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

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My belief is that the Lord speaks to everyone regardless of their thought pattern, and these patterns – severe pathology aside -- are not an impediment to belief in the restoration.

Yes, they absolutely can be an impedeiment.  They can influence how one interprets the spirit, causing them to question and disregard what they have always felt, for example.  They can cause one to be consumed with fear and anxiety making them past-feeling.  They can be distractions.  They can drown out the still small voice.  They can intertwine us in confusion and despair.  They can generate anger and resentment, again, causing us to be past-feeling.  They ARE the soil that causes good seeds to grow, therefore they absolutely can be impediments to seeds of spiritual experience and belief and growing.   

Yes, the Lord can speak to everyone regardless, but not everyone can hear.  And those who do hear, can't always sustain the seed to bring forth fruit.  Sometimes weeds (thought patterns/philosophies, etc.) that choke out the spirit need to be cut back to give space for the plant to grow.  That takes work on the environment of the soil.  We need to do some weeding if we want to preserve the plant.  Without the work of weeding out harmful perceptions and ideas, desire and prayer will not be enough to save our faith. 

I don't think we are going to get much further on this.  Time for me to move on. 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, they absolutely can be an impedeiment.  They can influence how one interprets the spirit, causing them to question and disregard what they have always felt, for example.  They can cause one to be consumed with fear and anxiety making them past-feeling.  They can be distractions.  They can drown out the still small voice.  They can intertwine us in confusion and despair.  They can generate anger and resentment, again, causing us to be past-feeling.  They ARE the soil that causes good seeds to grow, therefore they absolutely can be impediments to seeds of spiritual experience and belief and growing.   

Yes, the Lord can speak to everyone regardless, but not everyone can hear.  And those who do hear, can't always sustain the seed to bring forth fruit.  Sometimes weeds (thought patterns/philosophies, etc.) that choke out the spirit need to be cut back to give space for the plant to grow.  That takes work on the environment of the soil.  We need to do some weeding if we want to preserve the plant.  Without the work of weeding out harmful perceptions and ideas, desire and prayer will not be enough to save our faith. 

I don't think we are going to get much further on this.  Time for me to move on. 

Interpreting parable, I take the unprepared soil to be a hardened or distracted heart, irrespective of the causes. From what I’ve seen, people with the kinds of negative thought patterns, poor thinking skills and poorly functioning cognition alluded to in this thread can and do accommodate belief – and that seems to be the chief complaint, that such people are in the Church and make other people just like them miserable. People can improve their thinking, believing or not. People interacting with each other constructively, which isn't easy work, can only help improve their thinking and bolster their belief, and benefit them in many other ways also.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

That's the thing: if black-and-white thinkers who believe can offend black-and-white thinkers who point to the offense as the cause of their disbelief, having the same type of thinking doesn't determine belief in one and disbelief in the other, it is only the means by which each party justifies their belief or disbelief.

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Interpreting parable, I take the unprepared soil to be a hardened or distracted heart, irrespective of the causes. From what I’ve seen, people with the kinds of negative thought patterns, poor thinking skills and poorly functioning cognition alluded to in this thread can and do accommodate belief – and that seems to be the chief complaint, that such people are in the Church and make other people just like them miserable. People can improve their thinking, believing or not. People interacting with each other constructively, which isn't easy work, can only help improve their thinking and bolster their belief, and benefit them in many other ways also.

It is not about poor thinking or negative thought patterns or poor functioning cognition.  It is about paradigms of belief.  It is about perspective.  It is all relative.  One paradigm or perspective can work in certain conditions and environments and can sustain fruit for a time, in other situations or conditions the same paradigm or perspective can be impediments.  For example, fear based faith can't sustain us forever.  But it can work to motivate some temporarily.  Duty based faith, the same.  Love based faith is on a higher level.  None are absolutely bad, they can be relatively good, but they don't all work all the time for everybody.   Unless people evolve in how they perceive things, their faith could die.  

The parable is in relation to the heart (which constitutes in part the state, thoughts and perceptions of our mind).  I remember being taught in seminary that the weeds can be philosophies of men that choke our growth.  I think that is true.  Little did I realize that sometimes those philosophies of men which can stunt growth in relative contexts can come from within the church

Edited January 26, 2023 by pogi

[MustardSeed]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That's the thing: if black-and-white thinkers who believe can offend black-and-white thinkers who point to the offense as the cause of their disbelief, having the same type of thinking doesn't determine belief in one and disbelief in the other, it is only the means by which each party justifies their belief or disbelief.

