Recent Poll Re: Assessment of Priesthood Ban

[CV75]

11 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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.  

I'm not sure I entirely disagree with you, I just seem to manage the same issue differently. I beleive the Lord knows His servants do everything on a learning curve and make mistakes. He still doesn't apologize for them,  as indicated when they made mistakes and wrongdping during His mortal mission or His visit to the Nephites. Or in the Acts. He does not command them to apologize when things go sideways in the D&C. Instead, He invites everyone to be converted with the promise that He will heal them. He is the one who makes things right, and the Church seems to be doing what needs to be done in fulfilling her purpose, and n the case of the ban, better than any other organization that has made like changes.

Perhaps a tangent, but as far as I know, no splinter group separated on the basis of the ban or along racial lines.

[Teancum]

On 5/20/2024 at 1:45 PM, smac97 said:

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 it has. And many others do as well. I am sure we won't agree on this. Readers can decide.

On 5/20/2024 at 1:45 PM, smac97 said:

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.

I know this is what you think.  I think you are right. But the leaders from Brigham Young through Spencer Kimball seemed to think differently and said as much. I think their words have more weight in this matter than what you think. 

On 5/20/2024 at 1:45 PM, smac97 said:

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:

I have no interest in weeding through your links to your many prior comments on this board. I do not think this is presentism at all. I readily concede that Brigham and team were products of their time as are their successors. And my focus here is not on a narrow examination of their lives at all. It is an examination of their claims to be prophets, seers and revelators. And the major miss and clear reluctance to reveres the ban seems to be evidence that refutes that claim.  The ban was not a small minor policy. It had major impact for a particular group of human beings as well as a formation of that is now tossed away as speculation and personal opinion as to the reason for the ban.

 

On 5/20/2024 at 1:45 PM, smac97 said:

And here (in another discussion with you) :

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.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

You can disparage me all you want with your name calling and labeling. I still think that you and other apologists have and  do lower the bar for what we should expect from prophets, seers and revelators. And stop sayin that for me it is an either or. It is not. My complaint is on a a few major issues that it seems they got wrong.  Issues of doctrine and policy that seem fairly important and the alleged mistakes egregious. It is not an unreasonable expectation that those claiming to be prophets, seers and revelators get the big things right.

Edited May 22 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 5/18/2024 at 4:12 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

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

One that was allegedly revelation when imposed and one that was revelation when revoked. 😏

But @sunstoneddid not know in 2015 that the awful policy would be reversed in a few years.  And his list of issues included many other besides the gay marriage policy. 

[Teancum]

On 5/18/2024 at 5:06 PM, Calm said:

My memory may be wrong in this, but I thought an apostle had referred to the policy as a revelation.  Will need to look for it later.

THen Elder Nelson said it was revelation.

[Teancum]

On 5/18/2024 at 5:37 PM, 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.

THere was not any "spirit" involved. A policy change was made that was likely driven by the SCOTUS decision that made same sex marriage legal. Leaders of the church wanted to send a message to member that same sex marriage was still taboo. And the policy change blew up in their face with more backlash then they expected. So they reversed it.

[Teancum]

On 5/20/2024 at 2:00 PM, smac97 said:

No. 

Seems like it.  Maybe I don't understand the appeal to authority definition well enough.

 

 

On 5/20/2024 at 2:00 PM, smac97 said:

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

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.  

This is a straw man. I never made this argument. But I do believe if so called prophets, seers and revelators can get it so wrong on matters of great importance, and I think the priesthood ban is one of those, then how can I trust the in other things. And I would apply the same standard to self proclaimed ancient prophets as well.

 

On 5/20/2024 at 2:00 PM, smac97 said:

 

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").

Well I guess I never made it to phase 3.

 

 

On 5/20/2024 at 2:00 PM, smac97 said:

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

I sure do.

On 5/20/2024 at 2:00 PM, smac97 said:

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok

[Teancum]

On 5/16/2024 at 6:18 PM, smac97 said:

How would I do that?  They're all dead.

I am sure you understood I was using hyperbole. But we have their many comments on this topic so there is not really any question as to what they thought and taught about the ban. 

 

On 5/16/2024 at 6:18 PM, smac97 said:

 

Meanwhile, the living "leaders of Mormonism" have, for many decades now, providing excellent counsel condemning racism, including explicit repudiations in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay

Yes and so? That has no bearing on the fact that for 150 years or so prophets, seers and revelators taught that the ban originated from God and required a revelation to reverse it.  

