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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe he would rather reveal his will to the Prophet who is his designated representative. 

And when the prophet is the problem? (A la the priesthood ban that the church states it can’t find any revelatory basis for?)

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Of course, I’d love if the church to had a process where members can be more easily heard.

Could you clarify what you mean by "more easily heard"?  

Back in August I started a thread about a bishop in Orem, Utah who had gone on a podcast to publicly extol the virtues of using Ayahuasca: Story on Brad Daw: "Mormon Bishop [] Champions Ayahuasca After Faith-Affirming Psychedelic Experience"

I wrote at the time: 

Quote

I am a big proponent of Free Speech, but I think it is very problematic for currently-serving bishop in the Church to trade on his calling to publicly advance sociopolitical ideas which may not accord with the doctrines and policies of the Church.

After some internal deliberation, I sent an email to my bishop and stake president outlining what I had discovered about this bishop and expressing my concerns.  The stake president wrote back and advised that he had forwarded my email to the Area Seventy, who had then forwarded it to the Area Presidency.  

I appreciated the response, but I did not really expect one, nor did I expect any further follow-up.  I had no particular stewardship or authority over that bishop, and I don't think it is my place to expect or demand feedback from those who do have such authority.

FYI, the fellow mentioned in the podcast, Brad Daw, is no longer listed as the bishop of the ward in Orem.  He mentioned on the podcast that he had already been bishop for 5 years...

20 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

To my understanding, talking with local leaders doesn’t have a chance of going anywhere, but a formal complaint process sounds positive.

Could you elaborate on what sort of expectations you have about a complaint going somewhere?

I have served in the military, worked for a few large corporations, etc.  All of them have some sort of input/comment/feedback mechanism for the lower-downs to convey ideas/complaints to the higher-ups.  Some may involve HR, some may just be a "pass this on up the food chain" kind of thing.  But I think few large organizations establish a "forma complaint process" in which there is an ongoing feedback and response interaction going on.

I made a "complaint" against the Orem bishop.  Sorta.  I just notified my bishop and stake president of the issue, briefly expressed my concern, then left it to them to handle as they deemed appropriate.  The Orem bishop wasn't within their stewardship, either, so they passed the information to those who have it.  I think that's about all I could expect to see happen.  

20 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Has anyone here ever gone through that process?

I have.  A few times, actually (only one as a "complaint," though).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe he would rather reveal his will to the Prophet who is his designated representative. 

Maybe this.  Maybe that.  But it seems like his "designated rep" is not all that reliable.  Thus the need for activism.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Maybe Jesus is prompting activism.

Wouldn't He just prompt the leader of the church?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, rodheadlee said:

Wouldn't He just prompt the leader of the church?

Aren’t we taught that God accomplished his work through us? Maybe ACT is the prompting the church leadership needs. See Lester Bush’s essay. 

[rodheadlee]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Maybe this.  Maybe that.  But it seems like his "designated rep" is not all that reliable.  Thus the need for activism.

I don't know, He yelled at me once "these things must needs be"

It about knocked me out of the boat.

I'm sure he could yell at the prophet. 

[MrShorty]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m trying to imagine what form ATC takes so that it does not become publicly critical of the Prophet or the Church or divisive among Church members. What do you think is appropriate?

I think one aspect of "appropriate" ATC would be to focus on ideas/teachings/doctrines rather than people. I think the Race and the Priesthood Gospel Topics essay illustrates this when it "disavows the theories advanced in the past..." without naming the names of those who advanced those "theories." Which would be really nice if it was only that easy. The challenge in a top down authoritarian church structure where the top quorums are considered prophets and apostles and seers and revelators and that this quorum has the priesthood authority to bind/loose on Earth and in heaven is that it can sometimes be difficult to separate "what was taught" from "who taught it." We may disavow theories, but it doesn't take much to realize that someone like Brigham did not see the idea that skin color was a sign that someone was a descendant of Cain/Ham as some kind of human made theory that maybe kind of explains why slavery and segregation were justified. Pres. Young believed and taught with great certainty that what we've called a mere "theory" was, to him, the clear and direct decree of the Almighty God since the days of Adam and Noah. This makes it difficult to separate what was taught from who taught it, because that priesthood position and authority gives a lot of weight to what was taught. To the extent that we can, I think we ought to focus on the truthfulness of ideas and teachings and practices and focus less on the person/people who implemented/perpetuated those ideas and teachings and practices.

