Paul Reeves, Prophetic fallibility, and the problem of evil

[MrShorty]

I recently read Paul Reeves' book Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood published by Deseret Book. It was, as expected, a difficult read. Reeves is of the opinion that nothing about the priesthood and temple ban is from God. After explaining why he believes that, and expressing his reasons for rejecting the reasons he has encountered for justifying the priesthood and temple ban, he includes a chapter addressing the question of prophetic fallibility that opens, "If black skin is not a curse, why did God allow Brigham Young and other leaders to teach that it was?"

His answer included an interesting parallel to the overall problem of evil, "As Latter-day Saints, we explain the problem of evil with agency." Then, after listing off examples of evils people  perpetrate on other people, he says, "Agency is so sacred, we answer, that God will not violate it even when we use it to destroy the agency of others."

The problem of prophetic fallibility has been central to my own faith crisis/journey, and I find this idea that the problem could be one of those difficult, intractable problems like the problem of evil quite compelling. Maybe even to the point of saying that problem of prophetic fallibility fits underneath the broad umbrella of the problem of evil as one part of that intractable problem.

Going to be thinking about this for some time, I expect. But I thought I would throw it out into the ether and see if anyone here had any thoughts to add or detract from the idea.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I recently read Paul Reeves' book Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood published by Deseret Book. It was, as expected, a difficult read. Reeves is of the opinion that nothing about the priesthood and temple ban is from God. After explaining why he believes that, and expressing his reasons for rejecting the reasons he has encountered for justifying the priesthood and temple ban, he includes a chapter addressing the question of prophetic fallibility that opens, "If black skin is not a curse, why did God allow Brigham Young and other leaders to teach that it was?"

His answer included an interesting parallel to the overall problem of evil, "As Latter-day Saints, we explain the problem of evil with agency." Then, after listing off examples of evils people  perpetrate on other people, he says, "Agency is so sacred, we answer, that God will not violate it even when we use it to destroy the agency of others."

The problem of prophetic fallibility has been central to my own faith crisis/journey, and I find this idea that the problem could be one of those difficult, intractable problems like the problem of evil quite compelling. Maybe even to the point of saying that problem of prophetic fallibility fits underneath the broad umbrella of the problem of evil as one part of that intractable problem.

Going to be thinking about this for some time, I expect. But I thought I would throw it out into the ether and see if anyone here had any thoughts to add or detract from the idea.

Perhaps you should mention what YOU mean by "the problem of evil" or the infalibility of prophets.

Evil exists because we can choose it.

Prophets are fallible because they are humans.

What's the big deal? 

God allows it because our agency is essential for our test here on earth.  If we had all the answers and could make no mistakes, there would be no evil and prophets would be perfect- but on the other hand, how does that add to our progression and ability to learn the "good from the evil"?

This is quite simple I think- so please describe the problems you see with this plan.

[mfbukowski]

The Stanford Encyclopedia for Philosophy says this"

Quote

The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

For us, with our theology of God testing us, AND the idea of the "Fortunate Fall"- ie that we are here to be tested and have agency- I believe there IS no need for us to even discuss the "problem of evil" as presented above.

It is reasonable to acknowledge the existence of evil because this life is a test, and we need to find the good and distinguish it from evil.

Our theology makes the question irrelevant IMO.

[MrShorty]

I'm not sure I have a specific definition for the problem of evil, and I don't think it would be necessary to precisely define it for this discussion.

I'm not sure I agree that the answer that "life is a test" fully answers the problem of evil -- certainly not to the level of calling the question irrelevant. If we see life and evil and suffering and such as a mere "test," do you think we fully understand the parameters and nature of the test? Since this started with Reeves' book on the priesthood and temple ban, what is the nature of the "priesthood and temple ban test?" At the Be One celebration, Pres. Oaks said that he answered this "test" by choosing to be loyal to the church and the brethren and by being patient. Is the priesthood and temple ban a "loyalty test" to see if we will stay loyal to the church? Or could it have some other meaning?

[rpn]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

After explaining why he believes that, and expressing his reasons for rejecting the reasons he has encountered for justifying the priesthood and temple ban, he includes a chapter addressing the question of prophetic fallibility that opens, "If black skin is not a curse, why did God allow Brigham Young and other leaders to teach that it was?"

The Lord lets mortals do lots of dumb things, contrary to His will all the time.   And Abinadi told Alma that was to make it possible for justice to work.

My own take on the history of race and the priesthood is that I think when BY heard about former member of color McCray's establishing his own church near Winter Quarters and requiring white women to spend the night to join and having takers AND the son of the most prominent black member and priesthood holder in the NE marrying a white woman within weeks of the state law forbidding it being repealed  WITHIN a very short time span, BY simply didn't believe that the Saints could weather fights against both polygamy and interracial marriage at the same time in pre-Civil War period.     And I think BY decided that the only way possible to not have interracial marriage is to not have blacks hold the priesthood.   

I think it is possible that the Lord at least didn't disagree with BY's  concern at the time ---- 15 + years before the civil war and the Emancipation, when the church was being attacked for 20 years on the polygamy issue.   (And I agree with Reeves that the things that BY preached as explanation are unlikely to have come from His lips or inspiration either.)    But I also think that it is likely that the two investigations in the 1890's and then in the early 1900's were prompted by His desire to correct the problem but thwarted, first when Zebedee Coltrin outright lied about Elijah Abel's priesthood ordination and when others like Abraham Smoot (I'm in the group that wants the Church to rename the BYU buidling)  joined the chorus, and thereafter because it took that long to get an Apostolic quorum to hear Him. 

Edited August 5, 2023 by rpn

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure I have a specific definition for the problem of evil, and I don't think it would be necessary to precisely define it for this discussion.

I'm not sure I agree that the answer that "life is a test" fully answers the problem of evil -- certainly not to the level of calling the question irrelevant. If we see life and evil and suffering and such as a mere "test," do you think we fully understand the parameters and nature of the test? Since this started with Reeves' book on the priesthood and temple ban, what is the nature of the "priesthood and temple ban test?" At the Be One celebration, Pres. Oaks said that he answered this "test" by choosing to be loyal to the church and the brethren and by being patient. Is the priesthood and temple ban a "loyalty test" to see if we will stay loyal to the church? Or could it have some other meaning?

Yeah.

Brigham made a mistake. Or not.

