Jesus is a great example of an activist.

Yes one could say that Satan also was an activist by rebelling against the Father by not accepting his plan over those of Christ.  Activism can be good and also can be evil.  Got to know where the line is.

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes one could say that Satan also was an activist by rebelling against the Father by not accepting his plan over those of Christ.  Activism can be good and also can be evil.  Got to know where the line is.

Sure. But to condemn any activism that opposes the church seems like a pretty stupid idea.

[carbon dioxide]

On 11/3/2022 at 2:33 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

There’s the problem. Activist pressure is seen as a negative rather than potential intelligent or inspired thought. What if the church had been more open to activism and criticism throughout its history? For one, the priesthood ban could have been canceled much sooner. Priesthood hierarchy and top down decisions don’t always offer the fastest route to solution nor even the correct answers. Simply put, no one is perfect, and there is no reason to believe that the priesthood hierarchy can operate free of bias of many types.

The problem with activism is if one gives into activism it only encourages more of it on other issues.  If change is to be made, it should be done when the time is right and the merits of the issue itself.  There are some people that will never be happy.  They will complain about something.  These people should be avoided and largely ignored.  I don't find much merit in the priesthood ban.  Though perhaps much of the problem with it taking so long to be lifted is that the white members were not ready.  Perhaps too many white male priesthood holders had too much prejudice in the 30's or 50's to welcome blacks with full fellowship.  Perhaps it took until the late 70s for enough of that prejudice to burn itself out even though there was still some and still is that remains. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

46 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps it took until the late 70s for enough of that prejudice to burn itself

Except it didn’t burn itself out. Activists advocated in the public sphere and changed peoples hearts and minds. 

[MrShorty]

52 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Though perhaps much of the problem with it taking so long to be lifted is that the white members were not ready.  Perhaps too many white male priesthood holders had too much prejudice in the 30's or 50's to welcome blacks with full fellowship.  Perhaps it took until the late 70s for enough of that prejudice to burn itself out even though there was still some and still is that remains. 

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I also find that this poses a new problem -- why didn't God grant revelation(s) during this time towards rooting out that prejudice? What was it about that prejudice that would require God to wait until it "burn[ed] itself out?" And, respecting Scott's request that this focus on Elder Corbitt's talk rather than just rehash old priesthood and temple ban stuff, would greater attention to ATC on this topic have hastened the burning out of these prejudices? IMO, one of the weaknesses I see in Elder Corbitt's presentation is that he doesn't adequately address these kinds of situations where revelation from the top seems delayed.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The problem with activism is if one gives into activism it only encourages more of it on other issues.  If change is to be made, it should be done when the time is right and the merits of the issue itself.  There are some people that will never be happy.  They will complain about something.  These people should be avoided and largely ignored.  I don't find much merit in the priesthood ban.  Though perhaps much of the problem with it taking so long to be lifted is that the white members were not ready.  Perhaps too many white male priesthood holders had too much prejudice in the 30's or 50's to welcome blacks with full fellowship.  Perhaps it took until the late 70s for enough of that prejudice to burn itself out even though there was still some and still is that remains. 

I think the answer for any organization, including the church, is to be open to criticism and maintain a dialogue. 

[Teancum]

On 11/2/2022 at 8:23 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 read the article before you posted it.  Why should the church be exempt from activism?  Because its leaders say so?  Because its believing member say so?  Who gets to decide that the Church is so special that it is exempt.  What utter nonsense.  And you wonder why people say what they say about the Church and such things.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 11/2/2022 at 10:07 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

That was, and is, a masterful, much needed, and directly on point address.  All of us would do extremely well to take that counsel to heart.  Not to derail your thread, of course, Scott, but Brother Corbitt's address reminded me of this:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

Ah another mind and thought control speech by an LDS leader.  You do know President Kimball as mighty angry at Elder Benson for giving this address.  Yet he was not corrected,  It was not repudiated like it should have been and now the awful talk finds its way into general conference sessions. Such is the way of it I guess.

[Teancum]

On 11/3/2022 at 2:58 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not just “any organization.” 

Yes it is.  And even if it were no it should not be free from criticism nor should its leaders.  

On 11/3/2022 at 2:58 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

And if Jesus Christ is an “activist” for anything, it’s for His own doctrines and principles as propounded in the church He founded during His mortal ministry, that He restored in latter days and that He leads through revelation to prophets and apostles. 
 

Finally, in principle, activism in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing, though it can be. If it opposes God, goodness and truth, it is not. 

If Jesus the man were alive today I have no doubt he would ctricie th LDS Church leader's the same way he criticized the Jewish leaders of his day.

[Teancum]

On 11/3/2022 at 3:25 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

The 1978 revelation on the priesthood came about not through outside activism or agitation but through prophets and apostles earnestly seeking to know and understand the will of God. 
 

Nah it was activism.  And the need to allow the people of Brazil lto attend the temple being built there.