Black and white thinking is problematic IMO regardless of who is doing it.  

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That's the thing: if black-and-white thinkers who believe can offend black-and-white thinkers who point to the offense as the cause of their disbelief, having the same type of thinking doesn't determine belief in one and disbelief in the other, it is only the means by which each party justifies their belief or disbelief.

No two black and white thinkers share the same background, experiences and perspective.  You have to take that into account when making your conclusions.  Black and white thinking can have profound effects on belief in different people from different experiences and perspectives. 

Black and white thinking is not what justifies belief, rather it is the lens through which one perceives and experiences the world.  It thus shapes and influences our beliefs, how we believe and even perceive truth itself.  That lens can work in relativity for some for a time, it might not work later for the same person.  Without a new lens, that belief will inevitably die for some in their relative position.  It is just like fear based faith in that regard.  It works in relativity, but is not super helpful in the long-term evolutionary aspect of faith/belief, and can/will be detrimental without work towards evolution.

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by pogi

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

We really need to redefine what “lead us astray” means.

 

I would say anything that might prevent our ability to be exalted in heaven. But if a prophet should actually do that the responsibility would be on his shoulders and God would not condemn us for it. There are  probably many points of doctrine that right or wrong do not actually determine whether or not we will be saved. Doctrines of information I would call them.
Incorrect doctrines that would condemn us would be those that make us actually do something that would be contrary to God's will and against the requirements for exaltation. We will be ultimately be judged on what we have become because of how we have lived and treated other people and served God.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

The problem is, when we see that Martin Luther King, Jr. regularly stepped out on his wife, it becomes harder to trust his efforts to secure civil rights for black people."

Doesn't really work, does it?

 

Except there is a difference in someone not living up to teachings and looking at what is taught and wondering if it is inspired.  You don’t say a man is an untrustworthy scientist because he is an untrustworthy husband, you say he is an untrustworthy scientist if he messed up experiments, drew conclusions from his data that weren’t actually supported, committed fraud in collecting data, had crap methodology.

If Martin Luther King had taught violence and abuse is how to change hearts, I would tend to assume he lacked insight into how to improve race relations.  If he taught whites were inferior to blacks, I would have doubts he had insight into how to live together well in equality, as one nation, one people.

I can understand why some are less likely to trust what they hear from the pulpit from a teacher if they conclude some of the teachings are wrong.  What makes it likely the teacher would be right with other teachings if they are very, very wrong with ones that are seen as very important?

If some apostles were wrong about how we should relate to or view others of a different race, maybe they are wrong about how we should relate to others of different sexual orientation, different religious beliefs, different whatever or how we should relate to anyone.  If apostles were teaching there was something so fundamentally different about blacks that other races should not marry them, how do we trust that they will be able to teach us how to become Zion?  That they will make decisions that will lead the Church to become one heart, one mind?

I don’t personally feel this is an issue since I believe we should question everything that comes out of the mind and mouth of a mortal and check everything we accept as part of our covenants with the Spirit first, but I can see why those who approach belief in leaders by the paradigm “if they have been proven to be a prophet in _____, it means they are prophets in all ways”, so once they have a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon, for example, they assume all other of Joseph’s teachings have to be prophetic truth as well…and if they find out this isn’t so, then they doubt their first conclusion that the Book of Mormon proved Joseph was a prophet and worse, they can doubt the process that brought them that testimony.  The same with other church leaders.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

The problem is, when we see that Martin Luther King, Jr. regularly stepped out on his wife, it becomes harder to trust his efforts to secure civil rights for black people."

Doesn't really work, does it?

Except there is a difference in someone not living up to teachings and looking at what is taught and wondering if it is inspired.  You don’t say a man is an untrustworthy scientist because he is an untrustworthy husband, you say he is an untrustworthy scientist if he messed up experiments, drew conclusions from his data that weren’t actually supported, committed fraud in collecting data, had crap methodology.