Reeve uses as his point of departure a cartoon published in Life magazine in 1904 depicting a “Mormon Elder-Berry”—with his long beard looking suspiciously like Church President Joseph F. Smith, then in the national news in connection with the Senate’s Reed Smoot hearings—out for a walk with his numerous children, who collectively display a panoply of racial, ethnic, and national diversity. As Reeve mentions, the cartoon “was part of an effort to trap Mormons in a racially suspect past” even at the moment that Church leaders sought to legitimate the religion’s place in American society (2). Reeve’s key insight is that historians have not fully taken into account the ways in which “Protestants believed Mormons were physically different” (3). Thus, Reeve convincingly argues, the “whiteness” of Mormons and Mormonism is best examined “as a contested variable, not an assumed fact” (7). In the ensuing eight chapters, Reeve deftly examines the perception, proposed by outsiders and insiders alike, that Mormonism constituted not merely a new religion but also a new race. He spends two chapters reflecting on LDS relationships with Native Americans and the ways in which opponents “imagined Mormons conspiring with Indians against white Americans and sometimes descending below the level of savages themselves” (11). Another chapter considers the “orientalization” of Mormonism, with polygamy as the key factor in linking the overwhelmingly Euro-American Mormons with the “barbaric” and “despotic” Muslims, Turks, and Chinese. These are outstanding chapters, each displaying assiduous research, careful analysis, and broad context. I was particularly fascinated as Reeve showed how the “nits make lice” comment made by a perpetrator to justify his murder of a child in the Hawn’s Mill Massacre had a long history in Anglo-American racial discourse (52–55).

Its other achievements notwithstanding, the greatest contribution of Religion of a Different Color is in its quartet of chapters entitled “Black, White, and Mormon.” Here Reeve offers a master class in contextualization, close readings of texts, simultaneous clarity and complexity, subtle and nuanced argumentation, and the interweaving of Mormon and American history. Chapter 5 is, simply put, the single best account and explanation, from an academic viewpoint, of the origins of the LDS priesthood ban. Reeve carefully excavates and analyzes the earliest available manuscript sources, revealing the internal contestations and instabilities within Mormon racial discourse in the 1840s and early 1850s. Brigham Young, Parley Pratt, and others are portrayed here not as stock characters or villains but rather as mid-nineteenth-century white men who were constructing their religion at the same time that they were writing Utah’s territorial laws regarding “servitude” in the context of a national conversation about the impending threat of “white slavery.” What emerges is a story more tragic than nefarious: “Mormons legalized their own version of black servitude in an effort to distinguish between black and white, bound and free. At the same time, Brigham Young announced a race-based priesthood restriction partly intended to substantiate Mormon racial purity” (142).

In Reeve’s careful and sensitive portrayal, it’s like watching a slow-motion car crash as we witness the real if complicated interracialism of 1830s–1840s Mormonism descend into something far more terrestrial, with culture-bound racism and fears of interracial sex and marriage outweighing a commitment to the universalist impulses of the gospel of Jesus Christ declared in both the New Testament and Book of Mormon. Keeping Mormon racial views and the racialization of Mormons in constant dialogue, Reeve provides in chapter 6 a nuanced analysis of how the Mormons’ adoption of plural marriage was seen by many as a type of “race treason.” That the critics’ logic was bad—practicing a “peculiar” form of marriage and sexuality does not equate to the adoption of all manner of supposed depravity—did not prevent it from becoming a powerful discourse used to racialize and thereby marginalize Mormonism and its adherents, who in turn did all in their power to prove their whiteness. In grasping so earnestly for the cultural respectability afforded in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century America by the achievement of whiteness, Mormons conflated race, purity, and citizenship, and set aside the integrating impulses of their own theology.

Russell Stevenson’s book, For the Cause of Righteousness, is commendable in taking the story of Mormonism and race beyond America’s shores and including far more than the usual suspects. In addition to detailing the familiar narrative of ecclesiastical racial exclusion, Stevenson also introduces us here to an expanded and truly impressive cast of characters: William Daniels, the unordained black branch president in South Africa; Moses Mahlangu, who attended Church for fourteen years before he was allowed to be baptized; Rebecca Mould, the charismatic Ghanaian leader; and Julie Mavimbela, the South African whose commitment to Mormon principles inspired her to found the organization Women for Peace. Stevenson is a document hound in the best tradition of Mormon historians, and readers will benefit considerably from the book’s second part, which includes over 150 pages of reprinted primary source documents with brief editorial introductions. However, the author’s prodigious talent for research sometimes becomes a liability. He seemed intent on including in the book every scrap he discovered in the archives, with the inclusion of material seemingly taking priority over the judicious selection and careful organization of sources.

I was duly impressed by the substance and quality of material that Stevenson compiled in his research, but found myself repeatedly distracted by stylistic matters. The prose often jumps from topic to topic or source to source without clear transitions. A source or event is sometimes mentioned in passing, without full explication or explanation. For instance, “Martin” is mentioned on page 129 but not actually introduced as Wynetta Martin, the first black member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, until page 143. A long section on the white LDS adventurer John Goddard (93–101) is interesting but adds little to chapter 4, and in fact distracts from the narrative about Mormonism in Africa, since religion was seemingly epiphenomenal for Goddard. Indeed, the entire second half of that chapter is about whites (not blacks) in Africa. The chapter’s subtitle is “From Aba to Detroit,” but Detroit does not figure until an oblique reference in the chapter’s last sentence.

The book’s gaps are sometimes substantive as well as stylistic. Chapter 5 is all about white Utahans’ views of civil rights, blacks, and the priesthood-temple ban, with African Americans appearing as objects, not subjects. This may have been done intentionally, to demonstrate the dynamics of power in which blacks were often silenced in conversations and policies made about them, but if that was his aim Stevenson does not explicitly say as much. Throughout the book the reader is often left wanting more from tantalizing but only briefly mentioned nuggets. For instance, chapter 7—which otherwise includes excellent information about the assimilation of independent Ghanaian congregations into the LDS Church—only remarks in passing on how temple ceremonies were racially integrated even in apartheid-era South Africa. Prime opportunities for critical analysis are frequently missed, such as the chance to reflect further in chapter 7 on the complicated dynamic between African female charismatic and American male institutional authority. The book rushes to the end of its story, containing relatively little history of the past quarter century beyond the collection of a few Church statements and the dedication of the temple in Ghana. All this suggests a manuscript that was somewhat hastily written by the author and not thoroughly edited by the publisher. A more careful, patient approach would no doubt have addressed many of the book’s most easily correctable shortcomings.

As mentioned, the documents reprinted in the latter half of For the Cause of Righteousness are themselves worth the price of purchase—though it must be acknowledged that, through no fault of the author, this collection’s distinctiveness has been somewhat undermined by the subsequent publication of an entire documentary history of blacks and Mormonism.⁴ Still, there are a number of gems here that are well worth readers’ attention, including Eunice Kinney’s letter regarding Elijah Abel (217–21); Jane James’s pathos-drenched autobiography and letters (222–27, 284–85); Brigham Young’s various statements on race (252–54, 261–67); the inspiring testimony of Alabama convert Len Hope (299–302); the Lowry Nelson correspondence, along with the First Presidency’s mid-twentieth-century statements (304–12); and ensuing statements by David O. McKay, Sterling McMurrin, and the First Presidency that trace the evolution of the priesthood-temple ban from a doctrine to a policy with “unknown” origins (317, 320, 334).

Despite my critiques, For the Cause of Righteousness is a valuable and welcome addition to our understanding of the rich, diverse, and complex history of Mormonism. Scholars will for many years refer to and build upon Stevenson’s insights. He has offered a useful critique not only of the religion’s racial shortcomings but also of Mormon scholars’ near-exclusive attention on the American scene. Those of us in the profession have long noted that one of the next frontiers of Mormon studies must be more thorough attention to nonwhite and non-American voices, contexts, themes, and trends. Hats off to Stevenson for answering the call.

