Recent Poll Re: Assessment of Priesthood Ban

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Nor shall you- anything you eat from this point forward is not breakfast.

😜

It ended up being a salad, so you are probably right in labeling it “not breakfast”.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Possibly, but I think the initial change was really like a Nathan-David situation. It was good intentioned- not having children enter into a covenant that is not going to be reinforced at home- but as the Spirit spoke to them and illuminated scripture (as with temple witnesses), they realized that the policy need to be changed- as the parents, not the Church, are responsible for seeing that their children are raised in the "fear and admonition of the Lord", and if they present their children for baptism affirming that the ae willing to educate their children in the Restored Gospel, failure to do that falls on their own heads and the "garments" of the Church are clean.

And while very, very possible, that is not the way Elder Nelson present it as happening. 

(I see another possibility as good, better, best where they presented a good policy to be approved of by the Lord but not the best; no doubt there are other ways to look at it and still accept it as revelation)

Edited May 18 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

And while very, very possible, that is not the way Elder Nelson present it as happening. 

(I see another possibility as good, better, best where they presented a good policy to be approved of by the Lord but not the best; no doubt there are other ways to look at it and still accept it as revelation)

I will grant this... maybe they need to dial back on saying everything is a "revelatory experience" and limit that language to the big changes where they can point to a more "Thus saith the Lord..." type thing. 

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

A policy which lasted all of what 3-4 years?

 

It happens.

I am not sure what your point is, but this was not a policy.  Pres. Nelson himself doubled down on it being a revelation.  Then three years later he pulled a 180 and blamed it on God.  This was not one of his best moments.

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

The same principles apply. Posted 36 minutes ago 

Is the "right side of history" ultimately in fulfillment of revelation (like the restoration of the keys in Kirtland Temple) or in setting of policy (which falls under the purview of the administrative keys restored long before that)?

I'm not going to argue, but I am going to draw back from painting with a wide brush.  Yes, the does do good things.  Of course, it does.  So do the Salvation Army, the Baptist, and many other organizations.  Their track record is about as good as ours.  The difference is that they don't claim special revelatory privileges (their leaders don't see around corners) and at least in the case of the Baptist, they apologize for their racist past.  We ho-hum around and make up excuses for our racist past.

[Rain]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

It ended up being a salad, so you are probably right in labeling it “not breakfast”.

It is not uncommon to eat salad in Israel for breakfast.  The first morning I saw it I thought it was wild, but learned nope, lots of people have it.  

Since breakfast means to break your nighttime fast I'm not sure timing matters. 

[MiserereNobis]

18 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Nor shall you- anything you eat from this point forward is not breakfast.

😜

[ZealouslyStriving]

51 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well played, sir... well played.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I'm not going to argue, but I am going to draw back from painting with a wide brush.  Yes, the does do good things.  Of course, it does.  So do the Salvation Army, the Baptist, and many other organizations.  Their track record is about as good as ours.  The difference is that they don't claim special revelatory privileges (their leaders don't see around corners) and at least in the case of the Baptist, they apologize for their racist past.  We ho-hum around and make up excuses for our racist past.

My remark was not about comparing the Church with other organizations which do good things.

Apologizing for a racist past is about as nonspecific as anyone can get; I think you really mean an apology for the ban. Revelation is a reasonable religious tenet, and no ancient or modern scripture shows that Jesus has apologized for the bad deeds and mistakes of those who have taken His name. In turn, His Church does not apologize because the more powerful principle ties the keys of His kingdom (as I described them) with bringing all His children home.

I think making the right side of history conditional on an apology pales in comparison to actual deeds. The Church has done remarkably well with implementing doctrine and policy that eliminates racist behavior individually and collectively -- certainly better than the rest of the world. I would say that what you deem as waffling is actually forbearance.

Edited May 19 by CV75

[Teancum]

On 5/16/2024 at 9:32 PM, MiserereNobis said:

None of the early Catholic leaders did these things, but isn’t the LDS position that they were in apostasy? So one can be in apostasy while still not doing the things in your list?

@smac97has lowerd the bar. Extremely low. If testifying of Jesus Christ as well as the "restored gospel" then his bar is a lot lower  that it was for much  of the history of Mormonism. I get it. It helps to marginalize and diminish difficult problems that Mormonism presents and honest mistakes. 

[Teancum]

On 5/18/2024 at 3:21 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm wondering what the critics here thinks of the many, who in spite of the Priesthood prohibition, joined the Church and actively, faithfully, and joyfully participated for their entire lives.

The many what?

[MrShorty]

On 5/18/2024 at 1:14 PM, CV75 said:

I think during the ban, Church members had the opportunity to celebrate and include friends of other races as equals, but they did not have the keys to change policy.