[MrShorty]

13 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Wouldn't He just prompt the leader of the church?

 

13 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I don't know, He yelled at me once "these things must needs be"

It about knocked me out of the boat.

I'm sure he could yell at the prophet. 

In some ways, I think this is one of the really big questions that comes out of the history of the priesthood and temple ban. In the 21st century we have disavowed all of the theories put forward by past prophets and apostles used to justify the ban. These theories were used by Brigham Young when he implemented the ban and still seemed to be considered "the will of the Lord" up through at least George Albert Smith. I don't claim to understand the mind of God but it seems to me that, whatever He could/could not/would/would not do, He did not prompt/correct/yell at the leaders of the church regarding these now disavowed theories. It seems to me that this reveals something about the relationship between God and His prophets and His church (if only we could see clearly enough to understand what that something is).

Edited November 9, 2022 by MrShorty

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Wouldn't He just prompt the leader of the church?

Not necessarily.

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

Maybe this.  Maybe that.  But it seems like his "designated rep" is not all that reliable.  Thus the need for activism.

Maybe.

I believe it is the fervent prayers of the faithful that persuade God, not the shouting and be smirking of the activists.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And when the prophet is the problem? (A la the priesthood ban that the church states it can’t find any revelatory basis for?)

I’m happy to wait to hear Brother Brigham’s side of the story. Unfortunately that may take a while, but at my age, who knows?

Edited November 10, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Not necessarily.

Sometimes I wonder if our leaders, who can get stuck in a specific frame of mind  or biases just like the rest of us, benefit from hearing how the members feel about something, to the point of being open to change or a different perspective when they weren't before.

It's hard to hear the Lord when we already believe we know what He is saying.  I think hearing things from different perspectives can sometimes help do that, even for the prophet and quorum of the 12.

[ksfisher]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes I wonder if our leaders, who can get stuck in a specific frame of mind  or biases just like the rest of us, benefit from hearing how the members feel about something, to the point of being open to change or a different perspective when they weren't before.

It's hard to hear the Lord when we already believe we know what He is saying.  I think hearing things from different perspectives can sometimes help do that, even for the prophet and quorum of the 12.

Do you believe that the Lord's prophets and apostles are not open to revelation?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you believe that the Lord's prophets and apostles are not open to revelation?

No I believe that they are.  But that doesn't mean I believe they are infallible at it.  And sometimes I think that it's possible to believe that something has been revealed (because it was taught by a leader before maybe, or it's how it's always been done maybe, or because it works with other doctrine, etc.) when it actually hasn't been. 

We can look at everything that was taught over the pulpit as "doctrine" about the reasons for the race ban as a good example of that.  Another less onerous example is women praying at the end of a sacrament meeting or in GC.

Questions make for good revelation, but if we don't ever question something because we think we know the answer, that can keep us from receiving it.  Sometimes we don't think to question something until the perspectives of others cause us to.

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/8/2022 at 11:47 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The funny thing about presentism is that it isn't what you are portraying it to be here. I have not criticized Brigham Young. I have not thrown him under the bus. And my approach doesn't violate my covenants. And you should be ashamed of yourself for insinuating that I am doing all of this. most of I disagree that this is not an example

Quote

Brigham Young's adoption of those arguments, and finally, Brigham Young's [false] claims that there was a revelatory basis for slavery rooted in the Old Testament.

While it is true, that in general practice, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in this case, it isn't merely an absence of evidence. We have pretty clear historical references to what was believed to be the revelatory source. And most of us reject those interpretations of the Old Testament as flawed and racist interpretations used to defend a grossly offensive practice.

We will have to disagree on these things.

As far as the 50s-70s, I observed the changes in racial attitudes first hand. I witnessed this in my immediate and extended family (my sister entered a mixed-race marriage in 1952 which was disapproved of by both sides), my friends in and out of the Church, my non-Utah progressive community and high school (which were putting on annual minstrel show fund raisers in 1964), the local LDS and other churches, my mission and 7 BYU years, our connections with faithful members affected by the ban in Illinois and Washington, Sister Gui’s and my highly emotional reaction upon hearing of the lifting on the car radio in Missouri in 1978 as we were moving across the country, and the reactions of virtually all of my friends and family which were joyous, not divisive, after the lifting. We will have to disagree on the existence of a revelation because BY is not here to face the inquisition. I’m sure it will be cleared up when we all meet in the great beyond. 