When placed side by side, these two books put into stark relief the differences in approach and achievement between a graduate student and a seasoned historian. For the Cause of Righteousness is the product of a talented young scholar who dove into the archives and seems to have come out in a hurry with something important to say. Religion of a Different Color is the product of a careful, mature, patient, and highly skilled craftsman expertly plying his trade. Emerging scholars of Stevenson’s caliber should be encouraged and indeed celebrated. At the same time, Reeve, the consummate professional, has upped the ante for Mormon studies by producing a genuinely important book that will stand the test of time.

 

 

About the author(s)

Patrick Q. Mason is Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies and 

 

Notes

1. For a few key examples, see Lester E. Bush, “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8 (Spring 1973): 11–68; Newell G. Bringhurst, Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Blacks within Mormonism (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing, 1981); and Armand L. Mauss, All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003).

2. For details, see Tanner Humanities Center, “Black, White, and Mormon, 08–09 Oct 2015,” http://thc.utah.edu/lectures-programs/bwm-conference/.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Race and the Priesthood,” https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng.

4. Matthew L. Harris and Newell G. Bringhurst, eds., The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2015).

 

 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Going to be thinking about this for some time, I expect. But I thought I would throw it out into the ether and see if anyone here had any thoughts to add or detract from the idea.

I think that everyone who seriously confronts this question comes to their own resolution (even if, for some, that resolution is a loss of faith). My personal opinion is this - I think that we don't always get the message - especially when there are other strong interests going on. The question of the lifting of the priesthood ban didn't happen in a vacuum. And no matter what our personal views are on the issue, it is clear from events over the past few years that race relations are still an issue (at least here in the United States), almost a half century after the ban was lifted.

The first serious effort to lift the ban occurred in 1969. President Hugh B. Brown asked the Quorum of the Twelve to vote on lifting the priesthood ban. While a majority of the apostles voted to lift the ban, it was not a unanimous vote. And this kept the ban from being lifted then. Between 1969 and 1978, seven ordained apostles died, including all of those who opposed lifting the ban in 1969. This is probably a coincidence of sorts, right? Sometimes change occurs in the Church simply because of the ever changing leadership created by the normal cycle of our lives.

I think that if we believe the idea that God wouldn't allow the leaders of the Church to lead the Church astray, we could take that in two different ways here. On the one hand, we could argue that things happened when God wanted them to happen. I think this is a really problematic argument to make. It is especially problematic for those who hold to a sort of utilitarian belief about the priesthood ban - that is, that the ban was cultural baggage that was necessary for the Church to prosper, and that lifting it sooner would have caused more harm than good. I think this is a terrible argument. There is a sense in these arguments that everything is set by divine purpose, and we shouldn't push for change. I think this is also wrong. Having said that, if I were to subscribe to some form of this idea, I would suggest that God gives us as much rope to hang ourselves as we can get. If he steps in to redirect the Church it is only because we have moved so far from where we need to be that we cannot make it back on our own. In this way, I tend to agree with at least the principle of that argument.

In terms of the issue of agency, I am less inclined to accept this entirely. I am not a fan of the idea that we have some sort of absolute agency here in mortality. I think that our agency is limited in many different ways. For us to say that God always favors agency over the possibility of evil is problematic. I think an interesting example in the Book of Mormon comes in Mosiah 27:11-13 -

Quote

And as I said unto you, as they were going about rebelling against God, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto them; and he descended as it were in a cloud; and he spake as it were with a voice of thunder, which caused the earth to shake upon which they stood; And so great was their astonishment, that they fell to the earth, and understood not the words which he spake unto them. Nevertheless he cried again, saying: Alma, arise and stand forth, for why persecutest thou the church of God? For the Lord hath said: This is my church, and I will establish it; and nothing shall overthrow it, save it is the transgression of my people.

I think this is a useful bit of text in this case. If it was truly agency over evil, then why the intervention? And there is the emphasis that the transgression of the Church is the one thing that is capable of destroying the Church. It is the willingness of the Church as a whole to support racist policies that creates the risk to the Church - and if the members of the Church unite behind what is right, then I think that God can intervene.

I think it helps to understand that even prophets have shortcomings. Our role as members is to help move the Church forward. And the first step in this process is to work to overcome any of our own racist tendencies (assuming that we may have some) - and perhaps even more importantly, to work to prevent our children from developing them. My father, who grew up in a terribly racist home, made a very conscientious effort to not raise his kids to think that way. And I think he was at least somewhat successful (for which I am quite grateful). I think that the more that we defend the racist views of the past, and try to explain how this was good for the Church (the white Church of course), the more that we keep a hold on the problems of the past and keep the Church from moving on. This is not so much about a necessary relationship between agency and evil. The dichotomy is between good and evil, and as Lehi notes, we have to be enticed one way or the other in order to really have agency.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that if we believe the idea that God wouldn't allow the leaders of the Church to lead the Church astray, we could take that in two different ways here

Great way to cover different paradigms, thanks 

[OGHoosier]

8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

 

The problem of prophetic fallibility has been central to my own faith crisis/journey, and I find this idea that the problem could be one of those difficult, intractable problems like the problem of evil quite compelling. Maybe even to the point of saying that problem of prophetic fallibility fits underneath the broad umbrella of the problem of evil as one part of that intractable problem.

My opinion is of finite value, to be sure, but I think that all questions of religion are merely facets of the problem of evil. The root intuition behind the problem of evil is the perceived discord between what we see of the world and what we expect God to make of it. 

In that sense, the problem of evil is unavoidable, because God would have to act perfectly predictably in order to prevent its occurrence. However, the definition of its impact is fuzzy, and its resolution is guaranteed to be idiosyncratic since the circumstances of the world touch everyone differently.

For my part, I think good cannot exist without the experience of evil. If there is no evil, then good is not good, it's just the default. In a hypothetically perfect world, there would no points of axiological reference, in their place being only a constant undifferentiated hum of experience  - in other words, the exact condition described by 2 Nephi 2:22-23. 

"...And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end...wherefore, they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." 

Eternal existence would be an everlasting buzz of the flourescent lightbulb, white noise washing over us forever, the purest variety of nihilism, utterly numb to all existence for we were never allowed to feel anything else.

I think the point of life is to do 2 things:

1) Expose everyone to pain, death, randomness, contingency, injustice, etc. by way of an object lesson, thus allowing good to exist and become the subject of eternity. 

2) Allow us considerable freedom to act within it, that we may learn of consequences and begin to learn. Life, and everything in it, is thus a co-creation of man and God. 

This explanation is not intended to suddenly explain any particular instance or intensity of suffering, to make it all okay. Indeed, if I'm right, I think that would be against the purpose. 

Anyways, after that long ramble...

Prophetic fallibility seems compatible with that kind of worldview to me. The Church is a collaboration between man and God, and must bear the very real marks of both. A perfected institution would probably shipwreck itself in this imperfected world, especially given how contingent societal worldviews seem to be on time and circumstance. 

