Tacenda Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, teddyaware said: Only someone who is being either willfully ignorant or unfair could possibly misconstrue Elder Peterson’s comments as being “hate speech.” In case you weren’t around when it was happening (I was), there was a priesthood ban in place, back in the days when Elder Peterson was an apostle, that the vast majority of members, including the General Authorities, believed to be divinely mandated. By calling attention to the precedent setting examples of priesthood banning and lineage cursing found in scriptures, Elder Peterson was simply offering some well reasoned possible justifications for why the ban existed. Like it or not, back in those days believing members of the church had to deal with the ban as an ongoing reality of life, but rather than leave everyone in the dark, without any attempt at explanation, Elder Peterson was at least trying to offer some logical, scripture based justifications for the ban that made perfect sense under the current circumstances. The focus of your displeasure shouldn’t be with elder Peterson but with the scriptures that provided him with so many examples of God’s past exclusivity that are even now being condemned by the politically correct as examples of “hate speech.” Elder Peterson is gone and the priesthood ban has been rescinded, but those pesky scriptures Elder Peterson cited as possible explanations for the priesthood ban still exist. You are highlighting the symptom rather than the source, the actual source of your discomfiture being those verses of scripture that testify God once focused a great deal on race. This is why we shouldn't rely on scriptures being from God. Men wrote them, and because of them women, blacks, homosexuals have taken the brunt because of their words. Or the men/women who read them wrong. And if they are prophets and apostles and read them wrong or without inspiration directly from God, who are we to believe? https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/violence-against-women-in-the-hebrew- https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Jan/18/are-black-people-cursed-curse-ham/ https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-“homosexual”-always-been-in-the-bible/ Edited January 24, 2023 by Tacenda
CV75 Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 7 minutes ago, MrShorty said: Problem 1) Do we really believe that revelation is naturally messy and muddy? When I read Sister Dew's talk, she didn't say much that alluded to a messy or muddy nature. Being able to "see around corners" as she put it, suggests a clarity to revelation that contrasts with the history of the priesthood and temple ban. What do we believe about the process of revelation? Problem 2) If it is possible for prophets, apostles, and the rest of us to confuse "revelation from God" and "philosophies of men," what "philosophies of men" are we calling "revelation from God" in 2023? What "revelations from God" are we calling "the philosophies of men?" One thing I notice about the history of the priesthood and temple ban is that most of them did not even recognize that we were confused about revelation. Are we trying harder to recognize our own blind spots, or are we just as prone to accept our own biases and philosophies as if they are straight from God? Re: Problem 1, evidently in some cases revelation is messy and muddy and in some cases it isn't. Re: Problem 2, cases where it is muddy and messy demonstrate the gap between mortal learning ability and God's teaching potential. It seems to me that we close this gap as individuals and as Church councils over time through practice with the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost. Everyone benefits as we progress in faith and obedience. 1
Amulek Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 14 hours ago, pogi said: If [President Oaks] did hold those personal views still (which I don't think he does), it might not affect the law in any practical way, but his biased view that gay people should be perceived and treated as criminals could negatively impact the direction he takes the church for generations. I don't think he would, but he could undo lots of progress the church has made over the last decade. If you read through the entire speech that his supposedly biased view is founded upon it becomes quite clear he was not, in fact, making an affirmative case that gay people ought to be "perceived and treated as criminals." He was merely saying that he was personally okay with leaving those aspects of the law in place - not just for gays, but for adulterers and fornicators as well - "because of the standard-setting and teaching function of these laws on sexual morality and their support of society's exceptional interest in the integrity of the family." He also cautioned about the concern for privacy such laws would threaten and how they ought to be carefully supervised and rarely (if ever) used. Now, I don't know how other people view things, but for me, when I hear someone writing like that 30 years before Lawrence in that kind of measured tone and merely saying that he can live with laws remaining on the books so long as they are rarely enforced - that doesn't exactly scream gay-hating to me. YMMV. 14 hours ago, pogi said: The fact that you don't take the concerns of a fellow saint who serves in his stake high council seriously, is troubling to me. I'm skeptical that he is really a fellow Saint and that these are legitimate concerns. I find it pretty sus that someone can spend nearly 60 years in the church as an active, believing member and then suddenly find themselves incapable of sustaining the prophet and the first presidency because of one sentence in one talk given 50 years ago by someone who wasn't even in a leadership position at the time. Someone who has really been in the church all that time has been around long enough to have lived through the revelation removing the priesthood ban and participate in the church throughout the entire modern gay rights movement. And I'm supposed to believe that he's just now learning that, decades and decades ago, people in the church may have said some things that seem pretty uncouth by today's standards? Well, where on earth have you been living all this time? Under a rock? Look, it is entirely possible that our friend "The Great Pretender" (definitely not a troll-ish moniker there), is really a member who is struggling with his faith right now, and if that is genuinely the case then here is my honest, best advice: get off the internet and go talk to your bishop and/or stake president. 1
