Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

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?

The answers to these are very individualized. I think the answer to the first question depends on what principle of truth the Spirit chooses to confirm to your soul. As to the second question, I think it depends on what you are feeling while speaking.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Elder Bednar's analogy of the dawning light comes to mind, and other similar talks (no link, I'm using my phone).

I found a short, 3 part video series called "Patterns of Light." I could not find a longer associated talk if one exists. In the context of the videos I found, I think Elder Bednar was focused mostly on how "dawning light" is an analogy for personal revelation. I could not find anything in the short video presentation I found to suggest that Elder Bednar believes that it applies to the church as a whole or its leaders.

That said, I think these kind of "growing light" models seem to do fairly well (in hindsight) of describing what happened. The biggest problem I have with these models (or maybe more with they way they play out) is that we seem to be very bad at discerning when we are drawing conclusions from looking through a misty fog. Brigham Young, when he implemented the ban did not say something like, "Boy this twilight fog is thick and hard to see, but I think I see something looks like God wants us to stop ordaining blacks to the priesthood and withhold temple ordinances from black men and women. The reasons I am hazily seeing seem related to some way that skin color is a sign of divine displeasure somehow." Brigham Young implemented and justified the ban with the certainty of a prophet who feels like he had seen it all by the clear light of a mid-day sun. Likewise, Elder Petersen makes no mention of darkness or fogginess in coming to his conclusions. While I think these growing light models seem to be good descriptions of what happens, we need to be able to acknowledge that sometimes we deceive ourselves into believing what we saw with a lot more certainty than is justified.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

we know from personal experience and observation that even personal change, especially for the better, typically occurs relatively slowly.

Again, it seems accurate. The main concern with the idea that we must wait for change to happen is that the church gets accused of being slower than broader culture. I note that the Elder Petersen's talk linked earlier was given in Aug. of '54 -- 3 months after SCOTUS decided Brown v. Board. Because Elder Petersen made a special not of interracial marriage early in the talk, '54 was also six years after California repealed its miscegenation laws, which eventually leads to Loving v. Virginia in '67, 13 years after the talk. Yes, change comes slow, but it seems to come slower to the church than it does to broader society. As long as we can acknowledge that the church will drag its feet when it comes to change, then maybe it shouldn't bother us, but I don't think we like to talk about the rock of revelation as a conservative weight that slows us down.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

 

Sometimes it's hard for me not to blame books like the Bible, Quran and other religious text books. 

[mrmarklin]

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?

Context is everything, so let's not get too excited.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

... 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. ...

You don't think that allowing Elder Petersen to voice his opinion on the matter was a major focus of the phone call?  I have a hard time understanding how that could not be the case, but to each his own ("Oh, by the way, Mark, all of your Brethren except the ailing Elder Stapley voted to lift the ban.  Just thought you should know", versus, "We wanted to get your feelings on the matter before doing anything official").

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I found a short, 3 part video series called "Patterns of Light." I could not find a longer associated talk if one exists. In the context of the videos I found, I think Elder Bednar was focused mostly on how "dawning light" is an analogy for personal revelation. I could not find anything in the short video presentation I found to suggest that Elder Bednar believes that it applies to the church as a whole or its leaders.

That said, I think these kind of "growing light" models seem to do fairly well (in hindsight) of describing what happened. The biggest problem I have with these models (or maybe more with they way they play out) is that we seem to be very bad at discerning when we are drawing conclusions from looking through a misty fog. Brigham Young, when he implemented the ban did not say something like, "Boy this twilight fog is thick and hard to see, but I think I see something looks like God wants us to stop ordaining blacks to the priesthood and withhold temple ordinances from black men and women. The reasons I am hazily seeing seem related to some way that skin color is a sign of divine displeasure somehow." Brigham Young implemented and justified the ban with the certainty of a prophet who feels like he had seen it all by the clear light of a mid-day sun. Likewise, Elder Petersen makes no mention of darkness or fogginess in coming to his conclusions. While I think these growing light models seem to be good descriptions of what happens, we need to be able to acknowledge that sometimes we deceive ourselves into believing what we saw with a lot more certainty than is justified.