I was very happy in June 1978 when the ban was lifted. I am glad the leaders teach that racism is wrong. But I have never heard them essentially state that this was a mistake, it was wrong and so on. Not once. If I missed it please be provide a reference. In fact President Oaks at anniversary celebration stated that the explanations for the ban never resonated with him but that he had learned that when God commands there is often no explanation.  I interpret that to mean "don't blame us, the prophets, seers and revelators. This was from God."

On 5/16/2024 at 6:18 PM, smac97 said:

\

On 5/16/2024 at 4:41 PM, Teancum said:

The men who claimed to be prophets and apostles.  The ones that say they are prophets, seers and revelators.

Yes.  Good men who, nevertheless, are not perfect and can - and do - make mistakes.

As noted I don't expect that they would never make mistakes. But also as noted, on major policy and doctrinal issues I do expect them to get it right. And if something like the ban was actually introduced by Brigham and was an error then it should not have taken 150 years or so to fix it.  Also, as noted, I don't buy the culture, social aspect that people would not be ready to accept blacks having the priesthood totally bogus. As I have said many times, polygamy most certainly was not culturally or socially acceptable. Yet the prophets, seers and revelators seemed to readily accept plural marriage, endorse it and eventually promote it even as necessary for exaltation. So don't tell me the people were not ready to accept lifting the ban and but they were quite ready to embrace plural marriage.

On 5/16/2024 at 6:18 PM, smac97 said:

On 5/16/2024 at 4:41 PM, Teancum said:

The ones that say "Follow the brethren."  

I've spent my life "follow{ing} the brethren," and have benefitted enormously from doing so.

Yes and so?  And you have no way of knowing how much better or worse your life would be without following the brethren. But I don't attempt to marginalize or dispute that I also personally benefited fromt he values that Mormonism helped make part of who I am.

On 5/16/2024 at 6:18 PM, smac97 said:

I have a friend with whom I recently had a very heart-felt discussion (my wife was also present).  He has been going through some real struggles.  He's younger than me, but he's known me and my family a long time.  He said he hopes someday to have a wife and children, and to give them the same sort of life he experienced growing up and which he now sees in my family.  My friend, like you, grew up in the Church, but has distanced himself from it and presently holds it in very low regard.

I respectfully submit that the Latter-day Saints who well and truly strive to live according to the teachings of the Church generally end up as decent, sometimes even very decent, people.

Yes and so what?  I would submit that most the values that make Latter-day Saint decent people are not terribly unique to Mormonism.  Perhaps your exposure to no LDS people is limited but I have spent my entire adult life outside of Utah and interact with people from all walks of life and beliefs. And most of these people are as decent and any Latter-day Saint I know.  And some better. And some worse. 

 

On 5/16/2024 at 6:18 PM, smac97 said:

 

 I further submit that this generalized state of affairs exists and arises because these Latter-day Saints are attempting to do what you deride and hold in contempt. 

I am not sure what things Latter-day Saints are doing that you think I deride and hold in contempt.

 

On 5/16/2024 at 6:18 PM, smac97 said:

 

If the Latter-day Saints are good, it is not despite of their "follow{ing} the Brethren," but because they are doing so.

I am not sure how you can empirically determine this. But I said that Mormonism can provide a relatively decent set of values and morals that if applied can help people become decent and good humans. And almost everyone of those values and morals ARE NOT unique to Mormonism and can be found elsewhere. 

In other words Mormons are not all that special.  Though many think they are.  But who know, maybe without Mormonism many Latter-day Saints might be hedonistic sinners. I know that is what many active members think will happen  if they or someone abandons Mormonism.  But it is a false assumption for most.

On 5/16/2024 at 6:18 PM, smac97 said:

On 5/16/2024 at 4:41 PM, Teancum said:

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."

As it is, however, the Brethren are doing all of these things.  A lot.

So prophets, seers and revelators these days really don't prophecy or receive revelation all that much apparently. They are just there to testify of Jesus, Joseph Smith, the BoM and the "restored" gospel. Got it. This is why I say you have a pretty low bar.

On 5/16/2024 at 6:18 PM, smac97 said:

On 5/16/2024 at 4:41 PM, Teancum said:

They are the ones who said it. They are the ones claiming to be prophets, seers and revelators. My opinion is that this is problematic. I am sure you disagree. The LDS leaders can pretty much make whatever error large or small and you will find a way to spin it in their favor.  Your legal background seems well suited for that.