I don't know if I can go along with that.  Hypocrisy on moral issues over here (King's serialized marital infidelity) does not seem to have altered popular assessments of his contributions to moral issues over there (advancing Civil Rights for black people).

Jonah despised the Assyrian people of Nineveh, viewing them as a "hated enemy."  And yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.    Jonah abdicated his prophetic responsibilities by running away, and yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.  Jonah eventually went and did his job, then became angry when the people of Nineveh listed to him and repented, and yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.

Elder Petersen harbored some pretty ugly sentiments about black folks, much of it likely coming from the Church's teachings.  However, he also served a mission.  He worked at Deseret News (rising to become president and chairman of the board),and was "known for the tenderness and care with which he treated his employees, whom he considered important members of his stewardship."  He spent more than half of his life - 44 years - as a member of the Q12, during which "he directed the Church’s public information programs, served on the Military Relations Committee, and acted as an adviser to the Relief Society, the Indian Affairs Committee, and the Music Committee."  He also served as the president of the West European Mission for over six years.  He was an active leader in the Boy Scouts of America organization and received the Silver Antelope Award. He also served on numerous civic boards, committees, university boards, and social groups.  He was married and had two daughters.

I do not here want to minimize or rationalize or excuse moral failings, including substantial ones.  Rather, I am proposing that we not define historical figures (or, for that matter, contemporary ones) solely by their their worst attributes.  Elder Petersen seems to have been much, much more than just a receptable and purveyor of unfortunate and prejudiced views of our black brothers and sisters.  And he's been dead for decades anyway.  So some grace and understanding, and application of Mormon 9:31, seems to be in order.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

If Martin Luther King had taught violence and abuse is how to change hearts, I would tend to assume he lacked insight into how to improve race relations.  If he taught whites were inferior to blacks, I would have doubts he had insight into how to live together well in equality, as one nation, one people.

There are any number of controversies about Dr. King and his views.  And Gandhi.  And Martin Luther.  And many other historical figures who nevertheless contributed meaningfully to society.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I can understand why some are less likely to trust what they hear from the pulpit from a teacher if they conclude some of the teachings are wrong.  

So can I.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

What makes it likely the teacher would be right with other teachings if they are very, very wrong with ones that are seen as very important?

We're not taking "the teacher's" word for it.  We're not supposed to.

This line of reasoning is a backdoor to foisting notions of infallibility onto the Brethren.  It's endlessly regressive.  It's carte blanche to disregard any or all of an apostle's teachings.

And it's special pleading.  And a non sequitur.  Nobody says things like "Martin Luther King, Jr. cheated on his wife, therefore I reject the totality of his contributions to the Civil Rights Movement."

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t personally feel this is an issue since I believe we should question everything that comes out of the mind and mouth of a mortal and check everything we accept as part of our covenants with the Spirit first, but I can see why those who approach belief in leaders by the paradigm “if they have been proven to be a prophet in _____, it means they are prophets in all ways”, so once they have a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon, for example, they assume all other of Joseph’s teachings have to be prophetic truth as well…and if they find out this isn’t so, then they doubt their first conclusion that the Book of Mormon proved Joseph was a prophet and worse, they can doubt the process that brought them that testimony.  The same with other church leaders.

The "all or nothing" approach doesn't work, from either direction.  "Prophet about X, ergo a prophet about everything else" is no more feasible than "Prophet erred as to ____________, ergo he cannot be trusted as to anything at all."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hypocrisy on moral issues over here (King's serialized marital infidelity) does not seem to have altered popular assessments of his contributions to moral issues over there (advancing Civil Rights for black people).

My point is one tends to judge behaviour similarly in the same category for the most part….someone who steals but has never been violent will likely be suspected of a robbery, not so much a murder, false or mistaken experiments will lead to credibility issues in other experiments, false or mistaken court cases will lead to doubt about other court cases, false or mistaken footnotes will lead to doubt about other footnotes, false or mistaken religious teachings will lead to doubt there is insight or actual revelation in other similar teachings.  It is why some people choose to dump all the Bible when they find an even just a small portion of scripture is inaccurate.  Loss of trust in one area will lead to loss of trust in similar areas.  So a member who doubts a teaching of an apostle may more likely doubt other teachings, but not necessarily jump to assume the apostle is committing fraud to get rich or is unfaithful to his wife.

