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

[blueglass]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

And I spoke of the context of Elder Corbitt's talk.

I hope he is called to the 1st quorum of 70 or twelve.  He helped correct Brad wilcox when he fell off the wagon.

[blueglass]

On 11/5/2022 at 11:34 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

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

What are your thoughts on filing "formal complaints" with local leadership?

[Brother Corbitt encouraged members to counsel with their local leaders, “humbly and lovingly expressing concerns, sharing observations, even lodging formal complaints.”]

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Told "no" by his own bias and false racial traditions.  The Lord is good and never the author of the white supremacy views which instituted the eternal family ban against all black Africans.  

He very much wanted to end the ban. 

[MrShorty]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He very much wanted to end the ban. 

I think this could very well be true, but we frequently point out that (at least in theory) one member of the Q15 (even the prophet-president) cannot unilaterally make changes -- especially something with the apparent significant as the priesthood and temple ban. In theory, it only takes one member of the Q15 whose "bias and false racial traditions" tell him "no" (or otherwise impede his ability to receive a different revelation from God). In addition, sucha  significant change would/should go before the body of the church and get "common consent," so a change like this requires a significant portion of the membership who are willing and able to receive personal confirmation that God wanted this change.

Orthodox members seem to assume that God can and will give any revelation he wants to apostles/prophets/the church without any regard for how the recipients of that revelation might impact that revelation, and I think Elder Corbitt perpetuates that assumption in his talk to the chaplains. One of the questions that the history of the priesthood and temple ban raises is whether or not members of the Q15 or the larger body of the church can block (whether because God sometimes cannot override our false traditions or because He sometimes chooses not to) revelation(s) from God. If it is possible for our stubbornness as a church body or the stubbornness of a few in the leadership to block top down revelation, are we certain that ATC is not one of the methods God might use to help bring about that change "from the bottom up?" To bring this solidly back to Elder Corbitt, IMO, if we are serious about stopping/minimizing ATC, we must have a better conversation around how revelation works in the church. Perhaps we need to go so far as to be able to show that top down revelation works infallibly and bottom up revelation never produces anything good -- except that our history is complex enough to at least suggest that top down revelation occasionally generates rotten fruit and bottom up revelation (aka ATC??) occasionally generates worthwhile changes.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think this could very well be true, but we frequently point out that (at least in theory) one member of the Q15 (even the prophet-president) cannot unilaterally make changes -- especially something with the apparent significant as the priesthood and temple ban. In theory, it only takes one member of the Q15 whose "bias and false racial traditions" tell him "no" (or otherwise impede his ability to receive a different revelation from God). In addition, sucha  significant change would/should go before the body of the church and get "common consent," so a change like this requires a significant portion of the membership who are willing and able to receive personal confirmation that God wanted this change.

Orthodox members seem to assume that God can and will give any revelation he wants to apostles/prophets/the church without any regard for how the recipients of that revelation might impact that revelation, and I think Elder Corbitt perpetuates that assumption in his talk to the chaplains. One of the questions that the history of the priesthood and temple ban raises is whether or not members of the Q15 or the larger body of the church can block (whether because God sometimes cannot override our false traditions or because He sometimes chooses not to) revelation(s) from God. If it is possible for our stubbornness as a church body or the stubbornness of a few in the leadership to block top down revelation, are we certain that ATC is not one of the methods God might use to help bring about that change "from the bottom up?" To bring this solidly back to Elder Corbitt, IMO, if we are serious about stopping/minimizing ATC, we must have a better conversation around how revelation works in the church. Perhaps we need to go so far as to be able to show that top down revelation works infallibly and bottom up revelation never produces anything good -- except that our history is complex enough to at least suggest that top down revelation occasionally generates rotten fruit and bottom up revelation (aka ATC??) occasionally generates worthwhile changes.

I don't disagree.  There could be many reasons that ending the ban at that point would not have worked and why God told Pres. McKay no despite his desires.

But I'm not sure what that has to do with bluegrass's post about how it wasn't actually God, it was McKay's biases that caused him to believe it was God.

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't disagree.  There could be many reasons that ending the ban at that point would not have worked and why God told Pres. McKay no despite his desires.

But I'm not sure what that has to do with bluegrass's post about how it wasn't actually God, it was McKay's biases that caused him to believe it was God.

Having seen relatively up close how things work with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, I'm guessing President McKay could not get unanimity with the other 14. I've seen church publications go all through the approval process only to be killed at the last moment because one member of the Quorum of the Twelve objected. If there's no consensus, they don't act. 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Having seen relatively up close how things work with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, I'm guessing President McKay could not get unanimity with the other 14. I've seen church publications go all through the approval process only to be killed at the last moment because one member of the Quorum of the Twelve objected. If there's no consensus, they don't act. 