Again, it seems accurate. The main concern with the idea that we must wait for change to happen is that the church gets accused of being slower than broader culture. I note that the Elder Petersen's talk linked earlier was given in Aug. of '54 -- 3 months after SCOTUS decided Brown v. Board. Because Elder Petersen made a special not of interracial marriage early in the talk, '54 was also six years after California repealed its miscegenation laws, which eventually leads to Loving v. Virginia in '67, 13 years after the talk. Yes, change comes slow, but it seems to come slower to the church than it does to broader society. As long as we can acknowledge that the church will drag its feet when it comes to change, then maybe it shouldn't bother us, but I don't think we like to talk about the rock of revelation as a conservative weight that slows us down.

I’m extrapolating the principles of personal revelation to the council setting since councils are comprised of individuals. Here’s the talk: The Spirit of Revelation (churchofjesuschrist.org)

I’m sure you’ve been in Elder Petersen’s and Brigham Young’s shoes on some topic, and I'm assuming that revelation eventually rolled around for you.

When comparing a saint’s and the Church’s progress to society’s progress, I see them as two different processes with two different aims and outcomes. Using the instance you mention, I’m seeing a more successful outcome with the Church’s approach to revelation on and application of priesthood policy in blessing Black people than what US society has accomplished in the name of race reform. Even timewise: compare (1830/1852 - 1978 - 2023) vs (1776/1789 - 1964 - 2023).

Edited January 24, 2023 by CV75

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sometimes it's hard for me not to blame books like the Bible, Quran and other religious text books. 

Certain interpretations of these texts certainly have contributed to many atrocities and injustices throughout history.  It is the interpretations that you should have concern over, not the books themselves.  Interpretations are often culturally based and community promoted.  People are often victims of these cultures and communities by chance of birth.  Placing blame is not helpful.  Renouncing past harmful beliefs and practices is helpful.  Certainly an infallible, sola scriptura, literalist approach is problematic.  Not appreciating Biblical scholarship where we learn that many of these scriptures cannot even be attributed to apostles or prophets but are written decades later by different groups, or are Deuteronomist style re-writers of history can be problematic too.  I can't speak as much to the Quran and other religious scriptures, but you see the same issue there too.  One interpretation of Jihad leads to Al-Qaeda and other forms of Islamic extremism, while another interpretation leads to groups like Muslim Voices for Peace and Reconciliation.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by pogi

[mrmarklin]

As I said, context is everything.

This is certainly an interesting opinion, but not then and not now Church doctrine.  As a person who married in 1971 a woman of a different race than myself while attending BYU, I can say that similar opinions were rampant.  And that my wife was gently advised that marrying into "another culture" was not a good idea.  Both of us at the time asked:  What culture would that be?   We considered ourselves in the Church culture, having similar life goals as LDS.

Fifty one years later we are still in the Church culture.

Most of the marriage prohibitions quoted in the Bible are not so much racial, as advice not to marry outside the Church.  AFAIK back then these were all Semitic people.

So, my conclusion is, don't take any of this too seriously.  The opinions of the prophet and the apostles are worth considering, given their overall life experience.  Many on this forum treat these opinions as doctrine.  I don't.  And for very obvious reasons.

Edited January 24, 2023 by mrmarklin

[The Great Pretender]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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:

And here:

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.

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:

"{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:

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.?

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.

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

Dear Smac. You asked me to correct you if your assertions about me are wrong. They are. However, I accept that you seem adept at dismantling an argument with the apparent skill of an attorney. Well done. I have no such ability. What I do have are some feelings I don't know how to process, so browbeating me (or others) into submission is counterproductive unless your aim is simply to make people feel inadequate.

I have never paid any attention to anti-Church material, and I still have no interest in it. People can't even be trusted to be transparent about current issues such as COVID and political agendas. What hope is there that apostates won't fabricate their arguments? None.