I don't "spin" errors "in their favor."  Rather, I seek to apply Mormon 9:31.  A lot.

Oh please.  Your are the king of spin in favor of the church. You excel at it.

On 5/16/2024 at 6:18 PM, smac97 said:

The Brethren aren't perfect, but I don't need them to be.  Apostles are supposed to testify of Jesus Christ.  The Brethren, both dead and alive, have cumulatively done an excellent job at this, their primary purpose.  They have elsewhere made mistakes, including some substantial ones.  The priesthood ban is, I think, the gravest.  There have been many others, though.

Like I said, that seems a pretty low bar based on what I was taught about the role of prophets, seers and revelators. But if it works for you, great.

[smac97]

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

Feel free to argue with almost all the past leaders of Mormonism.

How would I do that?  They're all dead.  Meanwhile, the living "leaders of Mormonism" have, for many decades now, providing excellent counsel condemning racism, including explicit repudiations in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay.

 

I am sure you understood I was using hyperbole.

Again, they people with whom you suggest I "argue" are all dead.  Meanwhile, the living "leaders of Mormonism" have, for many decades now, provided excellent counsel condemning racism, including explicit repudiations in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay.

So what is it you are expecting today's Latter-day Saints to do?

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

Meanwhile, the living "leaders of Mormonism" have, for many decades now, providing excellent counsel condemning racism, including explicit repudiations in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay

Yes and so? That has no bearing on the fact that for 150 years or so prophets, seers and revelators taught that the ban originated from God

I think the ban was seldom addressed.  And when it was, the same error was repeated.

If the ban was revelatory, I think we would need to have record of it in the archives of the Church.  It appears we have no such record.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

and required a revelation to reverse it.  

Apparently so.  The ban had become fairly deeply entrenched.  And in any event, seeking and obtaining revelation is a good thing.  I am glad the Brethren have corrected this apparent error.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

I was very happy in June 1978 when the ban was lifted. I am glad the leaders teach that racism is wrong. But I have never heard them essentially state that this was a mistake, it was wrong and so on. Not once.

"This" (as in "this was a mistake") is a reference to . . . the ban?  Or explanations for the ban?

From the Race and the Priesthood essay:

Quote

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.
...
Even after 1852, at least two black Latter-day Saints continued to hold the priesthood. When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied. Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City until her death in 1908, similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances. The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.

 

By the late 1940s and 1950s, racial integration was becoming more common in American life. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.

As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations” seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. The Book of Mormon declared that the gospel message of salvation should go forth to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.” While there were no limits on whom the Lord invited to “partake of his goodness” through baptism, the priesthood and temple restrictions created significant barriers, a point made increasingly evident as the Church spread in international locations with diverse and mixed racial heritages.

Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Latter-day Saints who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders.

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.” The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints, men and women. The First Presidency statement regarding the revelation was canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2.
...
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly. While Church records for individual members do not indicate an individual’s race or ethnicity, the number of Church members of African descent is now in the hundreds of thousands.

From Pres. Uchtdorf's 2013 talk in General Conference:

Quote

Mistakes of Imperfect People

And, to be perfectly frank, 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.

In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.

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.

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

Teancum in 2024: "I have never heard them essentially state that this was a mistake, it was wrong and so on. Not once."

This is another example of why I seldom give serious consideration to the demands and expectations of our critics.  They will never be satisfied.  

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

If I missed it please be provide a reference.

See above.

Next up: The "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

In fact President Oaks at anniversary celebration stated that the explanations for the ban never resonated with him but that he had learned that when God commands there is often no explanation.  

Here are Pres. Oaks' 2018 remarks.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Why was the revelation on the priesthood such an occasion of joy? As a young man in the legal profession, I lived in the Midwest and the East for 17 years. The restriction on the ordination and temple blessings of persons of African ancestry—almost invisible to me as I grew up in Utah—was a frequent subject of my conversations in my life in Chicago and Washington, D.C.

I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray—as promised from the beginning of these restrictions—that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple. Now that day had come, and I wept for joy.

Here Pres. Oaks explains that he "could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of" the "reasons then being given" for the ban (which, as noted above, seemed to be based in racialist thought).

And yet you still manage to find fault with him.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

I interpret that to mean "don't blame us, the prophets, seers and revelators. This was from God."

"This" (as in "This was from God") is a reference to . . . the ban?  Or is it a reference to the "day {that} would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple"?