As an aside from the problem of evil, I have an out-there speculation that the concept of "degrees of glory" may be relevant. God's glory is His power, or the degree to which His will prevails. (The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth...then Satan said, give my thine honour, which is thy power...etc. etc.) This seems to diminish as one descends the ladder of degrees of glory. Based on that, there may be a hard cap on how much God can assert His will on the Earth, a telestial realm - though this obviously would not explain everything. 

[Popper]

The problem of Evil and having a better understanding it is one of the most overlooked subjects with the church.

The most in which I have ever heard it discussed goes along the lines of:

“Well everybody has their agency.”

Which is not helpful and doesn’t serve to strengthen those who are struggling with evil that has come to mean something to them personally.

The problem of evil is present everywhere in life and the church is not immune and church leaders are not exempt from doing evil things.

N. T Wright has written a good book that I think provides a good introduction into the nature of evil and the justice of God.

Because there is a pandemic of evil in this world I think it is more helpful to break it down into categories.

A) Evil committed by groups or individuals 

B) Evil that is a consequence of natural law

C) Evil that is done for the greater good.

Looking at it this way helps me to focus on what I find the most troubling and what is weighing me down.

One of the most troubling questions that more or less permeates all three is still why does God allow so much evil in the world and why does so much go seemingly unpunished.

So many enter this topic and seemingly deconstruct their faith or their belief in God in order to distance themselves from evil rather than take the bill by the horns and wrestle with it.

Calling good - evil and evil - good.

The simplest way I can explain my belief is that 

I believe in God because I believe in order without order there would be chaos.

As Dostoevsky put it in the Brothers Karamazov.

“If there is no God then everything is permitted.”

I also believe that affixed to order is that everything is created for a purpose.

This is a theological point that I think Lehi states clearly to his sons.

There are Gods purposes and ours.

Gods purposes are ordered in a way that reveals his nature to us when we question his purposes and look for answers you’ll be surprised with how quickly they come.

While struggling with alcoholism I was sat outside a Target just need a drink to help me get through a difficultly I was experiencing I was sat outside a Target because I went to Walmart and somebody recognized me as their Elders quorum counselor from 6 six ago in  another state. Funny how that happens!

Anyway, as I’m wrestling with Hod over this need:

I said, God. Why are you forcing me to do something I don’t want to do or I can’t do!

The Spirit came through loud and clear.

“I am not forcing you to do anything, I am reminding you that I AM here.”

The testimony of the spirit is the testimony that God is aware of us even in our sinful state and that even though we sin he will answer us.

On the other side of the coin we have Satan so much of what Satan/Chaos.

So much of what Satan does is to make himself as close to resembling God as he can.

Is it in fact a memesis (mirror image of God.) but everything he does is the opposite of God’s purposes.

God is Light Satan is Darkness

God wants us to find Identity Satan desires Idolatry 

God desires Oneness Satan desires Opposition.

Because Satan works so hard to appear like God it is sometimes hard to see issues clearly.

We enter into the paradox where we see God giving us seemingly contradictory statements.

What does God hope to achieve by this?

My thoughts is to put my relationship with God at the center of it. 

According to Martin Buber’s philosophy of dialogue, human existence and relationships can be seen in two fundamentally different kinds of relations: I-It relations and I-Thou relations. 

An I-It relation is the normal everyday relationship of a human being toward his or her surroundings. A person can also view another person as an It, and often does so by viewing others from a distance. 

In the I-Thou relation however the individual enters into the relationship with another human with his or her entire being. This relationship becomes an intimate meeting, a real dialogue between both partners. 

Buber saw this as a reflection of the encounter between the human being and God. The I-Thou relationship allows for dialogue between the human being and God.

How do we enter an I-Thou relationship with the Lord? Have you ever felt convinced to follow a certain direction, that ended up in a seemingly dead end or developed a habit in order for you to cope with life’s issues or wondered why you have a particular weakness and are left trying to understand why? 

Life experiences certainly are unique and shape the way we feel about yourselves and others, if all of us fully understood that wickedness never was happiness none of us would sin but unfortunately we don’t occasionally we find ourselves on a path that contradicts our better judgment breaks down previously long held conceptions in order to build new ones.

In his book “Fire on the Horizon” -Ostler states:

"but to know our Father and Savior intimately and intrinsically. The command to enter into plural marriage forced the Saints to cast off every belief and assumption that they had about God. Only in this way could they encounter God without prior judgments, without expectations, and without imposing their beliefs and demands on God. They were forced to let go of every presupposition, forget everything that they thought they knew, and suspend every notion about how and what God must be to be God—and simply to encounter God as He is, as He reveals Himself."

Similarly. 

"God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his only begotten son sets the mind in revolt. How could a loving God ask such a thing, let alone command it? Everything in my head screams, “No, that is impossible!” at the very thought of such a command. Can the being who commands such a thing really be regarded as just, as good, as holy, as loving . . . as God? If the answer is even possibly yes, then everything we think we know and every moral judgment we make to give some order to our notions of justice, love, and the holy must be abandoned. But how can we abandon these beliefs without losing ourselves wholly and giving up our own lives entirely? No, it was not Isaac that was sacrificed on the altar of Moriah (for he was saved by the angel’s intervention); it was every hope of making any sense of God in a way true to our own moral judgments.

 

We can get a lot closer to God as we wrestle with Him and seek answers from Him by making Him bigger and more of a focal point than by minimizing Him.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

As an aside from the problem of evil, I have an out-there speculation that the concept of "degrees of glory" may be relevant. God's glory is His power, or the degree to which His will prevails. (The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth...then Satan said, give my thine honour, which is thy power...etc. etc.) This seems to diminish as one descends the ladder of degrees of glory. Based on that, there may be a hard cap on how much God can assert His will on the Earth, a telestial realm - though this obviously would not explain everything. 

To believe this is to accept that seeking God's help is selfish. The greatest virtue would be to ask nothing so God can give more to others.

[OGHoosier]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

To believe this is to accept that seeking God's help is selfish. The greatest virtue would be to ask nothing so God can give more to others.

Is it selfish to seek food? After all, if you don't, more for others.

I'm pretty sure this is a bad way to look at the distribution of scarce but vital resources.

Edited August 6, 2023 by OGHoosier

[CV75]

On 8/5/2023 at 1:18 PM, MrShorty said:

I recently read Paul Reeves' book Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood published by Deseret Book. It was, as expected, a difficult read. Reeves is of the opinion that nothing about the priesthood and temple ban is from God. After explaining why he believes that, and expressing his reasons for rejecting the reasons he has encountered for justifying the priesthood and temple ban, he includes a chapter addressing the question of prophetic fallibility that opens, "If black skin is not a curse, why did God allow Brigham Young and other leaders to teach that it was?"

His answer included an interesting parallel to the overall problem of evil, "As Latter-day Saints, we explain the problem of evil with agency." Then, after listing off examples of evils people  perpetrate on other people, he says, "Agency is so sacred, we answer, that God will not violate it even when we use it to destroy the agency of others."