I firmly believe there was a reason for the ban, that the timing was exactly right, and that a revelation was precisely what was needed to adjust the situation. This is not racist, nor does it make me a racist. There are times in my earlier life when I had racist attitudes, but not now. That all ended long ago for me as we hoped and prayed in the mid 70s. I was absolutely ready when the time came.

When Brigham Young is labeled a fraud, a liar, and a “grossly offensive” racist, I can only see it as throwing (and others) under the Cancel Bus, I don’t know what is. 

As far as our covenants are concerned I heartily and sincerely endorse you living them as you see right, and I hope you would grant me the same privilege. 

 

Quote

Ahhh yes, the good of the many (in particular the Church and its primarily white membership) outweighs the good of the few (the black membership of the Church). This is classic racism. And really this isn't likely to be true at all. It is clear that by 1969, not only was the ban not helping with missionary work, it was actively preventing missionary work in many parts of the world.…

The problem that I have is that there are people, like yourself, who want to insist that the policy was somehow necessary, and therefore that the racism that it created was necessary. That is wrong.…

By claiming that God wanted the racist policies to continue in the Church to protect the Church from whatever imaginary bad things you think could have happened, we don't do very much to teach the wrongness of racism.

So do we really want to make this the will of God?

It depends on whether or not it had a purpose. I believe it did, but you don’t. So be it. There are many other things that God purposes regarding race and many which we do not understand or may chafe us at the present time. Believing this does not make me a racist, contrary to your false and prejudicial assertions above. 
 
Yes, I think it very well could be the will of God. After all, the Priesthoods and the temple ordinances were withheld from the overwhelming majority majority of humanity (all races) for thousands of years.
 
1969?? Seriously? Inarguably that was the worst time to lift the ban, despite your claim the Church was ready. No one was. The late 60s and early 70s were extremely volatile years, perhaps the worst since the Civil War. Maybe you don’t remember it. I do. In addition to the violent tumult caused by opposition to the Vietnam War…

Quote

….it was more than just the two political assassinations of towering liberal and civil-rights leaders [1968]. In the aftermath of King’s assassination, the country appeared powerless as the largest wave of urban riots in history engulfed more than 120 cities. The grim tally deepened the despair and sense of dread: 39 dead, more than 2,600 injured and countless African-American communities ravaged, left with millions of dollars in damages and losses.

When Kennedy was murdered by a 24-year-old Palestinian on June 5, President Johnson mourned how “a climate of extremism, of disrespect for law, of contempt for the rights of others” had led to an outbreak of uncontrollable violence. 
https://www.history.com/news/1968-political-violence

The lifting happened when it was supposed to.

 

The question “is God a racist?” would make for an interesting discussion.
 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

23 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

1969?? Seriously? Inarguably that was the worst time to lift the ban, despite your claim the Church was ready. No one was. The late 60s and early 70s were extremely volatile years, perhaps the worst since the Civil War. Maybe you don’t remember it. I do. In addition to the violent tumult caused by opposition to the Vietnam War…

Seriously is right. Do you know which group of people was most ready to have the priesthood ban lifted in 1969? Black members of the Church.

The Church shouldn't be lagging behind on issues of moral justice, it should be at the forefront of appropriate change. I stand by my claims. We will have to agree to disagree.

[gav]

Perhaps all this priesthood ban stuff needs an African perspective?

[gav]

25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Seriously is right. Do you know which group of people was most ready to have the priesthood ban lifted in 1969? Black members of the Church.

The Church shouldn't be lagging behind on issues of moral justice, it should be at the forefront of appropriate change. I stand by my claims. We will have to agree to disagree.

'69 doesn't have the astronomical cycle coincidence that '78 has...

[Danzo]

On 11/7/2022 at 3:08 PM, Bernard Gui said:

 

Someone here can send one and report on the results. 

A few months ago, local missionaries were telling me it was against the rules for the missionaries to contact members outside the unit they were assigned to and outside the mission (for fellowship purposes, we live pretty much on the border of the mission so these people who we wanted them to contact didn't really live very far from the people they were teaching.

I told the missionaries that they should follow the direction of their mission president.

I then had a conversation with a counselor in the mission presidency who told me he wasn't aware of any such rule.