However, when I stumbled across Elder Petersen's Wikipedia page (probably because I was trying to find out some key setting-apart date or something, I don't remember now), I found myself intrigued by how a man such as he was (whom I probably even quoted on my mission because he died only after I finished serving) should have been the author of anything controversial at all. I don't believe everything on Wikipedia, of course, but I figured the Church wouldn't allow the defamation of one of its former prominent leaders to go unchallenged. So I took the bait, even though I have never previously gone looking for sensationalist material about any Church leader, living or dead, local or otherwise. Perhaps if I were more exposed to their frailties, I wouldn't find myself so unsettled. In the UK where I live, the Church is almost never in the media, so we are just about exclusively presented with the Church and its leaders as the Brethren wish us to see them.

By coincidence, we had a stake Q&A fireside coming up at the time I was preparing my talk. I have no interest in attending such an event because I figure I know our doctrine at least as well if not better than the esteemed leadership panel that answers members' concerns on these occasions. I would also never dream of lobbing in a grenade, such as airing my convictions that evolution is part of the Plan of Salvation. Anyway, since I'm the longest-serving member of the High Council (having been called this time in mid-2019), I decided to message the stake president (whom I have known for almost 20 years) and mention that if I were to attend such an event, I would want to address difficult issues such as the speech by Elder Petersen, but that would likely cause huge upset. He read the article and agreed that it was challenging material. It was then that my interest was piqued as to whether there might be any controversial material about our current leaders in the public domain.

And why would I do such a reckless thing? Had it not been for the pandemic when our sacrosanct Church routines were upended (no meetings, no ministering in person, no temple service), I would probably have filed my confusion in a figurative box somewhere in the recesses of my consciousness and continued as normal. Since early 2020, however, all my routines have changed. My children who are all adults have derailed from the Gospel, and I find myself wondering about all the things I have taken for granted my entire life because I have always taken everything on face value.

I have a testimony of and support the Family Proclamation, but I am beginning to suspect (hate speech alert) that the Abrahamic faiths are at least partly if not entirely responsible for gender and identity complications on account of something not unlike the "mass hysteria" associated with the Salem Witch Trials. Moses began the witch hunt, and the Apostle Paul added a form of identity profiling when he used the term "effeminate" amongst other things. Since then, faith-based societies have enthusiastically vilified individuals it suspects of being "deviates"--as so many of our eminent priesthood leaders referred to those who were trying to make sense of what society may just have made of them.

No, I do not approve of same-sex behaviour because it goes against what I believe both spiritually and biologically, but I am able to accept that it probably stems from a place of great pain that we, in what we attest to be the Lord's Church, continue to reinforce.

Edited January 25, 2023 by The Great Pretender

[mrmarklin]

Pretender,

 

Don't take any of these opinions too seriously.  Consider to whom he was giving the speech in question--a group of LDS educators.  White men, whose opinions likely coincided to Petersen's at the time.  Cut them all some slack.

 

Context.................

[manol]

7 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

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?

Well, I don't think it's possible to love your fellow man while at the same time claiming or judging him to be less than you, if that's what you mean. 

By way of extension, imo it is likewise not possible to love your fellow man while at the same time holding Elders Peterson and Oaks, and President Young, or anyone else, in judgment and/or condemnation.  Let me explain:

Imo our spirits cannot inhabit two spiritual levels at one time.  If we are in a state of condemnation, self-righteousness, outrage, or whatever negative thoughts, THAT is the level our spirit is inhabiting at that time. 

On the other hand if we are in a state of compassion, forgiveness, welcoming, the pure love of Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit, then THAT is the level our spirit is inhabiting at that time.  And where we "set up camp" becomes our spiritual default setting.  (For the record I am NOT against using discernment, but do consider myself unqualified to judge - much less condemn - anyone, despite my all-too-human inclinations to indulge in both.)

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by manol

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I found a short, 3 part video series called "Patterns of Light." I could not find a longer associated talk if one exists. In the context of the videos I found, I think Elder Bednar was focused mostly on how "dawning light" is an analogy for personal revelation. I could not find anything in the short video presentation I found to suggest that Elder Bednar believes that it applies to the church as a whole or its leaders.