Nevo Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 7 hours ago, MrShorty said: From my vantage point in the 21st century, it seems ironic to me that Elder Petersen (and many others of his and earlier generations) could be so confused about what is "truth revealed from God" and what are "the philosophies of men." It seems to me that he got them exactly backwards. I am willing to grant Elder Petersen grace as an individual. In a church claiming to be built on the "rock of revelation" through a "foundation of prophets and apostles," I see a revelatory and discernment process that, for generations, falsely claimed that certain "philosophies of men" were really "God's revealed truth." That's a significant error! That's not "prophets seeing around corners" (as Sister Dew tried to explain it recently) or "prophets always teach[ing] truth" (Pres Nelson in Sep of 2018). I don't think we can just shrug it off or dismiss it lightly. I think the history of the priesthood and temple ban calls us to seriously consider how the church receives revelation and how that process is messy and muddy ("seeing through a glass darkly" as St. Paul so aptly put it). That messiness has implications for us today, and I think we should consider the process and those implications. I completely agree. But I do think it's important to extend grace (as you do to) to these former leaders. I think, for the most part, they were doing the best they could with the light they had. As Winston Churchill put it in his tribute to Neville Chamberlain, "In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. . . . The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions." I think Delbert Stapley's letter to George Romney is quite revealing for what it says about the thought processes of some of the Q12 in the mid-20th century. It's an interesting time capsule. While I think Elder Stapley's views were misguided, they clearly weren't motivated by hatred. He believed his understanding was in harmony with Joseph Smith's teachings and God's will—and a hundred years of church teaching seemed to back that up. Now, however, "there is another scale of values." Could we summon the shade of Elder Stapley or Elder Petersen, like Samuel, I think they would likely express themselves differently now. But I agree that there are important lessons to learn here. Edited January 24, 2023 by Nevo 3
Tacenda Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Nevo said: I completely agree. But I do think it's important to extend grace (as you do to) to these former leaders. I think, for the most part, they were doing the best they could with the light they had. As Winston Churchill put it in his tribute to Neville Chamberlain, "In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. . . . The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions." I think Delbert Stapley's letter to George Romney is quite revealing for what it says about the thought processes of some of the Q12 in the mid-20th century. It's an interesting time capsule. While I think Elder Stapley's views were misguided, they clearly weren't motivated by hatred. He believed his understanding was in harmony with Joseph Smith's teachings and God's will—and a hundred years of church teaching seemed to back that up. Now, however, "there is another scale of values." Could we summon the shade of Elder Stapley or Elder Petersen now, like Samuel's, I think they would likely express themselves differently now. But I agree that there are important lessons to learn here. Sounds like the leaders of the only true church on the face of the earth are no better than all the rest with deciphering what is true and not true, or a special connection with God to get the truth. Edited January 24, 2023 by Tacenda
Popular Post MustardSeed Posted January 24, 2023 Popular Post Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, The Great Pretender said: I don't know how to de-program Stay with me on this one. I understand exactly what you’re talking about. When we are children, we have a lot of interesting views on how the world is. In primary, we are taught very basic principles because that is really only all our small pea brains can handle. As we grow and mature, it is very important for our well-being to come to accept what is popularly spoken of as nuance. In other words, recognizing that earth life is messy. Church attracts people who feel comforted in primary level, black And white thinking. Much of our language employs black and white speech. Our cultural language certainly employs black and white speech. If you can sift through all of that black-and-white speech, and accept the mess, which can be a very unsettling experience, you can find your faith again. It will look a little bit different. Not quite as innocent. But it’s not supposed to be. It’s faith, it’s messy, and it’s beautiful. Believing as a child that everything that came out of your general authorities mouth was whispered into the ear by God and delivered out to the mouth of his chosen ones was incorrect. It’s understandable that you believed it that way. It’s even understandable that to some degree Today you are expected to listen to your leaders with the same “attitude” . Find a new way. It was easier when we were children wasn’t it? As adults we have to operate from a much more “nuanced” place which makes us work a little bit harder for our faith. I know that God lives and I know that he has a plan firmly in place. He is guiding the ship. I know that his leaders that are chosen are good men. I listen to what they say and I listen with a spirit of ascribing good intent. I implement what I can and certainly Any changes in my life that are invited are first prayed about. Once I have confirmation from God about any changes that I need to make. Then I make those changes because God wants me to make them not because President Oaks wants me to make them. Of course there are changes that I have not yet made because I am flawed but that’s a separate topic😊 I find people who are in your position are fascinating. They’re on the edge of a brand new understanding. They will often go one way or another- I am rooting for the change for you that opens your mind to a scarier place, moving from black-and-white into the true mess of reality that requires so much more faith in God and an incredible relationship with Him. Blessings! Edited January 24, 2023 by MustardSeed 8