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is pretty broad assertion. While it would be difficult to discuss its pros and cons without something more concrete to go on, it could be argued that Church discipline (or the threat thereof) has been by and large not used to stifle mere dissent or activism targeting the Church, but rather, in response to extreme behavior under which Church leaders were viciously defamed, the Church’s work undermined, etc. 

For example, you bring up the ERA. I’m old enough to have a fairly clear memory of that episode, particularly the excommunication of one Sonia Johnson. My recollection is that the action stemmed not from her activism as such, but from her defaming Church leaders as “savage misogynists” and from her going about trying to undermine the Church’s missionary efforts. 

Certainly one individual's or group's criticism is another's undermining/extreme behavior. My point is that the LDS church, like many others has wielded the excommunication and disfellowshipping weapon to stifle dissent, criticism, and activism. In that sense, as in so many others, the LDS church is no different from the majority of other Christian groups and organizations. That isn't a criticism, it is a statement of what I have observed and concluded. I see no reason why it should be considered any different from any other Christian group. I suppose depending on who is reading that statement, it might upset a broad swath of folks both within the LDS community and those outside of it who would differentiate it as a means of lessening it. That is my karma!

Oh, and for some years now I have been a good friend of a very close relative of Sonia Johnson. I have heard the family's side of that situation on more than one occasion. In this particular family member (a former bishop) the bitterness runs deep. I only bring that up because you specifically brought her up. 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Navidad

[Chum]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My point is that the LDS church, like many others has wielded the excommunication and disfellowshipping weapon to stifle dissent, criticism, and activism. In that sense, as in so many others, the LDS church is no different from the majority of other Christian groups and organizations. That isn't a criticism, it is a statement of what I have observed and concluded. I see no reason why it should be considered any different from any other Christian group.

I think most Christian leaders believe their exclusionary actions are for the good of the body (including LDS). I believe the truth of that is reflected on if (and how) active love is manifested in those proceedings.

One tangential example. My older brothers went to a knuckle rapping Catholic school. In my (much later) Catholic school, the nun who paddled me was sobbing the entire time.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Chum

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ah another mind and thought control speech by an LDS leader.  You do know President Kimball as mighty angry at Elder Benson for giving this address.  Yet he was not corrected,  It was not repudiated like it should have been and now the awful talk finds its way into general conference sessions. Such is the way of it I guess.

You brought up Elder Benson's well-known talk. Would a majority of Saints, including those on this forum agree with his fourteen points? Did it cause any kerfuffle among the members when it was given? Thanks.

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You brought up Elder Benson's well-known talk. Would a majority of Saints, including those on this forum agree with his fourteen points? Did it cause any kerfuffle among the members when it was given? Thanks.

The speech was given quite some time ago. I think most active members, myself included, thought it was a wonderful talk at the time.  It is only when you free your mid from such pablum that you are able to see it for what it is.

[Chum]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You brought up Elder Benson's well-known talk. Would a majority of Saints, including those on this forum agree with his fourteen points?

Recapping

Quote

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

I think 1-9, 13 & 14 are open-ended in a beneficial way. They indicate the boundaries of how things work.

I speculate that 10 has been depreciating in relevance since this talk was given. It would speak best to preceding events.

I feel 11 and 12 come with a spirit of exclusion that broadly hampers missionary work. I find that spirit contagious and feel a desire to exclude them.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Chum

[rodheadlee]

On 11/3/2022 at 7:57 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

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!!!

This is true but it's not your job to point it out to the church leaders.

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Sure. But to condemn any activism that opposes the church seems like a pretty stupid idea.

It depends on the methods, motive, and the issue.  Some things are fixed doctrines that can't be changed and others are peripheral stuff.  Many times the activists are advocating from something for some sort of personal gain.   A good example was the ordain women group. THEY thought it was time for women to be ordained.  THEY thought women were ready.  It was a whole "my will be done" position.  They could care less of God wanted women ordained.  They did not consider how disruptive things could get in the Church if every group who had a pet issue they wanted advanced protested the Church to get a change they wanted.  God put prophets at the head of the church for a reason.  God does not need or want activist organizations pushing things.  Not only will these groups push things that are not in line with His will but would just create chaos.  I could accept women being ordained if that is what God wanted and the change went through the process of revelation.   Women being ordained as a result of pressure from an activist group,  I will fight against that forever. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

This is true but it's not your job to point it out to the church leaders.

Lester Bush’s essay was instrumental in pointing out where the church got the priesthood ban history wrong and helped pave the way for the revelation. He told church leaders they were wrong. He published his essay over the objections of the quorum of the 12. He was ostracized for it  at church headquarters and harassed by his local leaders eventually falling into inactivity. But his research led to a new understanding among the Qof12 and first presidency. 

[jkwilliams]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

 

While it is quite possible to discuss this thread topic without violating the board’s “No Politics”  directive, the topic might by nature be unusually prone to having commenters stray into the realm of politics. 
 

I therefore earnestly ask that thread participants avoid that tendency. And I’ll be vigilant about watching for and reporting it if need be, if for no other reason than I don’t want to see the thread shut down prematurely. 

I don’t think discussing Ben Shapiro’s lack of intelligence is necessarily political.