That said, I think these kind of "growing light" models seem to do fairly well (in hindsight) of describing what happened. The biggest problem I have with these models (or maybe more with they way they play out) is that we seem to be very bad at discerning when we are drawing conclusions from looking through a misty fog. Brigham Young, when he implemented the ban did not say something like, "Boy this twilight fog is thick and hard to see, but I think I see something looks like God wants us to stop ordaining blacks to the priesthood and withhold temple ordinances from black men and women. The reasons I am hazily seeing seem related to some way that skin color is a sign of divine displeasure somehow." Brigham Young implemented and justified the ban with the certainty of a prophet who feels like he had seen it all by the clear light of a mid-day sun. Likewise, Elder Petersen makes no mention of darkness or fogginess in coming to his conclusions. While I think these growing light models seem to be good descriptions of what happens, we need to be able to acknowledge that sometimes we deceive ourselves into believing what we saw with a lot more certainty than is justified.

Again, it seems accurate. The main concern with the idea that we must wait for change to happen is that the church gets accused of being slower than broader culture. I note that the Elder Petersen's talk linked earlier was given in Aug. of '54 -- 3 months after SCOTUS decided Brown v. Board. Because Elder Petersen made a special not of interracial marriage early in the talk, '54 was also six years after California repealed its miscegenation laws, which eventually leads to Loving v. Virginia in '67, 13 years after the talk. Yes, change comes slow, but it seems to come slower to the church than it does to broader society. As long as we can acknowledge that the church will drag its feet when it comes to change, then maybe it shouldn't bother us, but I don't think we like to talk about the rock of revelation as a conservative weight that slows us down.

Really good points.

I personally see interpretations of doctrine (consistent and repeated teachings of church leaders over time) - aka dogma - as the weight that holds us down.  I think we don't give revelation the robust freeing and progressive power that it has because I think we are often more tied to dogma and traditions that refrains one from progressive revelations that are more easily distilled on an open mind free of dogma.  We don't benefit from revelation as much as we could.  Joseph Smith often expressed grief about this fact.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I found a short, 3 part video series called "Patterns of Light." I could not find a longer associated talk if one exists. In the context of the videos I found, I think Elder Bednar was focused mostly on how "dawning light" is an analogy for personal revelation. I could not find anything in the short video presentation I found to suggest that Elder Bednar believes that it applies to the church as a whole or its leaders.

That said, I think these kind of "growing light" models seem to do fairly well (in hindsight) of describing what happened. The biggest problem I have with these models (or maybe more with they way they play out) is that we seem to be very bad at discerning when we are drawing conclusions from looking through a misty fog. Brigham Young, when he implemented the ban did not say something like, "Boy this twilight fog is thick and hard to see, but I think I see something looks like God wants us to stop ordaining blacks to the priesthood and withhold temple ordinances from black men and women. The reasons I am hazily seeing seem related to some way that skin color is a sign of divine displeasure somehow." Brigham Young implemented and justified the ban with the certainty of a prophet who feels like he had seen it all by the clear light of a mid-day sun. Likewise, Elder Petersen makes no mention of darkness or fogginess in coming to his conclusions. While I think these growing light models seem to be good descriptions of what happens, we need to be able to acknowledge that sometimes we deceive ourselves into believing what we saw with a lot more certainty than is justified.

Again, it seems accurate. The main concern with the idea that we must wait for change to happen is that the church gets accused of being slower than broader culture. I note that the Elder Petersen's talk linked earlier was given in Aug. of '54 -- 3 months after SCOTUS decided Brown v. Board. Because Elder Petersen made a special not of interracial marriage early in the talk, '54 was also six years after California repealed its miscegenation laws, which eventually leads to Loving v. Virginia in '67, 13 years after the talk. Yes, change comes slow, but it seems to come slower to the church than it does to broader society. As long as we can acknowledge that the church will drag its feet when it comes to change, then maybe it shouldn't bother us, but I don't think we like to talk about the rock of revelation as a conservative weight that slows us down.

Elder McConkie shared something similar about the restoration but I don't know if Elder Bednar got the idea from him, i'd have to find it and share it Here is something that maybe in my haze I am remembering but I could be thinking of another talk he gave

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1978/04/the-morning-breaks-the-shadows-flee?lang=eng

Edited January 25, 2023 by Duncan

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

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?