The problem of prophetic fallibility has been central to my own faith crisis/journey, and I find this idea that the problem could be one of those difficult, intractable problems like the problem of evil quite compelling. Maybe even to the point of saying that problem of prophetic fallibility fits underneath the broad umbrella of the problem of evil as one part of that intractable problem.

Going to be thinking about this for some time, I expect. But I thought I would throw it out into the ether and see if anyone here had any thoughts to add or detract from the idea.

Is the ban an expression of human evil or of human fallibility? Depending on your particular foundations for your moral reasoning (I find the Moral Foundations Theory to be a useful tool), the answer can be evil, weakness, and/or both. Some may even view it in terms of human good and reliability. The simple, all-purpose answer is human capacity, which I guess leans toward an expression of human agency.

The policy of any group is set up to promote optimum balance of safety, fairness, order and justice for someone as the norm and reduce imbalance to a rare or prevented anomaly. "The voice of the people" (Mosiah 29:26-27) desiring that which is right or not right determines these rules for better or worse. Our faith acknowledges everyone as people (children of God), not just certain people.

The moral foundations theory helps explain why members of the Church view the ban differently, accept the change differently, move on (or not) differently, etc. Those who are moving closer to Christ seem to tolerate or acknowledge each other better than those who are not. Concerning evil, I think we learn to love God first and then learn to love others as ourselves. Concerning fallibility, we try to love God first and then try to love others as ourselves.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Is it selfish to seek food? After all, if you don't, more for others.

I'm pretty sure this is a bad way to look at the distribution of scarce but vital resources.

So then suicide becomes praiseworthy if you are in a Donner Party situation.

I think not.

 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

To believe this is to accept that seeking God's help is selfish. The greatest virtue would be to ask nothing so God can give more to others.

Assuming also that the Organizer of heaven and earth has limited resources.

"Sorry, we ran out of our daily bread today.  Check again in a day or two".

[MrShorty]

21 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The first serious effort to lift the ban occurred in 1969. President Hugh B. Brown asked the Quorum of the Twelve to vote on lifting the priesthood ban. While a majority of the apostles voted to lift the ban, it was not a unanimous vote. And this kept the ban from being lifted then. Between 1969 and 1978, seven ordained apostles died, including all of those who opposed lifting the ban in 1969. This is probably a coincidence of sorts, right? Sometimes change occurs in the Church simply because of the ever changing leadership created by the normal cycle of our lives.

I don't think I have heard of this event in the history. Do you have a reference for this account? I started a thread before how the expectation of unity in the top quorums can tend to make us "conservative" in that we don't respond well to change.

21 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

In terms of the issue of agency, I am less inclined to accept this entirely. I am not a fan of the idea that we have some sort of absolute agency here in mortality. I think that our agency is limited in many different ways. For us to say that God always favors agency over the possibility of evil is problematic.

I would agree. Trying to resolve this as a case where God deferred to agency often seems to imply that 19th century saints fully understood the choice they were making to believe the inferiority of other races and the superiority of white, caucasian people. Agency implies to me that we fully understand the choices we make that lead to other people (or our own) suffering, and I'm not sure that is true. In some ways, this ultimately leads to the commonly asked question, "Do we choose our beliefs?" I'm not sure that we fully, "agentially" (if that's even a word)  choose our beliefs. We kind of make choices to some extent in belief, but belief also gets imposed on us and we don't choose it.

 

[MrShorty]

 

19 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

1) Expose everyone to pain, death, randomness, contingency, injustice, etc. by way of an object lesson, thus allowing good to exist and become the subject of eternity. 

2) Allow us considerable freedom to act within it, that we may learn of consequences and begin to learn. Life, and everything in it, is thus a co-creation of man and God. 

19 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Prophetic fallibility seems compatible with that kind of worldview to me. The Church is a collaboration between man and God, and must bear the very real marks of both

I think your idea here is compelling. We do believe that both good and evil must exist -- maybe even in their fullness -- so that we can truly come to understand good and evil. This issue becomes one way that we see the marks of the human side of this collaboration.

I can agree that the reason evil must exist is for our education. I think the main pushback I would make is, are we learning the lessons that the history of the priesthood and temple ban have to teach us? @Benjamin McGuire identified ways that his family took the lessons about racism and tried to teach each other and learn from each other better ideas about race, and that's good. So many of the ongoing controversies that divide members of the church today seem to also include a prophetic fallibility element to them, and I'm not sure I see that we have learned the lessons about how human elements leave their mark on the church.

[MrShorty]

17 hours ago, Popper said:

"God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his only begotten son sets the mind in revolt. How could a loving God ask such a thing, let alone command it? Everything in my head screams, “No, that is impossible!” at the very thought of such a command. Can the being who commands such a thing really be regarded as just, as good, as holy, as loving . . . as God? If the answer is even possibly yes, then everything we think we know and every moral judgment we make to give some order to our notions of justice, love, and the holy must be abandoned. But how can we abandon these beliefs without losing ourselves wholly and giving up our own lives entirely? No, it was not Isaac that was sacrificed on the altar of Moriah (for he was saved by the angel’s intervention); it was every hope of making any sense of God in a way true to our own moral judgments.

I'm finding this fascinating. Everything we think we know and every moral judgement we make must be abandoned!

Two questions come to mind: 1) Some of this seems to hinge on the idea that "God's ways are higher than our ways" thinking that causes us to doubt our own human ability to make moral judgements. Is our ability to understand morality that flawed that we cannot trust our own sense of right and wrong in relation to things as seemingly clear cut as taking another's life or discerning the equality of human souls? 2) As in another comment, have we fully learned this lesson that we may need to completely rethink our moral framework? So many of the controversies the church faces today seem rooted in past traditions, and we seem so poorly equipped as a church to embrace this kind of radical change (another nod to my previous discussion on our inherently conservative nature).

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I don't think I have heard of this event in the history. Do you have a reference for this account? I started a thread before how the expectation of unity in the top quorums can tend to make us "conservative" in that we don't respond well to change.

The best current source would probably be The Mormon Church and the Blacks (which I have). If I remember correctly, there is also a bit about it in Prince's David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. There are also mentions in a number of journal articles - that go back quite a bit further in terms of time. I probably first came across it in Quinn (in his 1994 Extensions), or maybe in an article in Dialogue. It has been a long time now, though, and my memory can be fuzzy with inconsequential details of that sort.

On 8/5/2023 at 11:55 PM, Popper said:

No, it was not Isaac that was sacrificed on the altar of Moriah (for he was saved by the angel’s intervention); it was every hope of making any sense of God in a way true to our own moral judgments.

I think that this is an interesting example for a number of reasons. Among them is the fact that Jewish tradition doesn't uniformly come down on the side of Abraham here. Many Jews (present and past) saw the binding of Isaac as a failure on Abraham's part - where Abraham chose blind obedience instead of making the right decision, and so failed this test of Abraham's faith. More to the point, the problem (from this perspective) presented is that, with all of the wonderful examples of obedience we have to choose from, this one should not be our go to case. We shouldn't be teaching the idea of an Abrahamic test that creates such an ethical and moral dilemma.