If the former, how do you propose to attribute this sentiment to Pres. Oaks?

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

As noted I don't expect that they would never make mistakes.

There is almost always a "but" which follows those who deny having tacit expectations of prophetic infallibiltiy.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

But also as noted,

And there it is!

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

on major policy and doctrinal issues I do expect them to get it right.

So do I.  But what I don't expect is prophetic infallibility.  

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

And if something like the ban was actually introduced by Brigham and was an error then it should not have taken 150 years or so to fix it. 

What do you make of Pres. McKay's efforts noted above?

Quote

By the late 1940s and 1950s, racial integration was becoming more common in American life. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.

What timeframe would have been acceptable to you?  And why is your timeframe determinative?

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

Also, as noted, I don't buy the culture, social aspect that people would not be ready to accept blacks having the priesthood totally bogus.

That's fine.  This explanation is conjectural anyway.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

As I have said many times, polygamy most certainly was not culturally or socially acceptable. Yet the prophets, seers and revelators seemed to readily accept plural marriage, endorse it and eventually promote it even as necessary for exaltation.

Polygamy, unlike the ban, had clear revelatory origins and provenance. 

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

The ones that say "Follow the brethren."  

I've spent my life "follow{ing} the brethren," and have benefitted enormously from doing so.

 

Yes and so?  And you have no way of knowing how much better or worse your life would be without following the brethren.

I have a pretty good idea.  

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

But I don't attempt to marginalize or dispute that I also personally benefited from the values that Mormonism helped make part of who I am.

"You have no way of knowing" sure seems like an "attempt to marginalize or dispute."

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

I have a friend with whom I recently had a very heart-felt discussion (my wife was also present).  He has been going through some real struggles.  He's younger than me, but he's known me and my family a long time.  He said he hopes someday to have a wife and children, and to give them the same sort of life he experienced growing up and which he now sees in my family.  My friend, like you, grew up in the Church, but has distanced himself from it and presently holds it in very low regard.

I respectfully submit that the Latter-day Saints who well and truly strive to live according to the teachings of the Church generally end up as decent, sometimes even very decent, people.

Yes and so what?

My point is that the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it tend to have a beneficial effect, often a profound one, on those who strive to live according to these tenets.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

I would submit that most the values that make Latter-day Saint decent people are not terribly unique to Mormonism.

Many of the principles of the Restored Gospel are, in varying degrees and ways, found in many other faith traditions.  I am glad we agree on that.

I find it strange that you A) acknowledge that the Church's teachings "make Latter-day Saint decent people," but still B) rail against the Church as some terrible, malevolent thing.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

Perhaps your exposure to no LDS people is limited but I have spent my entire adult life outside of Utah and interact with people from all walks of life and beliefs. And most of these people are as decent and any Latter-day Saint I know.  And some better. And some worse. 

I have had similar experiences.  I don't think the Church has ever claimed a monopoly on good and decent people.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

I further submit that this generalized state of affairs exists and arises because these Latter-day Saints are attempting to do what you deride and hold in contempt. 

I am not sure what things Latter-day Saints are doing that you think I deride and hold in contempt.

The Church espouses a set of moral beliefs and teachings, and asks its members to abide by them.  When these members do this, they tend to become quite good and decent people.

Despite these results, you go out of your way to portray the Church as some terrible, malevolent thing.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

I am not sure how you can empirically determine this.

Well, we could ask Latter-day Saints whether thy believe living according to the tenets of their faith is beneficial.

We could also compare the effects of religiosity on people.  Daniel Peterson did so in 2017.  See here.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

But I said that Mormonism can provide a relatively decent set of values and morals that if applied can help people become decent and good humans. And almost everyone of those values and morals ARE NOT unique to Mormonism and can be found elsewhere.  In other words Mormons are not all that special. 

The Church espouses a set of moral beliefs and teachings, and asks its members to abide by them.  When these members do this, they tend to become quite good and decent people.

Despite these results, you go out of your way to portray the Church as some terrible, malevolent thing.

And you justify your hostility toward the Church by arguing that its espoused values are not exclusive to it.  That seems . . . odd. 

If I were to say "Hey, I think Mr. Rogers was a great guy and had a wonderful effect and influence on many people," would you dispute that with "Big deal!  Mr. Rogers wasn't the only nice person to ever have lived.  His attributes ARE NOT unique to him and can be found elsewhere."?

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum 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."

As it is, however, the Brethren are doing all of these things.  A lot.