"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. (John 2: 15-16)

Is it possible to scold someone and even do physical harm and still love them? I would suspect Jesus still loved those moneychangers.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

I have a testimony of and support the Family Proclamation, [...] faith-based societies have enthusiastically vilified individuals it suspects of being "deviates"--as so many of our eminent priesthood leaders referred to those who were trying to make sense of what society may just have made of them.

Um, I don't want to make your head explode or anything, but...you do know that the same guy who gave the talk you seem to be so bothered by is the same fellow who pretty much authored the Family Proclamation, right?

 

[The Great Pretender]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

Um, I don't want to make your head explode or anything, but...you do know that the same guy who gave the talk you seem to be so bothered by is the same fellow who pretty much authored the Family Proclamation, right?

 

Perhaps the source of my problem is that I literally spent decades devoutly believing that Church leaders, programmes, and principles were synonymous with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Call me deluded, gullible, ridiculous, or whatever, but that was the outcome of my upbringing. I never entertained doubts about our leaders; never read news reports about shortcomings; never imagined these men (and women) were anything less than entirely noble and honourable. In my formative years, I tried so hard to keep myself "unspotted from the world" that when my stake president asked me in my first mission-prep interview at the age of 18 if I masturbated, I had no idea what he meant, nor, when he awkwardly explained it to me, that it was even possible. I genuinely believed sex was something only achievable between a man and a woman as an outcome of some type of magical hormone trigger or something like that. Go ahead, mock me, but it's true. My Church upbringing turned me into some type of naïve joke figure.

I tried to be a living example of the Gospel because that's what I understood to be necessary to avoid going to hell. So I was incessantly bullied throughout my childhood and youth. And I'm only just coming to terms with the truth that my outlook on life has been totally distorted. I spent years being one of those folks who bleated in testimony meetings: "I know without a shadow of a doubt that the Church is true." Well, my belief in the Church as an untarnished organisation seems to have swiftly withered on the vine, and I suppose I feel betrayed. More fool me.

I guess a fundamental grievance I'm left with is that I now strongly suspect that the "Church" has inadvertently caused untold emotional damage to certain types of individuals in two ways: (1) in my case, the institution seems rather like the Wizard of Oz in presenting a facade that is shiny and perfect—and expecting innocent members to doggedly pursue the impossible, leading to crushingly low self-esteem—while at the same time attempting to obscure its own decidedly imperfect underbelly; and (2) for the countless individuals who are figuratively the babies thrown out with the bathwater as a result of our faith-based culture's pursuit of morality. I believe that something good has produced something bad. We profile individuals on account of how we perceive then. Children who fail to display the required attributes for their adult sexual roles are shaped by society's contempt into the personification of its fears. I strongly suspect there is a direct correlation between identity-and-gender issues and our cultural obsession with men becoming manly and women becoming Stepford Wives.

Attempting to "let it go" simply because the perpetrators are either dead or espousing a different path in no way mitigates my internalised damage. I am broken while my priesthood leaders all live happily ever after.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

Perhaps the source of my problem is that I literally spent decades devoutly believing that Church leaders, programmes, and principles were synonymous with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Call me deluded, gullible, ridiculous, or whatever, but that was the outcome of my upbringing. I never entertained doubts about our leaders; never read news reports about shortcomings; never imagined these men (and women) were anything less than entirely noble and honourable. In my formative years, I tried so hard to keep myself "unspotted from the world" that when my stake president asked me in my first mission-prep interview at the age of 18 if I masturbated, I had no idea what he meant, nor, when he awkwardly explained it to me, that it was even possible. I genuinely believed sex was something only achievable between a man and a woman as an outcome of some type of magical hormone trigger or something like that. Go ahead, mock me, but it's true. My Church upbringing turned me into some type of naïve joke figure.