There will at times be crossover…some will think why trust that a politician will be honest to the public if they aren’t honest with their spouse or a scientist who fudges references to get a job is more likely to be seen as a candidate for fudging research, etc.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Jonah despised the Assyrian people of Nineveh, viewing them as a "hated enemy."  And yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.    Jonah abdicated his prophetic responsibilities by running away, and yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.  Jonah eventually went and did his job, then became angry when the people of Nineveh listed to him and repented, and yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.

And there were others he withdrew his spirit from.  We recognize this in the Church in our history where apostles even have been excommunicated, including for apostasy and false teachings.

The problem is knowing which are still being guided by the Lord and which have gone their own way.

Quote

So some grace and understanding, and application of Mormon 9:31, seems to be in order.

I believe this.  But I also understand why it can be so easy to begin to doubt when one finds apostles and other church leaders believed some very wrong things and even taught them consistently.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

apostles and other church leaders believed some very wrong things and even taught them consistently.

Can you please provide some examples of what you are referring to here?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

No two black and white thinkers share the same background, experiences and perspective.  You have to take that into account when making your conclusions.  Black and white thinking can have profound effects on belief in different people from different experiences and perspectives. 

Black and white thinking is not what justifies belief, rather it is the lens through which one perceives and experiences the world.  It thus shapes and influences our beliefs, how we believe and even perceive truth itself.  That lens can work in relativity for some for a time, it might not work later for the same person.  Without a new lens, that belief will inevitably die for some in their relative position.  It is just like fear based faith in that regard.  It works in relativity, but is not super helpful in the long-term evolutionary aspect of faith/belief, and can/will be detrimental without work towards evolution.

 

Yes, while one black and white thinker can beleive in the restoration, and another not, the beleif and disbeleif must be based on something other than their negative thought pattern.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Black and white thinking is problematic IMO regardless of who is doing it.  

Yes, and one black and white thinker can beleive in the restoration and another mot beleive in it. If you were a black and white thinker, would your life go better if you beleived or if you didn't beleive?

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, while one black and white thinker can beleive in the restoration, and another not, the beleif and disbeleif must be based on something other than their negative thought pattern.

This conclusion only makes sense if we are talking about two people with the EXACT same histories, experiences, perspectives and interpretations of such things.  

From one perspective b&w thinking might work for a time to support belief, from another it could be detrimental to belief.

Again, I am a perfect example of this.  My belief could not be sustained under my old b&w filter. Ideally, we want to remove our filters all together, but that ain’t happening in mortality.  No filter is ideal or perfect.  But some might relatively work better than others to produce fruit.

For many reasons I think b&w thinking is less useful and potentially dangerous, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it “negative” (your words, not mine) in all situations and for all people. It might work for some folks in some conditions, it is therefore not negative for them…yet.  It may or may not become a hinderance to belief later depending on their upbringing, experience and perspective.

From my experience and perspective, I either had to let go of my b&w paradigm or let go of my belief in the church.  Period.  They cannot mutually exist from where I stand.  That may change (I highly doubt it), but as it is, nope.  No way possible. 

[MustardSeed]

*It’s my observation* (no CFR) that believers who are black and white thinkers seem to be the ones that hit the wall hard when they stop being black and white thinkers. They tend to be the ones who are the most likely to be disillusioned and leave the church when they come to discover that life is actually not black and white and that Not everything that comes out of the mouth of the Prophets are literal words of God. 
 

Of course there are some people that live their entire lives operating from the black and white paradigm and they never are exposed to anything that challenges this. They are happy from the beginning to the end and that is fine too, as long as they remain protected from what I call reality. I envy the simplicity of this. We all know that the best program in the church is primary. It’s a beautiful place to be.

Edited January 26, 2023 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, and one black and white thinker can beleive in the restoration and another mot beleive in it. If you were a black and white thinker, would your life go better if you beleived or if you didn't beleive?

One can love broccoli and believe the gospel and another not believe in it.

 

? 

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

*It’s my observation* (no CFR) that believers who are black and white thinkers seem to be the ones that hit the wall hard when they stop being black and white thinkers. They tend to be the ones who are the most likely to be disillusioned and leave the church when they come to discover that life is actually not black and white and that Not everything that comes out of the mouth of the Prophets are literal words of God. 