Of course, you are correct. Pres. Oaks summed it up so well in his 2018 talk at the Be One Celebration when he talked about not having a testimony of the reasons for the ban, but choosing to be loyal to the church and the brethren. Since then, I have often wondered just how much this kind of deference to key holders makes us conservative and, thus, prone to perpetuate errors and resist correcting them. Maybe at some level, part of my decisions to move into more of a "cafeteria Mormon" space is that I'm less and less comfortable with simply deferring to key holders for moral decisions.

On 5/18/2024 at 1:14 PM, CV75 said:

We can always live according to the dictates of our conscience under any circumstance.

True enough, and, again, part of my move towards more of a cafeteria Mormon space. I think the real tension I feel is that, as a so-called "high demand religion," it isn't always easy to pick and choose what I will and won't accept. But, I'm getting better at it.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Of course, you are correct. Pres. Oaks summed it up so well in his 2018 talk at the Be One Celebration when he talked about not having a testimony of the reasons for the ban, but choosing to be loyal to the church and the brethren. Since then, I have often wondered just how much this kind of deference to key holders makes us conservative and, thus, prone to perpetuate errors and resist correcting them. Maybe at some level, part of my decisions to move into more of a "cafeteria Mormon" space is that I'm less and less comfortable with simply deferring to key holders for moral decisions.

True enough, and, again, part of my move towards more of a cafeteria Mormon space. I think the real tension I feel is that, as a so-called "high demand religion," it isn't always easy to pick and choose what I will and won't accept. But, I'm getting better at it.

There are pros and cons for both being conservative and liberal orientation, so I don't think that is the issue. I don't think there are any cons to living by the dictates of our conscience, because by definition the light of Christ grows as we abide in it, whether we are liberal or conservative by nature. This is why I think an understanding of the kinds of keys is essential in balancing or integrating our conscience and the gift of the Holy Ghost with our conservative/liberal orientation.

[Amulek]

On 5/19/2024 at 8:41 AM, Rain said:

It is not uncommon to eat salad in Israel for breakfast.

Well, I'm in Texas so that would be one heck of a commute. Probably best that I just continue to skip breakfast in general - except on special occasions.

 

[smac97]

On 5/16/2024 at 7:32 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

If the Brethren start dissuading us from having faith in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as our Savior and Redeemer, and from repenting, and from serving others, and from loving our fellow man, and from obeying the Lord's commandments, and so on, then I will give some consideration to your suggestion that we may "have a problem with a leadership that was in apostasy or really are not prophets, seers and revelators."

None of the early Catholic leaders did these things, but isn’t the LDS position that they were in apostasy?

That would, I think, depend on the individual.  The "LDS position" on the Great Apostasy originated with the loss of priesthood authority.

On 5/16/2024 at 7:32 PM, MiserereNobis said:

So one can be in apostasy while still not doing the things in your list?

One can lack authority to hold and exercise the priesthood, to officiate in sacred ordinances, etc., but still do the things noted above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

I would like a statement from God declaring Joseph Smith wrong in ordaining blacks to the priesthood. Next, a statement from God declaring that blacks are no longer allowed to hold the priesthood. Finally, a statement from God on why He changed His mind in 1978. I'm just asking for simple clarification without need for speculation, odd reasoning, plausible deniability, mental gymnastics, or poorly stated rationalizations by finite mortals on the behalf of a 100% consistent yesterday, today and forever God. This is a perfectly simple request. 

[Teancum]

On 5/16/2024 at 4:00 PM, smac97 said:

The scriptures have all sorts of examples of "believers" materially screwing up after having experienced or accepted as true miraculous events and teachings.

The children of Israel were committing great wrongs while Moses was up in the mount.  Their misconduct does not negate the reality that Moses was communing with God.

Laman and Lemuel started grumbling right after an angel stopped them from continuing to beat up Nephi.  Their grumbling does not negate the reality of the angelic visitation.

Isn't this what you would call an appeal to authority? But regardless, I do not find your use of other failures of mythical prophets compelling at all. It just shows that like those who claim to be modern day prophets, seers and revelators, they really have no special guidance and anyone can determine the proper moral path without them

 

On 5/16/2024 at 4:00 PM, smac97 said:

The "truth claims of the church" center mostly on Joseph Smith's theophanies, ministrations, priesthood restoration, revelations, and the bringing forth of The Book of Mormon.  If the ban was not revelatory, that is truly a great error and tragedy, and its negative repercussions continue to this day.  But such errors do not retroactively negate what happened to, and what came through, Joseph Smith.