I tried to be a living example of the Gospel because that's what I understood to be necessary to avoid going to hell. So I was incessantly bullied throughout my childhood and youth. And I'm only just coming to terms with the truth that my outlook on life has been totally distorted. I spent years being one of those folks who bleated in testimony meetings: "I know without a shadow of a doubt that the Church is true." Well, my belief in the Church as an untarnished organisation seems to have swiftly withered on the vine, and I suppose I feel betrayed. More fool me.

I guess a fundamental grievance I'm left with is that I now strongly suspect that the "Church" has inadvertently caused untold emotional damage to certain types of individuals in two ways: (1) in my case, the institution seems rather like the Wizard of Oz in presenting a facade that is shiny and perfect—and expecting innocent members to doggedly pursue the impossible, leading to crushingly low self-esteem—while at the same time attempting to obscure its own decidedly imperfect underbelly; and (2) for the countless individuals who are figuratively the babies thrown out with the bathwater as a result of our faith-based culture's pursuit of morality. I believe that something good has produced something bad. We profile individuals on account of how we perceive then. Children who fail to display the required attributes for their adult sexual roles are shaped by society's contempt into the personification of its fears. I strongly suspect there is a direct correlation between identity-and-gender issues and our cultural obsession with men becoming manly and women becoming Stepford Wives.

Attempting to "let it go" simply because the perpetrators are either dead or espousing a different path in no way mitigates my internalised damage. I am broken while my priesthood leaders all live happily ever after.

I think this demonstrates that an active belief in the restored gospel (the foundation of which is Jesus Christ) is a necessary counterbalance to any and all other discouraging factors and assessments we might run across. Second to that would be an intentional, conscious decision to abide in that belief under all circumstances. These are very personal decisions no matter when they are made.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

I am broken while my priesthood leaders all live happily ever after.

Based on those outcomes, are we to conclude that you, not they, somehow made the better choice?

[pogi]

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Perhaps the source of my problem is that I literally spent decades devoutly believing that Church leaders, programmes, and principles were synonymous with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Call me deluded, gullible, ridiculous, or whatever, but that was the outcome of my upbringing. I never entertained doubts about our leaders; never read news reports about shortcomings; never imagined these men (and women) were anything less than entirely noble and honourable. In my formative years, I tried so hard to keep myself "unspotted from the world" that when my stake president asked me in my first mission-prep interview at the age of 18 if I masturbated, I had no idea what he meant, nor, when he awkwardly explained it to me, that it was even possible. I genuinely believed sex was something only achievable between a man and a woman as an outcome of some type of magical hormone trigger or something like that. Go ahead, mock me, but it's true. My Church upbringing turned me into some type of naïve joke figure.

I tried to be a living example of the Gospel because that's what I understood to be necessary to avoid going to hell. So I was incessantly bullied throughout my childhood and youth. And I'm only just coming to terms with the truth that my outlook on life has been totally distorted. I spent years being one of those folks who bleated in testimony meetings: "I know without a shadow of a doubt that the Church is true." Well, my belief in the Church as an untarnished organisation seems to have swiftly withered on the vine, and I suppose I feel betrayed. More fool me.

I guess a fundamental grievance I'm left with is that I now strongly suspect that the "Church" has inadvertently caused untold emotional damage to certain types of individuals in two ways: (1) in my case, the institution seems rather like the Wizard of Oz in presenting a facade that is shiny and perfect—and expecting innocent members to doggedly pursue the impossible, leading to crushingly low self-esteem—while at the same time attempting to obscure its own decidedly imperfect underbelly; and (2) for the countless individuals who are figuratively the babies thrown out with the bathwater as a result of our faith-based culture's pursuit of morality. I believe that something good has produced something bad. We profile individuals on account of how we perceive then. Children who fail to display the required attributes for their adult sexual roles are shaped by society's contempt into the personification of its fears. I strongly suspect there is a direct correlation between identity-and-gender issues and our cultural obsession with men becoming manly and women becoming Stepford Wives.

Attempting to "let it go" simply because the perpetrators are either dead or espousing a different path in no way mitigates my internalised damage. I am broken while my priesthood leaders all live happily ever after.

I can identify in some ways.  I think it is a fairly common upbringing in our church.  