Senator Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 4 hours ago, teddyaware said: The focus of your displeasure shouldn’t be with elder Peterson but with the scriptures that provided him with so many examples of God’s past exclusivity that are even now being condemned by the politically correct as examples of “hate speech.” Elder Peterson is gone and the priesthood ban has been rescinded, but those pesky scriptures Elder Peterson cited as possible explanations for the priesthood ban still exist. You are highlighting the symptom rather than the source, the actual source of your discomfiture being those verses of scripture that testify God once focused a great deal on race. Which is a point that is not lost on many of the rising generation. In my small circle of people that I know that are expressing cynicism and distancing themselves from the church (and religion in general); this is at the heart of their angst. 1
smac97 Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 20 hours ago, The Great Pretender said: Elder Oaks gave a speech while serving as President of BYU. It has been removed from the archive, but you can still find it. Ask yourself why it has been removed? Its title was "The Popular Myth of the Victimless Crime." Go check it out. In it, Elder Oaks said, “I believe in retaining criminal penalties on sex crimes such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, homosexuality.” A few thoughts. First, I find it interesting that this quote is pretty hard to find. A Google search for the title of the talk yields one hit, whereas a search for the above phrase yields twelve results. It's a pretty obscure thing. Second, here is a link to the entirety of Oaks' talk. When I encounter a controversial soundbite from a General Authority, I almost always try to track down its source and evaluate its context. Decontextualization is a pretty common tactic used here, often for the apparent purposes of obscuring the meaning and intent of the GA, of sensationalizing and creating shock value, injecting healthy doses of presentism into the discussion, trying to make the GA look as terrible as possible, or some combination of these. All these boxes are, I think, checked here re: Oaks' talk. And note that I am omitting his honorific title. Not because I do not honor him (I certainly do), but because he was not in the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve when he gave these remarks in 1974. Nor was he speaking in a particularly religious capacity. He was, instead, speaking predominantly in his capacity as a legal scholar about a legal topic. Third, the topic of his presentation was not "homosexuality" or same-sex behavior generally. Rather, it was about decriminalization of "many forms of behavior that traditionally have been treated as crimes." The topics at the time involved proposals to "decriminalize all forms of sexual behavior involving consenting adults, including adultery, fornication, prostitution, homosexuality, and other forms of deviate sexual behavior." He goes on to note even "more extreme proposals {which} would decriminalize commercialized sex, such as procuring for prostitution ... possession of marijuana, LSD, and comparable drugs ... possession of heroin ... the sale of hard drugs ... pornography, abortion, gambling, public drunkenness, and vagrancy." Oaks' commented that these various proposals "are likely to be {} far-reaching," and "could appreciably change the business of the courts and the functions of the police," and "could also bring about changes in our standards of morality." Oaks then goes on to outline the arguments for and against such decriminalization, discuss "the relationship between law and morality," and offer "recommendations on several of the specific proposals for decriminalization." Decriminalization. Of a host of various behaviors that were, at the time, criminalized. Fourth, Oaks was, in hindsight, quite prescient in his predictions about the results of decriminalization, which has happened on a broad scale in the 50 years since he gave this talk. Such decriminalization, by both de jure and de facto means, is now very common, and we are seeing the results, and those results are pretty bad. Fifth, I am interested in not only what is being emphasized in Elder Oaks' talk, but in what is not emphasized. See, e.g., here: And here: Quote 1974 – BYU president Oaks delivered a speech on campus in which he spoke in favor of keeping criminal punishment for "deviate sexual behavior" such as private, consensual, same-sex sexual activity. The speech was later printed by the university's press.[125][126][127] ... 125. Oaks, Dallin (27 March 1974). The Popular Myth of the Victimless Crime (Speech). Commissioner’s Lecture. BYU. 126. ^ Oaks, Dallin (1974). "The Popular Myth of the Victimless Crime". The LDS Church Educational System Commissioner's Lecture Series. BYU Press: 8. I believe in retaining criminal penalties on sex crimes such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, homosexuality, and other forms of deviate sexual behavior. I concede the abuses and risks of invasion of privacy that are involved in the enforcement of such crimes and therefore concede the need for extraordinary supervision of the enforcement process. I am even willing to accept a strategy of extremely restrained enforcement of private, noncommercial sexual offenses. I favor retaining these criminal penalties primarily because of the standard-setting and teaching function of these laws on sexual morality and their support of society's exceptional interest in the integrity of the family. 127. ^ Snell, Buffy (13 December 2011). "AF Law May Backfire". Daily Herald. And here: Quote Elder Oaks has also said this on homosexuality: “First, I believe in retaining criminal penalties on sex crimes such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, homosexuality, and other forms of deviate sexual behavior. I concede the abuses and risks of invasion of privacy that are involved in the enforcement of such crimes and therefore concede the need for extraordinary supervision of the enforcement process. I am even willing to accept a strategy of extremely restrained enforcement of private, noncommercial sexual offenses. I favor retaining these criminal penalties primarily because of the standard-setting and teaching function of these laws on sexual morality and their support of society’s exceptional interest in the integrity of the family.” The emphasis here is on "homosexuality," which is one of several sexual behaviors which were, at the time, more particularly regulated by the State than they are now, 50 years later. The list of sexual behaviors notably involves several heterosexual ones, yet nobody accuses Elder Oaks of hating heterosexuals. 