I assume the same about a possible reason that God did not allow Pres. McKay to lift the ban at that time.  

[bluebell]

On 11/3/2022 at 4:32 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

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

From my perspective, it's kind of like first aid and a penetrating foreign body wound.

I think that most adults know that when someone gets impaled by a foreign object, the worst thing you can do is remove it too soon.  It's instinctual, when coming upon someone with a metal rod or wooden stick sticking out of their body, to want to take it out.  Clearly it's not supposed to be there.  Clearly it is causing damage that can't be ignored.  Clearly it is going to have to come out for the person to ever have a chance to heal. 

But all the same, if you pull that thing out too soon it's likely to kill the person rather than make them better.  It's not just the removal, but also the timing of the removal, that is absolutely paramount to the person's health.  You've got to wait until you have people or resources available that can deal with the blood loss that is likely to happen once the thing is removed.  Otherwise, they will die anyway, and it won't matter at all that you fixed the initial problem.

In terms of the priesthood ban, I don't believe that it was of God.  At the same time, I think that once in place and kept there for so long, it could not just be removed at any old time without causing major, maybe even irreversible, damage.  I think that it didn't just need to be removed, but needed to be removed at the right time, to enable the church to heal and move forward. 

I think there is still healing to be done from that wound but I can't state as fact that removing it in the 1950s would have created a shorter recovery time. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by bluebell

[Benjamin McGuire]

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think this could very well be true, but we frequently point out that (at least in theory) one member of the Q15 (even the prophet-president) cannot unilaterally make changes -- especially something with the apparent significant as the priesthood and temple ban. In theory, it only takes one member of the Q15 whose "bias and false racial traditions" tell him "no" (or otherwise impede his ability to receive a different revelation from God). In addition, sucha  significant change would/should go before the body of the church and get "common consent," so a change like this requires a significant portion of the membership who are willing and able to receive personal confirmation that God wanted this change.

If I understand what is being said here correctly, then I both agree and disagree. When the first attempt was made to lift the priesthood ban administratively (in 1969) it was blocked by Harold B. Lee and Alvin R. Dyer. Hugh B. Brown believed that there was no revelatory basis for the ban and so believed it did not require a revelation to remove the ban. Harold B. Lee disagreed. Even though a large majority supported removing the ban in 1969, the attempt was shot down. In the 9 years before the ban was lifted, seven apostles died, including every apostle who had opposed lifting the ban in 1969. Of course, the Church today claims that "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." The Church has formally rejected the idea that there was a revelatory basis for the priesthood ban.

But, on the issue of common consent from the body of the Church, that common consent is irrelevant to a policy shift like this. We can see this from the chronology. The revelation that came to be known as Official Declaration 2 was received June 1, 1978. The policy shift was announced on June 8, 1978. By June 11, black male members of the Church were being ordained to the priesthood. And in General Conference on September 30, 1978, the revelation was presented to the membership to recognize it through common consent by the body of the Church as revelation and add it to the canon (which happened, as I noted, as Official Declaration 2). Common consent by the body of the Church was never seen as a requirement for lifting the priesthood ban, but only necessary to add the declaration to the canon. I think that this represents part of the issue. If in fact we had a common consent process for policy shifts, perhaps people would feel that they had more of a voice, and a shift toward activist tactics might not seem as necessary.

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, it's kind of like first aid and a penetrating foreign body wound.

I think that most adults know that when someone gets impaled by a foreign object, the worst thing you can do is remove it too soon.  It's instinctual, when coming upon someone with a metal rod or wooden stick sticking out of their body, to want to take it out.  Clearly it's not supposed to be there.  Clearly it is causing damage that can't be ignored.  Clearly it is going to have to come out for the person to ever have a chance to heal. 

But all the same, if you pull that thing out too soon it's likely to kill the person rather than make them better.  It's not just the removal, but also the timing of the removal, that is absolutely paramount to the person's health.  You've got to wait until you have people or resources available that can deal with the blood loss that is likely to happen once the thing is removed.  Otherwise, they will die anyway, and it won't matter at all that you fixed the initial problem.

In terms of the priesthood ban, I don't believe that it was of God.  At the same time, I think that once in place and kept there for so long, it could not just be removed at any old time without causing major, maybe even irreversible, damage.  I think that it didn't just need to be removed, but needed to be removed at the right time, to enable the church to heal and move forward. 