[Kevin Christensen]

On 8/5/2023 at 1:18 PM, MrShorty said:

I recently read Paul Reeves' book Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood published by Deseret Book. It was, as expected, a difficult read. Reeves is of the opinion that nothing about the priesthood and temple ban is from God. After explaining why he believes that, and expressing his reasons for rejecting the reasons he has encountered for justifying the priesthood and temple ban, he includes a chapter addressing the question of prophetic fallibility that opens, "If black skin is not a curse, why did God allow Brigham Young and other leaders to teach that it was?"

His answer included an interesting parallel to the overall problem of evil, "As Latter-day Saints, we explain the problem of evil with agency." Then, after listing off examples of evils people  perpetrate on other people, he says, "Agency is so sacred, we answer, that God will not violate it even when we use it to destroy the agency of others."

The problem of prophetic fallibility has been central to my own faith crisis/journey, and I find this idea that the problem could be one of those difficult, intractable problems like the problem of evil quite compelling. Maybe even to the point of saying that problem of prophetic fallibility fits underneath the broad umbrella of the problem of evil as one part of that intractable problem.

Going to be thinking about this for some time, I expect. But I thought I would throw it out into the ether and see if anyone here had any thoughts to add or detract from the idea.

Before considering prophetic fallibility as grounds for a crisis, I think it important to first check my own eye for beams.   "Then shalt thou see clearly."   (Matt. 7:5)

Thomas Kuhn explains that "Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm. The more precise and far-reaching that paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides of anomaly and hence an occasion for paradigm change."  (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, page 65, the chapter "Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries".)

 What should I expect of a prophet?  D&C 1 provides a formal statement of "mine authority, and the authority of my servants" (v 6) this way:

Quote

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time. (verses 24-28)

If, I want to judge properly, I should apply that set of expectations, and I should give attention to the weakness and manner of language (not just dialect, but what was "on the tongues" of) 19th century Americans.  For that, I consider this review essential reading.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-curse-of-ham-race-and-slavery-in-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-the-biblical-justification-of-american-slavery/

Stirling Adams observes how the LDS church inherited from the larger culture a misreading of the story of Noah's curse that had been adopted to justify slavery, and later, segregation.  The LDS scriptures do not support that misreading.  But the existence of the misreading, which made God the author of the grounds for separation and distinction, and adherence to it an expression of faith and piety, and demonstrates exactly the kind of culturally-based resistance that Peter demonstrates in Acts 11:8.

Quote

8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.

So, what should I expect of LDS prophets?  Perfection?  As if I can doubtless trust my perfect capacity to judge perfection perfectly?  And perpetual desirability in their thought and deed with respect to my personal values and present understanding?  Joseph Campbell notes that one of the functions of a mythology is to "sustain a particular social order" and by mythology, he refers to the stories a society tells itself to justify its ways to itself. 

Another thing Campbell points out is that many ancient Temples had statues of guardians at the entrance that represented Fear and Desire, as obstacles that a person had to pass in order to enter the Real.  This is exactly correct.  When I studied over 70 distinct arguments given by Biblical peoples to justify rejecting Biblical prophets, I eventually realized that they all boiled down to people saying, "It's not what I think, what I fear" or "not what I desire, not what I want."   Asking whether a prophet is perfect, lives up to what I think and want, is a very different thing than asking if a prophet's inspiration is Real.

Quote

O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; (Alma 32:35-36)

Investigation goes in very different ways, when one is searching for "further light and knowledge" and when one is searching for imperfection or grounds for grievance and resentment and therefore, self justification.  The sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit is exactly the offering of our preconceptions and present desires, to move on to "further light and knowledge" and to be "a greater follower of righteousness."

Even the definition of "sustain" recognizes this, in what it formally asks us to expect of one another in the covenant community.

Quote

Sustain

1.  To keep up; keep going; maintain. Aid, assist, comfort.
2.  to supply as with food or provisions:
3.  to hold up; support
4.  to bear; endure
5.  to suffer; experience: to sustain a broken leg.
6.  to allow; admit; favor
7.  to agree with; confirm.

Brigham Young said "There is one principle that would urge upon the Saints in a way that it would remain with them--that is, to understand men and women as they are, and not as you are."  (JD 8:37, quoted in Nibley, Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints 223.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Agency implies to me that we fully understand the choices we make that lead to other people (or our own) suffering, and I'm not sure that is true.

And so we only make mistakes knowingly?

I recently ended up temporarily in an emergency room due after (logically) considering all alternatives, and still getting it wrong.  In retrospect I would still have made the same decision.

I would have to have been omniscient to see what MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED that I had not even considered.

Circular reasoning!  Yet again omniscience vs agency; it's the same problem from a different angle.  

Or Angel. 

Agency IMPLIES that mistakes can happen.

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

On 8/5/2023 at 11:18 AM, MrShorty said:

I recently read Paul Reeves' book Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood published by Deseret Book. It was, as expected, a difficult read.

Yes, it's a difficult topic.  The ratings on Amazon generally (though not universally) speak highly of it.

Last Year Paul Reeve did a good interview on Saints Unscripted on this topic:

Blacks and the Priesthood - Paul Reeve, Pt 1

Blacks and the Priesthood - Paul Reeve, Pt 2

See also this 2018 LDS Living article by Reeve: Race, the Priesthood, and Temples: A History of the Priesthood Ban (and How It Ended)

On 8/5/2023 at 11:18 AM, MrShorty said:

Reeves is of the opinion that nothing about the priesthood and temple ban is from God.

That is my current (though not fully settled) assessment as well.

On 8/5/2023 at 11:18 AM, MrShorty said:

After explaining why he believes that, and expressing his reasons for rejecting the reasons he has encountered for justifying the priesthood and temple ban, he includes a chapter addressing the question of prophetic fallibility that opens, "If black skin is not a curse, why did God allow Brigham Young and other leaders to teach that it was?"

This is is an interesting, but ultimately imponderable, question.

Why did God allow Cain to slay Able?

Why did God allow/facilitate Moses to summon water from the stone at Meribah despite the latter's disobedience?  (See Numbers 20:24.)

From the Church's OT manual:

Quote

Numbers 20:12. Mistakes made by members and Church leaders

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the First Presidency taught:

“There have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

“I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. …

“It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed” (“Come, Join with Us,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2013, 22).

Even though the Church is led by imperfect people who can make mistakes, the Lord’s prophet will never lead us astray. President Wilford Woodruff explained:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”).

It is difficult to comprehend the Lord allowing such a serious error to endure for such a long time.

On 8/5/2023 at 11:18 AM, MrShorty said:

His answer included an interesting parallel to the overall problem of evil, "As Latter-day Saints, we explain the problem of evil with agency." Then, after listing off examples of evils people  perpetrate on other people, he says, "Agency is so sacred, we answer, that God will not violate it even when we use it to destroy the agency of others."