20 hours ago, The Great Pretender said: Each one of those principles can be found in my wider family, and I feel deeply troubled by the idea that our next spokesman for God said something to a legal audience in a public setting that has since been made to disappear (except we can still find it). Am I concerned he still holds those views in private? 100% I am. Candidly, I think people with a faultfinding mindset (as yours appears to be) rather enjoy deploying these darned-if-you-do-darned-if-you-don't denunciations of the Church and its leaders. If the Church removes outdated or problematic content or commentary, folks like you find fault with that by characterizing it in the worst possible way. As sinister, nefarious, dishonest, etc. If the Church does not remove outdated or problematic content or commentary, folks like you find fault with that, too. Heads the Church is bad, tails the Church is bad. And then come the inevitable calls for some sort of public apology, which would either be weaponized, or disparaged, or ignored, or declared to be insufficient (with the obligatory concomitant demand for "more," whatever that means), or some combination thereof. Back in 2018 Dan Reynolds, of Imagine Dragons fame, said the quiet part out loud: Quote Reynolds, 30, said in an interview this week that "platitudes" from church officials about love for LGBT Mormons and telling them "there's a place for them" isn't enough. He has talked with church leaders about the issue and hopes to continue doing so but said the church's "platitudes are empty words" until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex. "{T}he church's 'platitudes are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." I commented at the time: Quote And there it is, folks. There it is. Doctrine by fiat of a self-selected famous rockstar. Not revelation. Candidly, I suspect this is where you are going, Great Pretender. I think this is your endgame. Your objective. You want the Church to change its doctrines to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex. If I am wrong, please correct me and I will retract the foregoing and apologize. But if I am correct, then let's get past this pearl-clutching folderol and discuss what is really at issue, what you really want. I'll go first: I think the Church will retain its doctrines regarding the Law of Chastity. Those doctrines regulate sexual behaviors, and no class of persons categorized by sexual orientation is either exempted from them or singled out by them. Everyone is prohibited from engaging in homosexual behavior. Everyone is prohibited from engaging in fornication. Everyone is prohibited from engaging in adultery. Everyone is prohibited from viewing pornography. I think some folks, perhaps including yourself, want a special dispensation as regarding homosexual behavior. That these folks will continue to disparage and demean the Church "until and unless," as Dan Reynolds is paraphrased above, the Church "changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." Am I correct? Or is that perhaps not all? Is the endgame not just utter capitulation on the prohibition against same-sex behavior, but a total dismantling of the Law of Chastity? After all, there is nothing really special about homosexual sex. If the Church "changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex," why should it not also change its doctrine to "accommodate" fornication, adultery, etc.? 20 hours ago, The Great Pretender said: The more I think about it, the more unsettled I become. That's understandable. Your thinking is, I fear, mired in faultfinding, presentism, and popular trends regarding sexual licentiousness. If so, I hope you can overcome these obstacles and find a way forward. 20 hours ago, The Great Pretender said: He didn't say it over the fence to a buddy. He said those things in public. So, yes, I suspect his views remain unchanged in private. And I'm sure you have not altered any of your views from fifty years ago, right? Right? Surely you would not hold Pres. Oaks to a standard you yourself do not observe. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 24, 2023 by smac97
Nevo Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Sounds like the leaders of the only true church on the face of the earth are no better than all the rest with deciphering what is true and not true, or a special connection with God to get the truth. My own experience with local Church leaders leads me to believe that there is a "mantle"—a "special connection" if you will. Perhaps not all leaders have this, but many do. And I am certain that many of them live more consecrated lives than I do. So I disagree. Leaders can be deceived and mistaken about things, but that doesn't mean that they receive no more inspiration or revelation than I do. Edited January 24, 2023 by Nevo 4
CV75 Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: Stay with me on this one. I understand exactly what you’re talking about. When we are children, we have a lot of interesting views on how the world is. In primary, we are taught very basic principles because that is really only all our small pea brains can handle. As we grow and mature, it is very important for our well-being to come to accept what is popularly spoken of as nuance. In other words, recognizing that earth life is messy. Church attracts people who feel comforted in primary level, black And white thinking. Much of our language employs black and white speech. Our cultural language certainly employs black and white speech. If you can sift through all of that black-and-white speech, and accept the mess, which can be a very unsettling experience, you can find your faith again. It will look a little bit different. Not quite as innocent. But it’s not supposed to be. It’s faith, it’s messy, and it’s beautiful. Believing as a child that everything that