So prophets, seers and revelators these days really don't prophecy or receive revelation all that much apparently.

I think they experience and express both both.  A lot.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

They are just there to testify of Jesus, Joseph Smith, the BoM and the "restored" gospel. Got it. This is why I say you have a pretty low bar.

Their primary function is to act as "Special Witnesses" of Jesus Christ.  See, e.g., here:

They also have obligations to strive to live virtuous lives, though such obligations are primarily to God and their families.  And in overwhelming measure, they appear to be good and decent people.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

They are the ones who said it. They are the ones claiming to be prophets, seers and revelators. My opinion is that this is problematic. I am sure you disagree. The LDS leaders can pretty much make whatever error large or small and you will find a way to spin it in their favor.  Your legal background seems well suited for that.

I don't "spin" errors "in their favor."  Rather, I seek to apply Mormon 9:31.  A lot.

 

Oh please.  Your are the king of spin in favor of the church. You excel at it.

If and when a prophet makes a mistake, I think Mormon 9:31 should apply.

On 5/22/2024 at 5:46 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

The Brethren aren't perfect, but I don't need them to be.  Apostles are supposed to testify of Jesus Christ.  The Brethren, both dead and alive, have cumulatively done an excellent job at this, their primary purpose.  They have elsewhere made mistakes, including some substantial ones.  The priesthood ban is, I think, the gravest.  There have been many others, though.

Like I said, that seems a pretty low bar based on what I was taught about the role of prophets, seers and revelators. But if it works for you, great.

Again, the Brethren are not perfect, but they do seem to be overwhelmingly good and decent people.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 1 by smac97

[smac97]

On 5/22/2024 at 8:52 AM, Teancum said:

Quote

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").

Well I guess I never made it to phase 3.

There is no particular guarantee that reaching "phase 3" means a person will stay there.  The scriptures are replete with "Endure to the End"-type exhortations.

I think many people who return to the Church do so after having reached, and then left, "Phase 3."

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

On 5/31/2024 at 12:45 PM, smac97 said:

So what is it you are expecting today's Latter-day Saints to do?

I can't speak for @Teancum's expectations, but, as for me, I really don't know what we can do.

For one, to answer the rhetorical form of the question, there is nothing we can do because we can't go back and change the past. All we can do is do our best to document what was said and done.

I think the biggest reason we don't know what we can do is observed in the survey data in the OP. We (collectively) don't even know what to believe about the priesthood and temple ban. With that kind of uncertainty, of course we won't know what to do. By itself, uncertainty wouldn't be that remarkable, because it should be okay to not know things. What I find really interesting is that we went from near complete certainty that God wanted the ban and why He wanted the ban to, as the data in the OP suggest, near complete uncertainty. I'm okay with the idea of a "continuing restoration" and how this particular issue might be part of a continuing restoration. But it is interesting to me that "restoration" would include going from "knowing" something to "not knowing" something.

Time will tell if our knowledge continues to change on this. Maybe in a few more years, as we get more documentation, we will continue to drift towards "knowing that the ban was not divinely inspired." In that hypothetical case, maybe we will eventually know enough to come up with some ideas for things we can "do" about it.

[Teancum]

On 5/31/2024 at 2:45 PM, smac97 said:

Again, they people with whom you suggest I "argue" are all dead.  Meanwhile, the living "leaders of Mormonism" have, for many decades now, provided excellent counsel condemning racism, including explicit repudiations in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay.

So what is it you are expecting today's Latter-day Saints to do?

I think the ban was seldom addressed.  And when it was, the same error was repeated.

If the ban was revelatory, I think we would need to have record of it in the archives of the Church.  It appears we have no such record.

Apparently so.  The ban had become fairly deeply entrenched.  And in any event, seeking and obtaining revelation is a good thing.  I am glad the Brethren have corrected this apparent error.

"This" (as in "this was a mistake") is a reference to . . . the ban?  Or explanations for the ban?

From the Race and the Priesthood essay:

From Pres. Uchtdorf's 2013 talk in General Conference:

Teancum in 2024: "I have never heard them essentially state that this was a mistake, it was wrong and so on. Not once."

This is another example of why I seldom give serious consideration to the demands and expectations of our critics.  They will never be satisfied.  

See above.

Next up: The "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Here are Pres. Oaks' 2018 remarks.  Some excerpts:

Here Pres. Oaks explains that he "could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of" the "reasons then being given" for the ban (which, as noted above, seemed to be based in racialist thought).