The problem of prophetic fallibility has been central to my own faith crisis/journey, and I find this idea that the problem could be one of those difficult, intractable problems like the problem of evil quite compelling. Maybe even to the point of saying that problem of prophetic fallibility fits underneath the broad umbrella of the problem of evil as one part of that intractable problem.

Going to be thinking about this for some time, I expect. But I thought I would throw it out into the ether and see if anyone here had any thoughts to add or detract from the idea.

I think Agency as a partial - and for the time being, sufficient - answer to the "Problem of Evil" indicates that the problem is not "intractable."  We have part of the equation, perhaps even the most important part.  The rest will come in time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

What should I expect of a prophet? 

It is an interesting question given that prophets are expected to be imperfect and therefore manifest bad fruits from time to time, and on the other hand even false prophets will manifest good fruits...  So, can we ever legitimately judge by their fruits?  Or is it more a question of judging their overall mantle rather than their individual fruits? 

At what point can fallibility be legitimate grounds for a crisis?  For example, one could easily fall into a trap of deception of a false prophet if they are continually told that they need to remove the beam from their own eye before the can see clearly.    The problem is the ever-elusive question of what point are we sufficiently cleansed from sin in order to effectively discern a true prophet from a false one?  There is no clear line, so one can easily go down a path of perpetual self-doubt of their own spiritual discernment, and therein lies the cult trap.  It can be easy to be manipulated into a cult-like mindset if people are taught that they can't/shouldn't trust their own judgment, their own fears, their own moral desires, etc.  They can't even trust their own spiritual intuition because we are all fallible and prophets will always be more righteous than us, so who are we to judge them?  It all seems to point to blind trust/obedience and perpetual self-denial. 

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Investigation goes in very different ways, when one is searching for "further light and knowledge" and when one is searching for imperfection or grounds for grievance and resentment and therefore, self justification.  The sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit is exactly the offering of our preconceptions and present desires, to move on to "further light and knowledge" and to be "a greater follower of righteousness."

I think this is what it all boils down to.  What is our intention?  If our intentions are pure, then I think there is nothing else that we can do but trust our own inner compass/light of Christ/Spirit of the Lord as best we understand it on these matters.   If our discernment is off, the Lord will continue to correct us over time as we maintain pure intentions and humbly seek the Lord's will.    I personally think that we need to trust our inner light as best we understand it, even if beams remain.   We don't ask investigators to repent before praying about our message, for example.  I think it is better to follow our inner compass and be wrong, than to blindly trust.  We are expected to be wrong, even when we have successfully removed the beams, because our spiritual discernment will never be perfect.  We should expect to get it wrong on occasion.  That is the spiritual journey of life.   To me it is all about our intention and where we are placing our attention, and simply follow our heart from there.  Our intention and attention will without question be distracted and diverted from time to time, and thus our direction will be misguided.  That is to be expected, but it is the practice of gently redirecting our intention and attention (as in the practice of mindfulness) that keeps us heading in the right direction.  

When we approach with pure intentions of doing his will with our attention directed towards the Lord, then it doesn't matter how sinful we have been recently, the Lord will guide us.  We need to trust in that process and trust in ourselves, otherwise we are stuck in blind obedience and risk a cult-like mindset.  I think that is probably along the lines of what you were saying, but just wanted to clarify. 

  

Edited August 7, 2023 by pogi

[Kevin Christensen]

Pogi asks:

Quote

It is an interesting question given that prophets are expected to be imperfect and therefore manifest bad fruits from time to time, and on the other hand even false prophets will manifest good fruits...  So, can we ever legitimately judge by their fruits?  Or is it more a question of judging their overall mantle rather than their individual fruits? 

When Jesus says "By their fruits shall ye know them" he is not saying, "By your personal tastes and desires in and for fruit"  but rather according to the distinguishing characteristics of the fruit in question.

Quote

Ye shall know them [prophets] by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  (Matt. 7:16)

Whereas the most perfect and aesthetically pleasing, and physically useful thorn is not a grape, even a fallen and bird-pecked grape grew on a vine.  Even the loveliest thistle is not a fig.  The defining characteristics of prophets provided in the Bible, are, I have discovered surprisingly plentiful and surprisingly neglected.   I'd link to my FAIR essay on the topic, with all the references, but that is down at the moment at the website, but the gist is here:

Quote

Claims a True Prophet Must Make

Revelation and Vision
Witnesses
Chosen by God
Ordained by prophesy and the laying on of hands by those in
authority

Teaching of Christ

Christ ordained by God to judge all men
Teaches belief on him for remission of sins
Testifies that Jesus is “come in the flesh”
[Page 124]Apostles and prophets given “till we all come in a unity of the
faith”
Accepts the Biblical God

Character of Teaching

Preaches Repentance
Teaches of one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and
Father of all
Teaches by the spirit, so that your faith stands in the power of
God
Opens understanding of the scriptures
Teaching consistent with scripture
Provides knowledge of the heavenly council
Provides knowledge of the Lord’s covenant
They teach their followers to expect trials in this life

Personal Character

Seeks to please God, not men
Teaches with authority, and not as a scribe
They lead as willing ensamples to the flock, not for filthy lucre
Recognizes and is united with authorized prophets
They admit to being men of passion, like us, liable to sin

Evidences Provided

God bears them witness with signs and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will
A prophet may do works none other man did
Teaches that the investigators must keep his words to learn the
truth of them.
Prophecy
Teaches that we must pray
Over time, arguments against a prophet fail, and demonstrate confusion

If a person is interested in the Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets, here they are.  If a person supposes that they already know how to discern prophets, either because they know there is no such thing because thinkers like Freud and Bertrand Russell dismiss the notion of God and therefore prophets, or because a true prophet would obviously agree whatever other faith tradition they belong to, or because everyone knows THE test for prophets is fulfilment of prophecy and that single well-known test is by itself complete, inerrant, and sufficient, and could never be misused, (as opposed to being the one most qualified in the Bible by precept and example, and the one most abused in practice), or if they assume that "by their fruits shall ye know them" means, "according to your subjective, personal likes and dislikes" it is evident to me that whatever they are doing does not involve the elaborate and self-consistent and very effective Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets.  

Pogi asks another interesting question.

Quote

For example, one could easily fall into a trap of deception of a false prophet if they are continually told that they need to remove the beam from their own eye before the can see clearly.  

Jesus, I think, is spot on here.  

Quote

Bacon, the philosopher of science, was, quite consistently, an enemy of the Copernican hypothesis. Don’t theorize, he said, but open your eyes and observe without prejudice, and you cannot doubt that the Sun moves and that the earth is at rest. ( Karl R. Popper, The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality (New York: Routledge, 1994), 84–85)

Notice that Bacon's problem here is not a failure to be rational or scientific or well informed, and certainly not sin or a lack of purity.   The problem is that he supposes that he himself is free of prejudice. He supposes that while he observes things objectively, without theorizing, and simply sees things as they are.   He supposes that ideology and theory happens only to other people.  The problem is that is not self reflective, self critical, not aware of the beam in his own eye.  He could, in fact, do a great deal more than just trust his own intuitions and training and traditions.  He could actually imagine what he would see if he were an observer on an earth that moved around the sun, and how that might better account for those odd planetary motions that vexed people like Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo.