came out of your general authorities mouth was whispered into the ear by God and delivered out to the mouth of his chosen ones was incorrect. It’s understandable that you believed it that way. It’s even understandable that to some degree Today you are expected to listen to your leaders with the same “attitude” . Find a new way. It was easier when we were children wasn’t it? As adults we have to operate from a much more “nuanced” place which makes us work a little bit harder for our faith. I know that God lives and I know that he has a plan firmly in place. He is guiding the ship. I know that his leaders that are chosen are good men. I listen to what they say and I listen with a spirit of ascribing good intent. I implement what I can and certainly Any changes in my life that are invited are first prayed about. Once I have confirmation from God about any changes that I need to make. Then I make those changes because God wants me to make them not because President Oaks wants me to make them. Of course there are changes that I have not yet made because I am flawed but that’s a separate topic😊 I find people who are in your position are fascinating. They’re on the edge of a brand new understanding. They will often go one way or another- I am rooting for the change for you that opens your mind to a scarier place, moving from black-and-white into the true mess of reality that requires so much more faith in God and an incredible relationship with Him. Blessings! Question: if the Church attracts people who feel comforted in primary level, black and white thinking, why would someone like me be attracted to it? I think the Church attracts all types, whether we perceive and understand our speech and culture as black and white or not. That is one aspect of our individual makeup and how we deal with the world. People can be upset with or happy with the Church from either paradigm. I find it best to accept responsibility for our belief or unbelief in the restored gospel. People don't believe or disbelieve based on our level of psychological development.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 11 hours ago, The Great Pretender said: ... If there is any justice, the day of judgement will be uncomfortable for the purveyors of historical hatred and its resulting legacy. If/when Elder Oaks becomes the next President, I may just have to sit things out. As a covenant-keeping, endowed, sealed, conscientiously serving member, I never imagined I would consider that. As has been pointed out, people said the same thing about Ezra Taft Benson and his "radical, far-right"* views before he became President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At the risk of oversimplifying, when he was ordained and sustained to that position, President Benson stopped preaching the "gospel of far-right political ideology" and focused on the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm unsure why you think something similar couldn't (and wouldn't) happen to President Oaks, but, to each his own. And while my previous contributions to the thread have been ignored (as is my interlocutors'/non-interlocutors' right), still, I thing the whole "motes-and-beams" and "judging-not-lest-one-be-judged" angles were salient contributions to the discussion. (Perhaps I am mistaken in so thinking.) I am not, of course, in your position, but if I were, I might give those angles serious thought. (But ... "Fools Rush In," and all that ... And to each, his or her own.) *All phrases in quotes mine. Edited January 24, 2023 by Kenngo1969 1
MustardSeed Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 7 minutes ago, CV75 said: Question: if the Church attracts people who feel comforted in primary level, black and white thinking, why would someone like me be attracted to it? I think the Church attracts all types, whether we perceive and understand our speech and culture as black and white or not. That is one aspect of our individual makeup and how we deal with the world. People can be upset with or happy with the Church from either paradigm. I find it best to accept responsibility for our belief or unbelief in the restored gospel. People don't believe or disbelieve based on our level of psychological development. Well of course the church attracts all types of people! And I disagree with you. I do think that Spiritual development which certainly does a Dance with psychological development can have a lot to do with somebody’s testimony. IMO. The words I shared with pretender are words that I’ve spoken deeply to me and have made a difference in strengthening my testimony. If it doesn’t fit for you, that’s fine too. 2
pogi Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 17 hours ago, OGHoosier said: This gives rise to an interesting metaquestion. This whole conversation seems to take it as a granted that the proper thing to do is apologize on behalf of the actions of Church leaders from years past for statements we find offensive. However, the practical expectation of a corporate apology for wrongs in the distant past is itself a recent historical phenomenon, and seems associated with high degrees of belief in institutional personhood and the "arc of history" which I believe to be quite contingent. Put plain, the church has no enduring moral responsibility to do any such thing absent the assumption of temporal supremacy which is ever so common. For my part, I find the very strategy of "corporate apology" to be disingenuous, simply because I have failed to observe it produce practical effects. It doesn't seem to heal wounds or slake tensions. In fact, a recent study from Columbia University suggests that apologies from public figures only harden attitudes against them. Given that any such apology from the Church would invariably be analogous to that of a public figure, it seems utterly useless. For those who might be inclined to say that "even if it hardens attitudes, the Church has a moral duty to do it", I would ask: why? What duty? If an apology would harden attitudes against the Church, would anyone actually be helped by such a course, particularly if the Church genuinely believes it has necessary goods to offer the world? It seems to me that the conventional wisdom about apologies does not extend to public matters. An apology can be helpful in private. In public, apparently not. Which may or may not be why God, speaking to Job from the whirlwind, does not