I think there is still healing to be done from that wound but I can't state as fact that removing it in the 1950s would have created a shorter recovery time. 

One could also consider the temperature of the nation regarding race relations between 1820 and 1978 to postulate a possible reason for the ban and the timing of its removal. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

... Of course, the Church today claims that "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." The Church has formally rejected the idea that there was a revelatory basis for the priesthood ban.

It's quite probable that you have forgotten more about formal logic than I ever will know.  However, saying that "None of the[  ] [proffered] explanations [for the Priesthood and Temple ban] is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church] of Jesus Christ" is not the same thing as saying (or, at least it does not follow, automatically) that there was no "revelatory basis for the [P]riesthood ban."

Lack of revelation for proffered explanations is one thing; lack of revelation for the ban itself is another.  (To be clear, I'm not saying that revelatory provenance underlies [or does not underlie] the ban.  I'm saying, simply, that whether revelatory provenance underlies the ban itself is a separate issue from whether revelatory provenance underlies explanations for the ban.)

Edited November 7, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It's quite probable that you have forgotten more about formal logic than I ever will know.  However, saying that "None of the[  ] [proffered] explanations [for the Priesthood and Temple ban] is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church] of Jesus Christ" is not the same thing as saying (or, at least it does not follow, automatically) that there was no "revelatory basis for the [P]riesthood ban."

Lack of revelation for proffered explanations is one thing; lack of revelation for the ban itself is another.  (To be clear, I'm not saying that revelatory provenance underlies [or does not underlie] the ban.  I'm saying, simply, that whether revelatory provenance underlies the ban itself is a separate issue from whether revelatory provenance underlies explanations for the ban.

It's probably safer to say that the church does not assert that there was a revelatory basis for the priesthood ban. At least I've never heard anyone cite a revelation instituting the priesthood ban. 

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's probably safer to say that the church does not assert that there was a revelatory basis for the priesthood ban. At least I've never heard anyone cite a revelation instituting the priesthood ban. 

 

19 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

... To be clear, I'm not saying that revelatory provenance underlies [or does not underlie] the ban.  I'm saying, simply, that whether revelatory provenance underlies the ban itself is a separate issue from whether revelatory provenance underlies explanations for the ban.

 

[MrShorty]

@Benjamin McGuire If we think of "common consent" only as "formal voting by the body of the church," then you are correct, common consent was not a part of the reversal. It seems to me, though, that there are informal ways we exercise common consent in the church. I think it would naive to assume that the brethren did their part to receive the revelation on overturning the ban without being very aware of the potential such a change had for splintering the church. I've heard of historians (see Rick Bennet's Gospel Tangents podcast episodes with Noel Bringhurst, for example) who claimed that among Pres. Kimball's big concerns as he pursued the issue was to make sure that, if they overturned the ban, it was done in a way to, as much as possible, preserve the church and not have the church splinter over the issue. I believe it was Ed Kimball's history in BYU's Religious Studies publication that mentioned a survey sent out by the Q12 in the '50s that allegedly led to the conclusion that "the church is not ready." You are right that a formal vote of the membership was not taken before lifting the ban, but I think there were other, less formal methods of gauging the attitudes of the members of the church that were part of the process.

Bringing this back to Elder Corbitt. Is it possible that ATC is a part (perhaps it should be a small part) of these informal "common consent" practices in the church? I notice someone mentioned upthread that Elder Corbitt alluded to "formal complaint" processes, but no one has commented on what that looks like in the church. Many of those who practice ATC claim that there are no other good ways to lodge complaints and express dissatisfaction with church teachings and practices, often expressing frustration at the "lodge complaints with local leaders who will allegedly forward complaints up the priesthood chain of command" process that is recommended. What does Elder Corbitt recommend when one feels that the priesthood chain of command is not taking concerns seriously?

[CV75]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes. You made the incredibly banal and circular observation that Christ didn’t advocate against himself! Nice!

If I didn't, my interlocutors would continue comparing activists to Christ, a complete waste of time and oddly in line with some of the bullet points.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, blueglass said:

I hope he is called to the 1st quorum of 70 or twelve.  He helped correct Brad wilcox when he fell off the wagon.

Whatever happens, he sure did the Lord's work with Bro. Wilcox and I'm sure he will continue to do so.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, blueglass said:

What are your thoughts on filing "formal complaints" with local leadership?

[Brother Corbitt encouraged members to counsel with their local leaders, “humbly and lovingly expressing concerns, sharing observations, even lodging formal complaints.”]

 

 

Someone here can send one and report on the results. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Someone here can send one and report on the results. 