Having been around the block long enough, I suspect that two common responses will emerge to your shared personal experiences and concerns.

1) You are the problem, stop blaming the church.  The church is not accountable in any way for your faulty perceptions and “damage”.  Let it go and grow up.  The church is the victim in this and you are acting like an enemy of the church and will thus be treated; and 2) You poor damaged soul! You are a victim of the church.  The church is the enemy.  They have damaged you.  It is their fault and your “faulty” perceptions have no part in this.  Let the church go, grow up and run away as fast as you can.

As usual, I tend to take the middle ground.  I think the healthy way forward is a more tempered and nuanced mix of those two extreme tribalistic attitudes and predictable responses.  I think the church shares a lot of accountability in setting up the perfect environment for a faith crises by promoting an unrealistic and unsustainable illusion.  They are getting better though and making improvements little by little.  Your reactions and experience are normal and fairly common when these illusions that we were raised to believe are shattered.   Your family culture and other personal factors may have contributed to this illusion too.  The question is, and the part you are accountable for, is how are you going to respond?  You can can jump to either extreme, a common response that I find to be unfair to the other side, or you can do the hard work of paving a more nuanced way forward and rebuilding a new paradigm that is fair to your conscience and fair to the church.   It requires abandoning black and white thinking that you were raised in, and which is ironically pushing you towards abandoning the church all together, because if it is not white, it must’ve black, right?  Wrong!  Run from that way of thinking.  Don’t fall victim to it anymore.  It has already done enough damage. 

Just remember that the fallibility of leaders and resulting dysfunction and harm caused by the church says nothing of the fundamental truth claims. That is hard for many to grasp who were raised in black and white thinking and subsequently feel victimized or damaged by the church in some way.  It is also a very unwelcome view among both extremes.

Edited January 25, 2023 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Pretender,

 

Don't take any of these opinions too seriously.  Consider to whom he was giving the speech in question--a group of LDS educators.  White men, whose opinions likely coincided to Petersen's at the time.  Cut them all some slack.

 

Context.................

White LDS men were hardly the only people on earth who opposed such things back then.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can identify in some ways.  I think it is a fairly common upbringing in our church.  

Having been around the block long enough, I suspect that two common responses will emerge to your shared personal experiences and concerns.

1) You are the problem, stop blaming the church.  The church is not accountable in any way for your faulty perceptions and “damage”.  Let it go and grow up.  The church is the victim in this and you are acting like an enemy of the church and will thus be treated; and 2) You poor damaged soul! You are a victim of the church.  The church is the enemy.  They have damaged you.  It is their fault and your “faulty” perceptions have no part in this.  Let the church go, grow up and run away as fast as you can.

As usual, I tend to take the middle ground.  I think the healthy way forward is a more tempered and nuanced mix of those two extreme tribalistic attitudes and predictable responses.  I think the church shares a lot of accountability in setting up the perfect environment for a faith crises by promoting an unrealistic and unsustainable illusion.  They are getting better though and making improvements little by little.  Your reactions and experience are normal and fairly common when these illusions that we were raised to believe are shattered.   Your family culture and other personal factors may have contributed to this illusion too.  The question is, and the part you are accountable for, is how are you going to respond?  You can can jump to either extreme, a common response that I find to be unfair to the other side, or you can do the hard work of paving a more nuanced way forward and rebuilding a new paradigm that is fair to your conscience and fair to the church.   It requires abandoning black and white thinking that you were raised in, and which is pushing you towards abandoning the church all together, because if it is not white, it must’ve black, right?  Wrong!  Run from that way of thinking.  Don’t fall victim to it anymore.  It has already done enough damage. 

Just remember that the fallibility of leaders and resulting dysfunction and harm caused by the church says nothing of the fundamental truth claims. That is hard for many to grasp who were raised in black and white thinking and subsequently feel victimized or damaged by the church in some way.