apologize - and I do not fault Him for it. I think this thread is more about acknowledging mistakes of the past and disavowing behaviors and actions that are offensive today, more than it is about apologizing. I have already posted one such disavowal the church made in relation to historical racist beliefs, actions, and comments from past church leaders. I don't know about you, but it seemed like there was a collective sigh of relief upon its publication. In terms of institutional apologies producing "practical effects", I suggest you read and consider the following: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=hist_facpub It lists many, many examples of government, church, and other institutional apologies and the positive practical effects that they have rendered in healing relations between Japan and South Korea, to the Episcopal Church's apology to historical maltreatment of gays and how well it was accepted among the LGBTQ population and fostered a new healthy climate of conversation, along with many other examples. It also addresses arguments against institutional and apologies over history, and also addresses why some apologies are less effective or even detrimental. I haven't read your study yet on public figure apologies, but I wouldn't be surprised if they often apologize in a ways mentioned in the article that can be detrimental. Another study showed that doctors who apologize to their patients for malpractice are less likely to get sued. In other words, they can and do work for good of both parties. Quote One way in which physicians can respond to a medical error is to apologize. Apologies—statements that acknowledge an error and its consequences, take responsibility, and communicate regret for having caused harm—can decrease blame, decrease anger, increase trust, and improve relationships. Importantly, apologies also have the potential to decrease the risk of a medical malpractice lawsuit and can help settle claims by patients. Patients indicate they want and expect explanations and apologies after medical errors and physicians indicate they want to apologize. However, in practice, physicians tend to provide minimal information to patients after medical errors and infrequently offer complete apologies. Although fears about potential litigation are the most commonly cited barrier to apologizing after medical error, the link between litigation risk and the practice of disclosure and apology is tenuous. Other barriers might include the culture of medicine and the inherent psychological difficulties in facing one’s mistakes and apologizing for them. Despite these barriers, incorporating apology into conversations between physicians and patients can address the needs of both parties and can play a role in the effective resolution of disputes related to medical error. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628492/ Edited January 24, 2023 by pogi 1
manol Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, MustardSeed said: As we grow and mature, it is very important for our well-being to come to accept what is popularly spoken of as nuance. In other words, recognizing that earth life is messy... If you can sift through all of that black-and-white speech, and accept the mess, which can be a very unsettling experience, you can find your faith again. It will look a little bit different. Not quite as innocent. But it’s not supposed to be. It’s faith, it’s messy, and it’s beautiful. Agreed! Imo being placed in a position where we have to grapple with inconsistencies in the scriptures and inconsistencies in instruction from Church leaders over time is a feature and not a bug. How else are we going to develop those particular spiritual muscles? 18 hours ago, Calm said: (my personal belief is he allows our leaders to make mistakes, especially big ones so it is driven through our thick skulls our source of ultimate truth and knowledge needs to be him, through the Spirit, sought after with the best of our efforts). Agreed! We are put in a position where we cannot reliably discern what is true by our best intellectual analysis, therefore we are placed in a position where we are much more likely to turn directly to God, no intermediaries. Imo "asking of God" isn't just for the Joseph Smiths. (One possibly useful shift is to re-structure our paradigm such that our foundation is correct principles, with the caveat that our knowledge and understand of correct principles is probably going to progress over time. Imo correct principles do not pass away, and are not dependent on the scriptures and/or church leaders being either infallible or consistent.) 18 hours ago, Calm said: (And it is not on me to judge the right or wrongness of anyone’s choices who has to deal with such questions.) Agreed! Perhaps one of the features is the opportunity to exercise our "judge not" muscles across a wide spectrum. Edited January 24, 2023 by manol
MrShorty Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Re: Problem 1, evidently in some cases revelation is messy and muddy and in some cases it isn't. Re: Problem 2, cases where it is muddy and messy demonstrate the gap between mortal learning ability and God's teaching potential. To take Pres. Hinckley out of context, "I don't know that we teach that." IMO, if we believe that revelation is sometimes messy and muddy, then we ought to teach that, rather than the oversimplified messages that we get from Sis. Dew or Pres. Nelson. 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Everyone benefits as we progress in faith and obedience. I would agree with this, though this is where I might suggest a sidetrip down the "is the church more conservative than progressive" thread I started in couple of months ago. As I noted then, one of the things I get from the history of the priesthood and temple ban is that the church sometimes gets stuck in the "status quo" and does not recognize its need to change, which interferes with our ability to progress in faith and obedience. I find myself sometimes needing to recognize that the church is often more conservative than progressive. While it would likely fuel some of the conservative vs. progressive issues, if we believe that the church is progressing and learning and growing beyond some of its old, outdated beliefs, then we need to talk about that and maybe wrestle with progressive vs. conservative conflicts that such a belief will naturally foster.