Perhaps the initial focus is what you outline, but it does not stop there. ETB's 14 Fundamentals of a Prophet establishes a much higher level of trust in the LDS leadership than your opinions do. Was he wrong as well? Who should I believe? You or the at the time President of the Qo12?

 

On 5/16/2024 at 4:00 PM, smac97 said:

For me, if The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then it and the other "truth claims" come together to form a pretty sturdy basis for belief, even in the face of great controversies like the ban.

Thanks,

-Smac

that is a BIG IF. But if your IF is correct, one could argue the Mormonism you follow is in grave apostasy.

[smac97]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

If they led the church in error on this for a over a hundred years it seems to me that you have a problem with a leadership that was in apostasy or really are not prophets, seers and revelators. 

If the Brethren start dissuading us from having faith in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as our Savior and Redeemer, and from repenting, and from serving others, and from loving our fellow man, and from obeying the Lord's commandments, and so on, then I will give some consideration to your suggestion that we may "have a problem with a leadership that was in apostasy or really are not prophets, seers and revelators."

@smac97 has lowerd the bar. Extremely low.

Well, no.  The bar hasn't changed.  I think the issue here is that some have implicit expectations of perfection in prophets and apostles, and anything less than that is "lowering the bar."

I think the Priesthood Ban is likely the low-water mark for the Church.  In the absence of revelatory provenance, it was a policy implemented by Brigham Young, originated mostly in racialist sentiments of the 19th century (though couched in "lineage" terms as a doctrinal justification), and became so entrenched by the passage of time (and by ongoing, though gradually diminishing, racialist sentiments amongst the leaders of the Church) that it required a revelation to uproot it and set it aside.  The perpetuation of the ban is, like its origins, something of a lacuna for me.

Folks in 2024, being comfortably ensconced in the warm embrace of presentism and hindsight, can and will look back at the lives of long-dead historical figures, decontextualize their lives, narrow examination of their lives to their faults only, and then - not surprisingly - end up condemning them.  I prefer a more comprehensive assessment, which I previously laid out here:

Quote

There is a strong temptation in our "Cancel Culture"-saturated mileu to reduce the entirety of a historical person's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities.  So Moses becomes a murderer.  Noah becomes a drunkard.  Thomas Jefferson and George Washington become slaveowners.  Martin Luther King, Jr. becomes an adulterer and plagiarist.  Gandhi was a sexist and racist.  And that's all they were.

And here (in another discussion with you) :

Quote

Quote

Quote

Mormon 9:31 kicks in a lot for me these days, particularly when the flaws and errors of notable historical figures are under discussion.  

Good for you.  Do you  extend the same courtesy to other disreputable characters from that human history is littered with?

Do you still torture puppies for fun and profit?  (This is the part where we trade loaded questions, right?)  

I've long understood that a big part of the "Mormonism Sucks!" narrative is that the Latter-day Saints are too self-righteous and judgy.  But here you seem to be put off because I am not joining you in publicly condemning long-dead historical figures.  Oh, well.

I made this comment last year:

Quote

Avoidance/Mitigation of Presentism: "Presentism," that is, "uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts," is a poor basis for either generalized historiography or passing condemnatory moral judgments on people long dead.  It "transforms the study of history from an intellectually honest inquiry into a mass of politically and emotionally charged means of furthering political and social agendas that have nothing to do with a genuine intellectual interest in learning the cultural roots of our current cultural ideals and realities."  It is, "at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation" because "{i}nterpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior."  Consequently, "{o}ur forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards."  Presentism therefore ought to be avoided, or at lease acknowledged and addressed in discussions such as these, as it enables us to contextualize and understand the past, and therefore take lessons in both emulating our predecessors' virtues and strengths and avoiding or overcoming their weaknesses and failures.  That is, of course, "not to say that any of these findings are irrelevant or that we should endorse an entirely relativist point of view."  Rather, "we must question the stance of temporal superiority that is implicit {in presentism}."  Historical figures ought to be viewed in ways that involve more than condemning them for their failures and mistakes and errors.  

Avoidance of Expectations/Requirements of Infallibility: In the particular context of the Restored Gospel, there are ample admissions, both ancient and modern, that the oracles of God are imperfect and make mistakes, including substantial ones.  Notions of infallibility, whether explicit or implicit, must be set aside.

Neither Condemn Nor Ignore, but Learn: In assessing the failings and errors of past and present leaders in the Church, although we need to avoid notions of infallibility, we still need to come to terms with those failings/errors.  I think the best way to do that is to apply Mormon 9:31: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."  We ought to neither justify nor condemn nor ignore historical figures for their mistakes and shortcomings, but rather learn from them.  "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."  (3 Nephi 14:2.)  