I have observed another phenomenon among b&w thinkers.  I also see them as being the ones who are most likely to become disillusioned and leave the church, but not because of their evolution away from b&w thinking but actually because of their b&w thinking.  There is no room for nuance.  It is either all true or all false.  It is either all directed by God or one of the greatest frauds of all time.  When they are taught that the prophets can't lead us astray, they take a very b&w interpretation of that. This is what they have been taught.  This is what they believe.  They are primed for disillusionment under this paradigm of belief.   Because they are b&w thinkers, disillusionment causes them to view the church as black instead of white.   They are still b&w thinkers, but they see the church as a fraud now.  All black.  These are the ones who become the greatest and harshest enemies of the church because they see it is all black.  B&W thinkers are usually the harshest apologists and the harshest critics, from my observation.  That is the effect it seems to have when everything is black and white.  There is no room for seeing things from another point of view.  While people who evolve out of b&w thinking may still leave the church (although I think they have a better chance of staying and working through reinterpreting the way they have always perceived things in the past in a way that is not so b&w and can work with belief/faith), they are much less likely to become harsh critics of it, because they don't see it as all black.    

When we start people on a b&w footing, and arming them with b&w teachings of prophets that they can't lead us astray, that we just need to trust them above our own conscience, etc., that the church is either true of fraud, that is a recipe for disastrous disillusionment.  

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Of course there are some people that live their entire lives operating from the black and white paradigm and they never are exposed to anything that challenges this. They are happy from the beginning to the end and that is fine too, as long as they remain protected from what I call reality. I envy the simplicity of this. We all know that the best program in the church is primary. It’s a beautiful place to be.

There is something envious about the simplicity right?  The internet age kind of ruined that for us. 

[Snodgrassian]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hypocrisy on moral issues over here (King's serialized marital infidelity) does not seem to have altered popular assessments of his contributions to moral issues over there (advancing Civil Rights for black people).

 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are any number of controversies about Dr. King and his views.  And Gandhi.  And Martin Luther.  And many other historical figures who nevertheless contributed meaningfully to society.

These people you mentioned changed the world in which they lived, hopefully for the better. They were not ordained by God to be the his mouthpiece here in this world. Would I ever take Dr. Kings advice regarding marriage? Nope. 

If Gandhi was secretly supporting violent protests, then yes, question what he is best known for. 

My issue with bigoted leaders of the Church is that bigotedness is not in harmony with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter what era you were raised in. The mouthpiece for the Lord should abide by "Love one another." 

If I was seeking advice about how to run a newspaper, maybe I would listen to Elder Petersen, but I will not listen to him on how to treat and think about my fellow man. The words he used are hateful and disgusting, and they have infiltrated my home even to this day, thanks to a mother-in-law that shares "her" thoughts with my children. These are the same thoughts she learned from Leaders and people such as Elder Petersen. 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

And it's special pleading.  And a non sequitur.  Nobody says things like "Martin Luther King, Jr. cheated on his wife, therefore I reject the totality of his contributions to the Civil Rights Movement."

Um, people do say this, fairly frequently these days. The position of Elder or President of the Church , and the process to become such, is incredibly different than the historical figures you mention. No one had to listen to any of them, people chose to listen/follow them. As members of the Church, titles and positions have meaning and we are all taught to listen and respect them. It almost feels like this part of your argument is a non sequitur... 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "all or nothing" approach doesn't work, from either direction.  "Prophet about X, ergo a prophet about everything else" is no more feasible than "Prophet erred as to ____________, ergo he cannot be trusted as to anything at all."

I have a pretty low standard of what I expect out of my Church leaders, don't be bigot. 

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have observed another phenomenon among b&w thinkers.  I also see them as being the ones who are most likely to become disillusioned and leave the church, but not because of their evolution away from b&w thinking but actually because of their b&w thinking.  There is no room for nuance.  It is either all true or all false.  It is either all directed by God or one of the greatest frauds of all time.  When they are taught that the prophets can't lead us astray, they take a very b&w interpretation of that. This is what they have been taught.  This is what they believe.  They are primed for disillusionment under this paradigm of belief.   Because they are b&w thinkers, disillusionment causes them to view the church as black instead of white.   They are still b&w thinkers, but they see the church as a fraud now.  All black.  These are the ones who become the greatest and harshest enemies of the church because they see it is all black.  B&W thinkers are usually the harshest apologists and the harshest critics, from my observation.  That is the effect it seems to have when everything is black and white.  There is no room for seeing things from another point of view.  While people who evolve out of b&w thinking may still leave the church (although I think they have a better chance of staying and working through reinterpreting the way they have always perceived things in the past in a way that is not so b&w and can work with belief/faith), they are much less likely to become harsh critics of it, because they don't see it as all black.    