MrShorty Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 16 minutes ago, manol said: Imo being placed in a position where we have to grapple with inconsistencies in the scriptures and inconsistencies in instruction from Church leaders over time is a feature and not a bug. How else are we going to develop those particular spiritual muscles? I posted an essay by Nathaniel Givens a while ago that expressed the same sentiment. My main question would be -- do we as a church really believe this? 1
smac97 Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 21 hours ago, Craig Speechly said: But then when you realize that even by the standards of his day, he was still a racist then what? He welded much influence in keeping the priesthood ban in place. In fact Kimball waited to hold the vote to lift the ban until Peterson was out of the country. I think that speaks volumes. CFR, please. Evidence as to Pres. Kimball having "waited to hold the vote" as you describe. See also this excerpt from Edward Kimball's 2008 article: Quote Two of the Twelve had not attended either meeting. Elder Mark E. Petersen was on assignment in South America, and Elder Delbert L. Stapley was seriously ill in the LDS Hospital. Later in the day of June 8, Spencer telephoned Elder Petersen in Quito, Ecuador, informed him what had happened, had Francis Gibbons read him the announcement about to be published, and received his approval. Elder Petersen later recalled, “I was delighted to know that a new revelation had come from the Lord. I felt the fact of the revelation’s coming was more striking than the decision itself. On the telephone I told President Kimball that I fully sustained both the revelation and him one hundred percent.”185 All three of the First Presidency visited Elder Stapley. He responded, “I’ll stay with the Brethren on this.” Thus, support from the Twelve was unanimous.186 ... 185. Peggy Barton, Mark E. Petersen: A Biography (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985), 176. Elder Petersen continued to disapprove of interracial marriage and expressed low expectations for the first mission in black Africa. Espenschied, interview. The June 17 issue of the Church News that ran the revelation announcement also ran, reportedly at the instance of Elder Petersen, the article “Interracial Marriage Discouraged,” which quotes three Spencer W. Kimball statements originally directed to Indian-white marriages: Although unwise, “there is no condemnation” (January 1965); stability in interracial marriage is more difficult (January 1965); and “we recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational backgrounds, and above all, the same religious background, without question” (September 1976). Church News, June 17, 1978, 4; Quinn, Extensions of Power, 870. Quinn, at 840, quotes a 1954 Petersen statement that intermarriage between any races is contrary to the Lord’s plans. As late as 1983 Elder Petersen was also highly critical of Lester Bush’s research into the origins of the priesthood policy and asked Bush’s stake president to call him in. Bush, “History of My Research,” 199; Kimball Papers, May 15, 1983. But note also that Elder Petersen is apparently the one who suggested that President Kimball consider the Bush article. 186. Spencer W. Kimball, interview. Elder Stapley died six weeks later. How do you view the bolded comment above? Does that "speak volumes" as well? Racism is, in my view, a learned thing. If it can be learned, it can be unlearned. That unlearning process can sometimes take a while, or it may never be fully completed. Racism is also, in my view, often an inherited thing. It can be baked into a cultural worldview. Such an endemic issue is not overcome all in an instant. Based on footnote 185 above, it sounds like Elder Petersen may still have harbored some racialized sentiments. If so, he's dead now. Let's not convene an online equivalent of a Cadaver Synod about it. Let's learn and move on. Thanks, -Smac 2
CV75 Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 2 hours ago, MustardSeed said: Well of course the church attracts all types of people! And I disagree with you. I do think that Spiritual development which certainly does a Dance with psychological development can have a lot to do with somebody’s testimony. IMO. The words I shared with pretender are words that I’ve spoken deeply to me and have made a difference in strengthening my testimony. If it doesn’t fit for you, that’s fine too. Certainly they intersect, but psychological development is not spiritual development. When adult Church members talk about the negative effect of childlike thinking on processing messages, they are not talking about spiritual development as was Jesus when inviting us to become as little children in applying His teachings. I see a lot of people equating psychological maturity with justifications for disbelief and adopting that narrative for themselves; I suspect it is another short-lived fad.