When my brother-in-law was in a bishopric, he sent a formal letter to Salt Lake because he thought the Area President was doing something egregiously wrong. He said he was worried he’d be labeled a complainer or ark-steadier, but he felt strongly about it and sent the letter. He didn’t really get much of a response, but it certainly didn’t hurt his career at BYU or in church leadership. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If I understand what is being said here correctly, then I both agree and disagree. When the first attempt was made to lift the priesthood ban administratively (in 1969) it was blocked by Harold B. Lee and Alvin R. Dyer. Hugh B. Brown believed that there was no revelatory basis for the ban and so believed it did not require a revelation to remove the ban. Harold B. Lee disagreed. Even though a large majority supported removing the ban in 1969, the attempt was shot down. In the 9 years before the ban was lifted, seven apostles died, including every apostle who had opposed lifting the ban in 1969. Of course, the Church today claims that "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." The Church has formally rejected the idea that there was a revelatory basis for the priesthood ban.

But, on the issue of common consent from the body of the Church, that common consent is irrelevant to a policy shift like this. We can see this from the chronology. The revelation that came to be known as Official Declaration 2 was received June 1, 1978. The policy shift was announced on June 8, 1978. By June 11, black male members of the Church were being ordained to the priesthood. And in General Conference on September 30, 1978, the revelation was presented to the membership to recognize it through common consent by the body of the Church as revelation and add it to the canon (which happened, as I noted, as Official Declaration 2). Common consent by the body of the Church was never seen as a requirement for lifting the priesthood ban, but only necessary to add the declaration to the canon. I think that this represents part of the issue. If in fact we had a common consent process for policy shifts, perhaps people would feel that they had more of a voice, and a shift toward activist tactics might not seem as necessary.

The 60s and early 70s were not good times to make a change. 

To oppose the lifting of the ban required a death sentence?

There is no revelatory that we know of at the present time.

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

1969 was not a good time to make a change. 

To oppose the lifting of the ban required a death sentence?

There is no revelatory that we know of at the present time.

 

Death sentence? Not unless dying of natural causes is some kind of execution. I think Ben is right that the ban could not be rescinded until you had unanimity among the brethren, and that was unlikely to happen with the men in charge in 1969. 

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, blueglass said:

Told "no" by his own bias and false racial traditions.  The Lord is good and never the author of the white supremacy views which instituted the eternal family ban against all black Africans. 

The Lord is good, but the rest is not accurate. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Death sentence? Not unless dying of natural causes is some kind of execution.

Read the sentence. Why point out that some who disagreed had died after opposing in the context and timeline of lifting the ban? Some who didn’t oppose it lived.
 

Quote

I think Ben is right that the ban could not be rescinded until you had unanimity among the brethren, and that was unlikely to happen with the men in charge in 1969. 

Of course unanimity is required. But I think that Ben makes an unfair assessment of the brothers who were “in charge”. How did they come to unanimity? 

When  it was successfully sustained, some who had disagreed but were still alive (perhaps they got the message😬) turned to be supporters because it was a revelation. The fact that was a revelation brought them into unanimity. I believe the same thing would have happened with President McKay.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Someone here can send one and report on the results. 

The first time I served with a stake presidency, a temple-related policy in the Handbook was being misapplied. I pointed this out and even read from the relevant section of the Handbook. It was like no one could hear the words. Sad (because this was hurting stake members), the next time I was at the temple, I asked to speak to the temple president. I told him what was happening, and his immediate response was: 'That's contrary to clearly stated policy!' I agreed but explained that no one would listen to me.

He told me not to worry because he would take it to the area presidency. When our stake president returned from the next coordinating council training, he told us about an 'exciting change' in Church policy in relation to the temple. It was, of course, the policy that was already in the Handbook and which I had read out in stake presidency meeting weeks earlier. No one besides me ever noticed this fact. But at least we stopped harming people, and that was my sole goal.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

Thought this would be interesting to some of you that are discussing the ban....

https://kslnewsradio.com/1975687/byu-premieres-documentary-the-black-14-healing-hearts-and-feeding-souls/

[Benjamin Seeker]

16 hours ago, blueglass said:

What are your thoughts on filing "formal complaints" with local leadership?

[Brother Corbitt encouraged members to counsel with their local leaders, “humbly and lovingly expressing concerns, sharing observations, even lodging formal complaints.”]

 

Of course, I’d love if the church to had a process where members can be more easily heard. To my understanding, talking with local leaders doesn’t have a chance of going anywhere, but a formal complaint process sounds positive. Has anyone here ever gone through that process?