Whichever of these three responses might apply, I think an active belief in the restored gospel (the foundation of which is Jesus Christ) is a necessary counterbalance to any and all other discouraging factors and assessments we might run across. Second to that would be an intentional, conscious decision to abide in that belief under all circumstances. These are very personal decisions, no matter the kind of thinking to which one is beholden -- the gospel is for everyone, and God is not a respecter of persons based on their thinking style. He invites and speaks to all of us. Changes in thinking, or how we justify belief in spiritual things, of necessity follow the founding belief, which is a spiritual process by which our salvation from such "existential experiences" as grief and despair is found.

[John L]

On 1/23/2023 at 9:28 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?

What's hate speech? Seriously,  please explain. Throughout history different races have been cruel to one another. The same race has been cruel to its own. Whites enslaved whites, blacks enslaved blacks, Indians were enslaving Indians from other tribes before the white man stepped foot in the Americas. Indians enslaved blacks. The prophets were a product of their time. 

 Today, 95% of all slavery is done by people of color in Africa and Asia. No one talks about that even though it's happening today, why? 200 years ago slaves picked cotton, today, slaves dig for precious metals so we can drive tesla and type on a mobile phone, how do you feel knowing a slave dug up precious metals so you can type on your phone and communicate to us on Mormon Dialogue? 

What in saying is, compared to what's happening now in the world and what's happened in the past, the brethren are of know concern with what they believe. 

[MustardSeed]

If you just blame church you will miss you own qualities that significantly contributed to your rigid thinking and ultimate dissolution. 
Also , you judge your priesthood’ leaders as happily ever after- everyone’s messy. This isn’t a race. 
 

i remind myself as much as I do you here. 

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Whichever of these three responses might apply, I think an active belief in the restored gospel (the foundation of which is Jesus Christ) is a necessary counterbalance to any and all other discouraging factors and assessments we might run across. Second to that would be an intentional, conscious decision to abide in that belief under all circumstances. These are very personal decisions, no matter the kind of thinking to which one is beholden -- the gospel is for everyone, and God is not a respecter of persons based on their thinking style. He invites and speaks to all of us. Changes in thinking, or how we justify belief in spiritual things, of necessity follow the founding belief, which is a spiritual process by which our salvation from such "existential experiences" as grief and despair is found.

I don’t disagree that faith can exist under different paradigms, but I have come to learn that commitment to certain beliefs are not always direct choices that we can make.  Beliefs don’t exist in isolation from contextual paradigms and larger belief systems.  Without fruits, commitment to belief is often untenable.  Telling someone to “just choose to believe” rarely, if ever works. They have to first nurture and create fertile soil for seeds to even sprout, let alone bear continuous fruit.   Certain paradigms can work for a time, until they don’t.  If a person doesn’t adapt their soil to the new environment (perceptions),  previous fruit will shrivel and be forgotten.

An “active belief in the gospel of JesusChrist” only acts as a counterbalance when it is “active”.  I don’t see that activity as a direct conscious choice or decision in every situation.  It is the result of working on the soil (which can involve our paradigms and perceptions).

I can assure you that active belief in the church for me would be impossible under my previous paradigm.  I had to adapt to new environments or allow my faith to wither away and be forgotten.  My work has paid off with a more enduring and fruitful faith.

Edited January 25, 2023 by pogi

[Snodgrassian]

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. (John 2: 15-16)

Is it possible to scold someone and even do physical harm and still love them? I would suspect Jesus still loved those moneychangers.

I mean, driving the moneychangers out of the temple and scolding them is much different that speaking publicly and sharing the messages referenced in the OP. We are commanded to love our brothers and sisters, not to judge them. Look at the example of the adulterer and Jesus. Instead of calling out the people around us, have empathy and compassion (when needed) and at others times, just love people for who they are. I often tell my wife "Think how boring this life would be if we all liked the same things and acted in the same way."

I love my friends that are different than me. I love when a large, diverse (in all ways) group of us meets together. We all benefit from staying out of the decisions of others (especially the bedroom), except when there are legal/human rights issues. 

I do think a true christian, and especially leaders of religious groups can honor the name that they live by and say hurtful words to the their fellow man. We as members of the Church often hear or say "the Lord will figure that out in the next life," if that is what we truly believe, then lets let Him figure it out, and show love to all those around us that deserve it.