CV75 Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 1 hour ago, MrShorty said: To take Pres. Hinckley out of context, "I don't know that we teach that." IMO, if we believe that revelation is sometimes messy and muddy, then we ought to teach that, rather than the oversimplified messages that we get from Sis. Dew or Pres. Nelson. I would agree with this, though this is where I might suggest a sidetrip down the "is the church more conservative than progressive" thread I started in couple of months ago. As I noted then, one of the things I get from the history of the priesthood and temple ban is that the church sometimes gets stuck in the "status quo" and does not recognize its need to change, which interferes with our ability to progress in faith and obedience. I find myself sometimes needing to recognize that the church is often more conservative than progressive. While it would likely fuel some of the conservative vs. progressive issues, if we believe that the church is progressing and learning and growing beyond some of its old, outdated beliefs, then we need to talk about that and maybe wrestle with progressive vs. conservative conflicts that such a belief will naturally foster. We do teach revelation can be messy, muddy (and gradual), Elder Bednar's analogy of the dawning light comes to mind, and other similar talks (no link, I'm using my phone). Needs for change are discussed in the Church councils, and we know from personal experience and observation that even personal change, especially for the better, typically occurs relatively slowly. In some cases we do see revolution (which is not the same as upheaval, polarization or crisis), but that is rare.
carbon dioxide Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 On 1/23/2023 at 6:28 AM, The Great Pretender said: During the Saturday Morning Session of General Conference on October 1, 2022, President Nelson said, “Any kind of abuse ... is an abomination to the Lord.” That's a heartwarming soundbite, but what if some statements of prophets, seers, and revelators of yesteryear now qualify as abuse and/or hate speech according to dictionary definitions in 2023? Should it no longer matter because we've moved on? Pretty much anything is now considered hate speech if it hurts someones feelings or is seen as mean. I avoid current dictionaries as a result. 1
rodheadlee Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Pretty much anything is now considered hate speech if it hurts someones feelings or is seen as mean. I avoid current dictionaries as a result. I know when is Hollywood going to cancel all the films in rock and roll songs with hate speech in them?
MustardSeed Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 1 hour ago, CV75 said: Certainly they intersect, but psychological development is not spiritual development. When adult Church members talk about the negative effect of childlike thinking on processing messages, they are not talking about spiritual development as was Jesus when inviting us to become as little children in applying His teachings. I see a lot of people equating psychological maturity with justifications for disbelief and adopting that narrative for themselves; I suspect it is another short-lived fad. Agree to disagree. 1
Snodgrassian Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 For me, it comes down to the role of the Spirit in inspiring the words of the mouth pieces of the Lord. Can the impressions of the Spirit be identified/felt during these speeches? My question is: Is it possible to love your fellow man while at the same time using the words of Elder Petersen? Oaks? President Young? 2
Craig Speechly Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 2 hours ago, smac97 said: CFR, please. Evidence as to Pres. Kimball having "waited to hold the vote" as you describe. See also this excerpt from Edward Kimball's 2008 article: How do you view the bolded comment above? Does that "speak volumes" as well? Racism is, in my view, a learned thing. If it can be learned, it can be unlearned. That unlearning process can sometimes take a while, or it may never be fully completed. Racism is also, in my view, often an inherited thing. It can be baked into a cultural worldview. Such an endemic issue is not overcome all in an instant. Based on footnote 185 above, it sounds like Elder Petersen may still have harbored some racialized sentiments. If so, he's dead now. Let's not convene an online equivalent of a Cadaver Synod about it. Let's learn and move on. Thanks, -Smac Fair enough. I do not personally KNOW that Pres Kimball "Waited" until Elder Peterson was out of the country...only that Elder Peterson was OUT of the country when the vote was taken. Still it seems rather convenient to hold a vote on a subject so close to Elder Peterson's heart while he was unable to interject his opinions into the discussion for the lifting of the ban. I mean what was the rush? Blacks had already waited nearly 180 years...what's another week to allow Elder Peterson enough time to return from his assignment?
Calm Posted January 24, 2023 Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 6 hours ago, smac97 said: The list of sexual behaviors notably involves several heterosexual ones, yet nobody accuses Elder Oaks of hating heterosexuals. While I agree with much of what you are saying, there is a fundamental difference in that he condemns only some heterosexual behaviours while it reads as if he is condemning all homosexual behaviour in that particular quote (technically it would be any homosexual behaviour that was criminalized, so I assume he is essentially condemning only some forms of heterosexual intercourse while condemning all forms of homosexual intercourse),. I do not believe that means he hates homosexuals, but it does suggest a different view of homosexual attraction and I find it understandable why some go to hate though I believe in context of both talk and time it is being overblown. Quote those results are pretty bad Some of them are pretty bad, others not that bad, some quite positive. For example, medical cannabis is helping many, many people live better quality lives (it certainly made my life more bearable while it was helping me) while its recreational use, especially among the younger population is having some very nasty results imo. Edited January 24, 2023 by Calm
Recommended Posts