When we start people on a b&w footing, and arming them with b&w teachings of prophets that they can't lead us astray, that we just need to trust them above our own conscience, etc., that the church is either true of fraud, that is a recipe for disastrous disillusionment.  

There is something envious about the simplicity right?  The internet age kind of ruined that for us. 

100% . You desribed it better than I did

[pogi]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know if I can go along with that.  Hypocrisy on moral issues over here (King's serialized marital infidelity) does not seem to have altered popular assessments of his contributions to moral issues over there (advancing Civil Rights for black people).

Jonah despised the Assyrian people of Nineveh, viewing them as a "hated enemy."  And yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.    Jonah abdicated his prophetic responsibilities by running away, and yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.  Jonah eventually went and did his job, then became angry when the people of Nineveh listed to him and repented, and yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.

Elder Petersen harbored some pretty ugly sentiments about black folks, much of it likely coming from the Church's teachings.  However, he also served a mission.  He worked at Deseret News (rising to become president and chairman of the board),and was "known for the tenderness and care with which he treated his employees, whom he considered important members of his stewardship."  He spent more than half of his life - 44 years - as a member of the Q12, during which "he directed the Church’s public information programs, served on the Military Relations Committee, and acted as an adviser to the Relief Society, the Indian Affairs Committee, and the Music Committee."  He also served as the president of the West European Mission for over six years.  He was an active leader in the Boy Scouts of America organization and received the Silver Antelope Award. He also served on numerous civic boards, committees, university boards, and social groups.  He was married and had two daughters.

I do not here want to minimize or rationalize or excuse moral failings, including substantial ones.  Rather, I am proposing that we not define historical figures (or, for that matter, contemporary ones) solely by their their worst attributes.  Elder Petersen seems to have been much, much more than just a receptable and purveyor of unfortunate and prejudiced views of our black brothers and sisters.  And he's been dead for decades anyway.  So some grace and understanding, and application of Mormon 9:31, seems to be in order.

There are any number of controversies about Dr. King and his views.  And Gandhi.  And Martin Luther.  And many other historical figures who nevertheless contributed meaningfully to society.

So can I.

We're not taking "the teacher's" word for it.  We're not supposed to.

This line of reasoning is a backdoor to foisting notions of infallibility onto the Brethren.  It's endlessly regressive.  It's carte blanche to disregard any or all of an apostle's teachings.

And it's special pleading.  And a non sequitur.  Nobody says things like "Martin Luther King, Jr. cheated on his wife, therefore I reject the totality of his contributions to the Civil Rights Movement."

The "all or nothing" approach doesn't work, from either direction.  "Prophet about X, ergo a prophet about everything else" is no more feasible than "Prophet erred as to ____________, ergo he cannot be trusted as to anything at all."

Thanks,

-Smac

I am having a hard time seeing where you and Calm are in disagreement, honestly.  I think you are both in agreement that failings and fallibility should not cause us to disregard the holistic teachings of an individual or church.  You both seem to understand how it can be a hinderance to trust for some, however.  

Quote

We're not taking "the teacher's" word for it.  We're not supposed to.