Pogi raises this issue:

Quote

There is no clear line, so one can easily go down a path of perpetual self-doubt of their own spiritual discernment, and therein lies the cult trap.  It can be easy to be manipulated into a cult-like mindset if people are taught that they can't/shouldn't trust their own judgment, their own fears, their own moral desires, etc.  They can't even trust their own spiritual intuition because we are all fallible and prophets will always be more righteous than us, so who are we to judge them?  It all seems to point to blind trust/obedience and perpetual self-denial. 

A person like Donald Trump is notable for lacking any self-doubt, and demonstrates supreme self-confidence in his own intuitions and discernment and power to label appropriately and that "only I can save you."

The notorious 1945 Improvement Era message expressed this view of higher authority, which, I think shows that Pogi has grounds to raise the question in LDS culture.

Quote

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose
a plan — it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is
safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God
works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance,
may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to
the kingdom of God.

Fortunately for my peace of mind, Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, are among those quoted by George Albert Smith in responding to that specific unknown bureaucrat's attitude.

Quote

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the
passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply
that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must
obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the
redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally
responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not
attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His
children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every
person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of
the Church try to follow.
The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the
Church have granted to every other member thereof.

Quoted here: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V19N01_37.pdf

I don't think "blindly trust" is called for.  Rather than "blindly trust" God, Abraham had in his long life on many times seen a substitute provided in several life threatening situations for himself and loved ones, so that that when he declares, "I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." and that "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering" (Gen. 22), all this is not because he was blind, but because of what he had seen and experienced many times before.  (See Nibley's "The Sacrifice of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Sarah" for details.) We're not told to start with a desire to believe, and stop forever.  But rather, take that desire to an experiment (Alma 32), and then continue making experiments forever, with the notion that the process will provide discernable evidence, and ongoing enlightenment of the mind, and enlargement of the soul, and future promise worth the ongoing effort required.  Not perfect knowledge, but not perpetual blindness either.  Rather, accumulating and progressive "cause to believe."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Pogi asks:

When Jesus says "By their fruits shall ye know them" he is not saying, "By your personal tastes and desires in and for fruit"  but rather according to the distinguishing characteristics of the fruit in question.

While the fruits may not be according to our "personal tastes and desires" per se, they will speak to our personal subjective feelings/understanding of right and wrong on some level.  We will have the ability to recognize it as light when our intentions are pure, and our attention is centered.  I think that deciphering any distinguishing characteristic of "the fruit" beyond that is a fool's errand, honestly.  I don't think it is or can be an absolute or objective measure. 

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Whereas the most perfect and aesthetically pleasing, and physically useful thorn is not a grape, even a fallen and bird-pecked grape grew on a vine.  Even the loveliest thistle is not a fig.  The defining characteristics of prophets provided in the Bible, are, I have discovered surprisingly plentiful and surprisingly neglected.   I'd link to my FAIR essay on the topic, with all the references, but that is down at the moment at the website, but the gist is here:

If a person is interested in the Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets, here they are.  If a person supposes that they already know how to discern prophets, either because they know there is no such thing because thinkers like Freud and Bertrand Russell dismiss the notion of God and therefore prophets, or because a true prophet would obviously agree whatever other faith tradition they belong to, or because everyone knows THE test for prophets is fulfilment of prophecy and that single well-known test is by itself complete, inerrant, and sufficient, and could never be misused, (as opposed to being the one most qualified in the Bible by precept and example, and the one most abused in practice), or if they assume that "by their fruits shall ye know them" means, "according to your subjective, personal likes and dislikes" it is evident to me that whatever they are doing does not involve the elaborate and self-consistent and very effective Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets.  

Thanks for your response.  I personally shy away from any bullet lists of qualifications/fruits that a prophet must be displayed before we believe/disbelieve.  Partly because, as you note, we are all subject to our own histories which influence our biases and perspectives, and thus interpretations of all these points.  This list of fruits has been used countless times by non-believers to discredit Mormon prophets.  One of the bullet-points you mention, for example, is that prophets will teach consistent with scripture.  The problem is that when we don't expect a consistency in their teachings being consistent with scripture, then it becomes a useless guide.  If false prophets and true prophets teach consistent with scripture at times, but at times don't, then how are we to judge?  The problem with this also presupposes that the scriptures are infallible and are not subject to interpretation.  Interpretation is how all of the points can be skewed.  I don't think we should rely on the faculties of our mind in solving some grand puzzle of lists that will unlock the secrets of who the true prophet is.  It is demonstrably too unreliable in keeping people from believing in true or false prophets. 

I personally believe that this list is meant to be a general guide rather some kind of test we can apply to any individual to discern if they are a prophet or not. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing that you view it in the same way.  This is not to be used as a sole measure, but one of many measures which all help point us in the right direction.  

All of those measures unavoidably rely on subjectivity, however.  We can never rid ourselves of bias or see things as they are without any filters or interpretations. We do our best to check our intentions, but ultimately, we have to trust in our own ability to discern for ourselves via our interpretation of the Spirit.  We have to be ok with making mistakes and being corrected along the process - just like prophets do.  

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Pogi asks another interesting question.

Jesus, I think, is spot on here.  

Notice that Bacon's problem here is not a failure to be rational or scientific or well informed, and certainly not sin or a lack of purity.   The problem is that he supposes that he himself is free of prejudice. He supposes that while he observes things objectively, without theorizing, and simply sees things as they are.   He supposes that ideology and theory happens only to other people.  The problem is that is not self reflective, self critical, not aware of the beam in his own eye.  He could, in fact, do a great deal more than just trust his own intuitions and training and traditions.  He could actually imagine what he would see if he were an observer on an earth that moved around the sun, and how that might better account for those odd planetary motions that vexed people like Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo.

Excellent example!

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I don't think "blindly trust" is called for.  Rather than "blindly trust" God, Abraham had in his long life on many times seen a substitute provided in several life threatening situations for himself and loved ones, so that that when he declares, "I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." and that "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering" (Gen. 22), all this is not because he was blind, but because of what he had seen and experienced many times before.  (See Nibley's "The Sacrifice of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Sarah" for details.) We're not told to start with a desire to believe, and stop forever.  But rather, take that desire to an experiment (Alma 32), and then continue making experiments forever, with the notion that the process will provide discernable evidence, and ongoing enlightenment of the mind, and enlargement of the soul, and future promise worth the ongoing effort required.  Not perfect knowledge, but not perpetual blindness either.  Rather, accumulating and progressive "cause to believe."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I think we are probably mostly on the same page with things, although I am intrigued and could see myself being persuaded by the Jewish (not all Jews) interpretation of this Biblical event that Benjamin McGuire notes above. 

Quote

Not perfect knowledge, but not perpetual blindness either.  Rather, accumulating and progressive "cause to believe.

Well said! 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by pogi