Failures are Often Not Definitive: We are living in an era in which virtual online retreads of the Cadaver Synod.  We deploy presentism to rise up and publicly proclaim our own supposed virtues and superiority by condemning long-dead historical figures.  We reduce the entirety of a historical person's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities.  So Moses becomes a murderer.  Noah becomes a drunkard.  Thomas Jefferson and George Washington become slaveowners.  Martin Luther King, Jr. becomes an adulterer and plagiarist.  Gandhi was a sexist and racist.  And that's all they were.  This is a serious mistake in reasoning, historiography, and discipleship.

FWIW.

But to directly answer your question: In the main, when the flaws and errors of notable historical figures are under discussion, I tend to deploy, sooner or later, Mormon 9:31.

In your view, is Martin Luther King, Jr. a "disreputable character"?

Was Winston Churchill?

Was Harvey Milk?

You are reducing the entirety of a Brigham Young's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities, and nothing else counts or matters.  It is the easiest thing in the world for us in 2024 sit comfortably in an insulated and heated home and peck away on a laptop to retroactively judge and condemn people we've never met, whose lives hewed much closer to misfortune, privation and death than ours, who were in circumstances substantially more difficult than ours, who lacked much of the information and contextualization we now enjoy (and all of our hindsight), who faced choices far more difficult than ours, and so on.

I can and do acknowledge Brigham Young's flaws and mistakes, but in the main, I think Mormon 9:31 is the better way to go.  The man is dead.  He cannot be tried for his mistakes and wrongdoings, not by us, anyway.  

We ought to neither condemn nor ignore our forebears, and should instead learn from them.  We should study those who came before, and emulate their virtues and strengths and successes, and also learn from and avoid their vices and weaknesses and failures.  And all the while "give thanks unto God that he had made manifest unto {us} {our ancestors'} imperfections, that {we} may learn to be more wise than {they were}."

I remain persuaded that the "truth claims of the church" center mostly on Joseph Smith's theophanies, ministrations, priesthood restoration, revelations, and the bringing forth of The Book of Mormon.  If the ban was not revelatory, that is truly a great error and tragedy, and its negative repercussions continue to this day.  But such errors do not retroactively negate what happened to, and what came through, Joseph Smith.  That is not "lowering the bar."  That is, instead, declining to follow you down the path of faultfinding, presentism, and so on.

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

If testifying of Jesus Christ as well as the "restored gospel" then his bar is a lot lower that it was for much  of the history of Mormonism. I get it. It helps to marginalize and diminish difficult problems that Mormonism presents and honest mistakes. 

I have repeatedly called the ban "a great error and tragedy."  This neither "marginalize{s}" nor "diminish{es}" it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

On 5/16/2024 at 11:47 AM, MrShorty said:

the church wants to leave the past in the past and look forward to the future.

The Church wants to leave parts of the past in the past so it can look forward to the future.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The scriptures have all sorts of examples of "believers" materially screwing up after having experienced or accepted as true miraculous events and teachings.

The children of Israel were committing great wrongs while Moses was up in the mount.  Their misconduct does not negate the reality that Moses was communing with God.

Laman and Lemuel started grumbling right after an angel stopped them from continuing to beat up Nephi.  Their grumbling does not negate the reality of the angelic visitation.

Isn't this what you would call an appeal to authority?

No. 

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But regardless, I do not find your use of other failures of mythical prophets compelling at all.

Isn't that what you would call "special pleading?"  Or "No True Scotsman?"

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It just shows that like those who claim to be modern day prophets, seers and revelators, they really have no special guidance and anyone can determine the proper moral path without them

This is, in my view, the "fallacy of false dilemma."  Either the Brethren are inspired and utterly, pristinely correct in everything they do and say, or else they have no value at all in a prophetic capacity.  I just can't go along with that.  Ancient prophets and apostles messed up, too.  

Additionally or alternatively, this is an example of the Nirvana Fallacy.  That is, falsifying X by comparing it with unrealistic, idealized alternatives of what, in the individual's mind, X should be.

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The "truth claims of the church" center mostly on Joseph Smith's theophanies, ministrations, priesthood restoration, revelations, and the bringing forth of The Book of Mormon.  If the ban was not revelatory, that is truly a great error and tragedy, and its negative repercussions continue to this day.  But such errors do not retroactively negate what happened to, and what came through, Joseph Smith.

Perhaps the initial focus is what you outline, but it does not stop there.