A few days later the missionaries called and told me the mission had changed the rule and they were, in fact allowed to contact members outside the mission to assist in fellowshipping investigators.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

No I believe that they are.  But that doesn't mean I believe they are infallible at it.  And sometimes I think that it's possible to believe that something has been revealed (because it was taught by a leader before maybe, or it's how it's always been done maybe, or because it works with other doctrine, etc.) when it actually hasn't been. 

We can look at everything that was taught over the pulpit as "doctrine" about the reasons for the race ban as a good example of that.  Another less onerous example is women praying at the end of a sacrament meeting or in GC.

Questions make for good revelation, but if we don't ever question something because we think we know the answer, that can keep us from receiving it.  Sometimes we don't think to question something until the perspectives of others cause us to.

I agree with what you are saying here, we need to keep our minds open.

I was questioning your previous post because it was sounding, to me, like you were saying the brethren weren't open to new revelation and were entrenched in how things had always been done.  I may have been misunderstanding.

 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I agree with what you are saying here, we need to keep our minds open.

I was questioning your previous post because it was sounding, to me, like you were saying the brethren weren't open to new revelation and were entrenched in how things had always been done.  I may have been misunderstanding.

 

I believe there are likely times when leaders, like the rest of us, aren’t open to new revelation only because they believe God has already spoke on an issue or the issue has otherwise been decided.

At such time’s having someone who says “why are we doing it this way/I’m struggling with this because it doesn’t make sense to me/let’s do this/etc. might cause leaders to revisit an issue with the Lord that they might not have sought further guidance on otherwise.

[rodheadlee]

On 11/8/2022 at 4:34 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

These statements aren't factual, they are merely speculative - and they are speculative in a way that is designed to protect the Church from criticism.

The 60's and 70's were just fine in terms of making this sort of change. I did not say that it was a death sentence - old age takes care of that - but that is the problem. The resistance to this change wasn't so much from the membership as it was from the leadership, and as I noted, all it took for the change to occur was for three already very old men to die. And if we think that there was some bad understandings of even one of those leaders - who could then prevent change from occurring on their own, how does this reflect a positive circumstance? Do we really want our doctrine and policy to be determined by the worst among our leadership? Do we think that one individual should be able to impede positive change? The Church could have been progressive on this issue. They could have contested racist ideas. Instead, they continued to embrace them - and these policies had other real-world complications. Consider that it wasn't until 1978 (and the lifting of the ban) that Utah finally dropped it segregated blood banks (heaven forbid that a white priesthood holder would have a drop of African blood put into his body ....).

With two hundred years of documents and claims, do you really think that we have some hidden cache of revelations that will back up the idea (already rejected by the Church) that there was a revelation that caused the ban?

I just finished reading a historical fictional account of a person taking part in the March at Selma, Alabama on Bloody Sunday. I think I can truthfully say the rest of the nation wasn't ready for blacks to be in a position of authority, even if the members were. I was only 9 years old when that occurred so I really didn't understand it at the  time and I was not a member of the church until I was 28. Anyways it was a disgusting piece of US history. I can see why the Church waited until after the Civil Rights Movement to fulfill the promise to the blacks to have full priesthood responsibilities. 

Whether this was decided by the prophets or by God and Jesus Christ or by Mere Men we really won't know until Judgment Day.

[why me]

On 11/3/2022 at 9:11 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

You could use that argument to shut down any criticism valid or not, as has been done in LDS church history, blacks and the priesthood being one excellent example.

I remember that the discussion about the blacks and the priesthood was discussed a lot in the 1970s. It was always part of our discussion in priesthood. The prevailing belief at that time was that blacks would eventually get the priesthood. And we need to remember that blacks were always welcome to join the lds church and sit with members as equals and as brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, gav said:

Perhaps all this priesthood ban stuff needs an African perspective?

Please give it here with quotes from African members.

The African members I know have no heartburn with it, considering it a thing of the past. I had two LDS African students in Washington. They were cruelly treated by some of the African American students in our school, but not by the youth in our ward.  We have an African branch here in our Kentucky stake. Given our location, one might think they are not accepted as brothers and sisters, but that would be a mistake. We have all been prepared for this.

The two African American members with whom we were friends at the time of  the ban waited patiently in great faith because they believed that they would receive the promised blessings. When they did, there was much celebration…no one left the Church. We were prepared.

[why me]

When it comes to the priesthood ban it would be important to discuss why there was a ban. We need to remember that blacks did have the priesthood up to a certain date. But what happened to put in the ban?