While I am happy that you see things this way, I don't think you can speak for the church as a whole by using "we".  I know for a fact that it is a very common view, and perhaps even the dominant view, that we are supposed to take the prophets word for it.  That is how I was raised in the church and by my parents. I was raised to believe that the prophet will never lead us astray, meaning that we can always trust them.  It was always taught that way to instill trust in everything they say.  I was taught that they are an anchor that will keep us from drifting with false teachings/doctrines.  I was never taught until much, much later that they could potentially be the source of false teachings/doctrines.  But...even then, I was taught that even if the prophet is wrong, the Lord will bless us for trusting and sustaining our prophet in obedience to them, so even when they are wrong, we still need to follow them and the Lord will bless us for it.  They wont lead us astray in the end, we will make it to celestial glory if we just follow them, even when they are wrong, because they will not be so wrong that it will place our exaltation at risk.  Honest to goodness, that is how I was raised in the church.  I know that you have all probably heard this too, because that is a prevalent culture, perspective, and way of living in the church.   "Spiritual self reliance" meant that we are supposed to pray and receive spiritual confirmation of their words for ourselves, but that if we receive an answer, or feel our conscience directing us to believe contrary to the words of the prophet, then we need to sustain the prophet over our own feelings of inspiration/conscience.  Not following the prophet would lead us "astray".  Period.  It was the road to apostasy.  There was no nuance in that teaching to me.  Even still we see how prevalent this idea is with an Area President teaching missionaries that they shouldn't pray to know if they should go on a mission or not.  "Stupid question!".  What was his reasoning?  Because if we know that a prophet is called of God, and we know that he is telling us to go on a mission, then there can only be one conclusion, asking God about it is "stupid".  In other words, "take their word for it".  Period.  Don't question.  If you have a testimony of the prophet, there is no need to question. 

You know that joke about how the Catholic church teaches that the Pope is infallible, but that the members don't believe it; while the Mormon church teaches that the prophet is fallible, but that the members don't believe it.  It is funny because it is relatable - we recognize it in our culture. 

That is the difference between MLK and a Mormon prophet.  How we were raised to perceive and trust them above our own best judgment as God's mouthpiece places a much greater expectations on their heads.  One has much lower expectations for what MLK does in his personal life and is not held to that same high and even unsustainable standard that is required to maintain that level of trust.   With higher expectations and higher levels of trust comes much less wiggle room for maintenance of that trust, and trust therefore can be more easily lost over missteps when you are a Mormon prophet with those levels of expectation and trust. 

Edited January 26, 2023 by pogi

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

*It’s my observation* (no CFR) that believers who are black and white thinkers seem to be the ones that hit the wall hard when they stop being black and white thinkers. They tend to be the ones who are the most likely to be disillusioned and leave the church when they come to discover that life is actually not black and white and that Not everything that comes out of the mouth of the Prophets are literal words of God. 
 

Of course there are some people that live their entire lives operating from the black and white paradigm and they never are exposed to anything that challenges this. They are happy from the beginning to the end and that is fine too, as long as they remain protected from what I call reality. I envy the simplicity of this. We all know that the best program in the church is primary. It’s a beautiful place to be.

My observation as well. I tend to be a black and white believer as well, but one who is willing to cut church leaders some slack because I know they are not perfect. We all have to go by faith both leader and regular member. That way I am not completely devastated and totally reject everything about the church (throw the baby out with the bathwater) when I find out they might have been wrong about something.
I guess you might call me a gray believer. 😉

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

My issue with bigoted leaders of the Church is that bigotedness is not in harmony with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter what era you were raised in.

I upvoted the comment, but I wanted to highlight this statement. It often seems to me that these kind of discussions get so focused on protecting and defending the reputations of prophets and apostles (or even the mantle of prophet and apostle that passes from one generation to the next in the church) that we neglect to talk about truth. In my own thought process, I often prefer to start with a statement like this. Do we believe that racism and bigotry are out of harmony with the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Do we believe this is an absolute moral truth that transcends time and place and culture? IMO, I believe this is true, and any example from the restoration or in the Book of Mormon or the Old Testament that looks like racism and attributes it to God is falsely attributing it to God. From there, I have to then wrestle with the question of why God would allow prophets and apostles to misattribute something like racism to God.

[CA Steve]

12 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

IMO, I believe this is true, and any example from the restoration or in the Book of Mormon or the Old Testament that looks like racism and attributes it to God is falsely attributing it to God. From there, I have to then wrestle with the question of why God would allow prophets and apostles to misattribute something like racism to God.

Maybe the problem is teaching members to not question leadership regardless of what they say or do. Perhaps if leadership got more pushback from members about issues, they might actually question whether or not what they are saying is from God or their own cultural bias.

[Danzo]

17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Black and white thinking is problematic IMO regardless of who is doing it.  

A good illustration of Black and White thinking