I agree.  But it does return there.  I have previously noted the Hafens' idea of a tripartite, or three-phase, progression of faith, which both begins (Phase 1) and then returns (Phase 3) with an exercise of faith in the truth claims of the Church.  The intervening step (Phase 2) is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.”  Where we juxtapose the "ideal" with the "real."  I think many of those who, having been a member of the Church, encounter a faith crisis do so in Phase 2 ("struggl{ing} with conflicts and uncertainty," often derived from things can can, or ought to be, considered in light of Mormon 9:31 and the Nirvana Fallacy).  If these folks do not see a way forward to Phase 3, then they often leave.  This board has helped me get to, and remain in, Phase 3 ("a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience").

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

ETB's 14 Fundamentals of a Prophet establishes a much higher level of trust in the LDS leadership than your opinions do. Was he wrong as well? Who should I believe? You or the at the time President of the Qo12?

I don't see a conflict between what Pres. Benson said and what I have said.

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

For me, if The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then it and the other "truth claims" come together to form a pretty sturdy basis for belief, even in the face of great controversies like the ban.

that is a BIG IF.

Yes.  And one that is not going to be answered via online debates.  Not really.

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But if your IF is correct, one could argue the Mormonism you follow is in grave apostasy.

Yes, one could.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 20 by smac97

[MrShorty]

22 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The Church wants to leave parts of the past in the past so it can look forward to the future.

The church's own, institutional version of "cafeteria Mormonism?"

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Well, I'm in Texas so that would be one heck of a commute. Probably best that I just continue to skip breakfast in general - except on special occasions.

 

I found I like it so much I occasionally eat it here.  

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

The Church wants to leave parts of the past in the past so it can look forward to the future.

That’s not how forgiveness works between humans.  
 

Stop talking about my boyfriend!  I broke up with him. Let’s talk about our future.  Let it go, husband. 
 

Never works. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

That’s not how forgiveness works between humans.  
 

Stop talking about my boyfriend!  I broke up with him. Let’s talk about our future.  Let it go, husband. 
 

Never works. 

I agree it is hard to make forgiveness work, but I have seen how with Christ as part of the deal, it works.

For example, from John 8: Stop talking about stoning that woman! Check your conscience with my sayings in mind. I do not condemn her. Woman, I do not condemn you; go and sin no more. These scribes and Pharisees had enough of a conscience to stop and reflect on an answer they may not have liked! I understand your example above is to show how such a couple would need to put a lot more work into than what seems to be implied, and I think living the Gospel helps couples in this situation (and eventually the four statements are perfectly appropriate in the context where the forgiveness formula is followed with Christ at the center).

I cannot find a precedent where Jesus apologized for the bad deeds and mistakes of those who have taken His name upon them, members and leaders alike. His Church would follow suit.

As far as I can tell, the Church has done better than the world at large with implementing doctrine and policy that eliminates racist behavior individually and collectively. For example, the Church had the ban for 120 years of its 178 years existence, and has only moved forward in the last 44 years, and without argument or resistance. I compare that with the USA, which had what can be deemed racist policies since its inception (and even 100 years prior during colonial times), let's say for over 250 years, and still challenged with broader acceptance since 1866/70 when the first civil rights act was passed, and even since 1964 when the latest amendment was passed.

 

Edited May 20 by CV75

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I agree it is hard to make forgiveness work, but I have seen how with Christ as part of the deal, it works.

For example, from John 8: Stop talking about stoning that woman! Check your conscience with my sayings in mind. I do not condemn her. Woman, I do not condemn you; go and sin no more. These scribes and Pharisees had enough of a conscience to stop and reflect on an answer they may not have liked! I understand your example above is to show how such a couple would need to put a lot more work into than what seems to be implied, and I think living the Gospel helps couples in this situation (and eventually the four statements are perfectly appropriate in the context where the forgiveness formula is followed with Christ at the center).

I cannot find a precedent where Jesus apologized for the bad deeds and mistakes of those who have taken His name upon them, members and leaders alike. His Church would follow suit.

As far as I can tell, the Church has done better than the world at large with implementing doctrine and policy that eliminates racist behavior individually and collectively. For example, the Church had the ban for 120 years of its 178 years existence, and has only moved forward in the last 44 years, and without argument or resistance. I compare that with the USA, which had what can be deemed racist policies since its inception (and even 100 years prior during colonial times), let's say for over 250 years, and still challenged with broader acceptance since 1866/70 when the first civil rights act was passed, and even since 1964 when the latest amendment was passed.

 

We will agree to disagree. I trust if Jesus did something to hurt me he would own it out loud to me.  Irony here is He  will never do anything to hurt me.  
The church isn’t Jesus.  The church is flawed.  

Edited May 21 by MustardSeed