And yet you still manage to find fault with him.

"This" (as in "This was from God") is a reference to . . . the ban?  Or is it a reference to the "day {that} would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple"?

If the former, how do you propose to attribute this sentiment to Pres. Oaks?

There is almost always a "but" which follows those who deny having tacit expectations of prophetic infallibiltiy.

And there it is!

So do I.  But what I don't expect is prophetic infallibility.  

What do you make of Pres. McKay's efforts noted above?

What timeframe would have been acceptable to you?  And why is your timeframe determinative?

That's fine.  This explanation is conjectural anyway.

Polygamy, unlike the ban, had clear revelatory origins and provenance. 

I have a pretty good idea.  

"You have no way of knowing" sure seems like an "attempt to marginalize or dispute."

My point is that the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it tend to have a beneficial effect, often a profound one, on those who strive to live according to these tenets.

Many of the principles of the Restored Gospel are, in varying degrees and ways, found in many other faith traditions.  I am glad we agree on that.

I find it strange that you A) acknowledge that the Church's teachings "make Latter-day Saint decent people," but still B) rail against the Church as some terrible, malevolent thing.

I have had similar experiences.  I don't think the Church has ever claimed a monopoly on good and decent people.

The Church espouses a set of moral beliefs and teachings, and asks its members to abide by them.  When these members do this, they tend to become quite good and decent people.

Despite these results, you go out of your way to portray the Church as some terrible, malevolent thing.

Well, we could ask Latter-day Saints whether thy believe living according to the tenets of their faith is beneficial.

We could also compare the effects of religiosity on people.  Daniel Peterson did so in 2017.  See here.

The Church espouses a set of moral beliefs and teachings, and asks its members to abide by them.  When these members do this, they tend to become quite good and decent people.

Despite these results, you go out of your way to portray the Church as some terrible, malevolent thing.

And you justify your hostility toward the Church by arguing that its espoused values are not exclusive to it.  That seems . . . odd. 

If I were to say "Hey, I think Mr. Rogers was a great guy and had a wonderful effect and influence on many people," would you dispute that with "Big deal!  Mr. Rogers wasn't the only nice person to ever have lived.  His attributes ARE NOT unique to him and can be found elsewhere."?

I think they experience and express both both.  A lot.

Their primary function is to act as "Special Witnesses" of Jesus Christ.  See, e.g., here:

They also have obligations to strive to live virtuous lives, though such obligations are primarily to God and their families.  And in overwhelming measure, they appear to be good and decent people.

If and when a prophet makes a mistake, I think Mormon 9:31 should apply.

Again, the Brethren are not perfect, but they do seem to be overwhelmingly good and decent people.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think we have beat this one to death for now at least. If you are fine with a church and its leadership who claim that the church is led by direct revelation from God getting something so important so wrong for so ling then more power to you.  Direct revelation from God is supposed to be something that distinguishes Mormonism from other religions. It avoids apostasy. It ensures the doctrines are correct. It seems to me that the bumbling of the priesthood ban demonstrates quite well that while the LDS leaders are good decent men ( I never had argued they are not) they really do not have any more special insight or guidance to the will and mind of God than any other religious movement.  Your approach has further convinced me of the correctness of that conclusion.  But if it works for you then great.

[CV75]

On 6/3/2024 at 11:07 PM, MrShorty said:

I can't speak for @Teancum's expectations, but, as for me, I really don't know what we can do.

For one, to answer the rhetorical form of the question, there is nothing we can do because we can't go back and change the past. All we can do is do our best to document what was said and done.

I think the biggest reason we don't know what we can do is observed in the survey data in the OP. We (collectively) don't even know what to believe about the priesthood and temple ban. With that kind of uncertainty, of course we won't know what to do. By itself, uncertainty wouldn't be that remarkable, because it should be okay to not know things. What I find really interesting is that we went from near complete certainty that God wanted the ban and why He wanted the ban to, as the data in the OP suggest, near complete uncertainty. I'm okay with the idea of a "continuing restoration" and how this particular issue might be part of a continuing restoration. But it is interesting to me that "restoration" would include going from "knowing" something to "not knowing" something.

Time will tell if our knowledge continues to change on this. Maybe in a few more years, as we get more documentation, we will continue to drift towards "knowing that the ban was not divinely inspired." In that hypothetical case, maybe we will eventually know enough to come up with some ideas for things we can "do" about it.

I'm sure opinions will continue to evolve.

I think we have three things going on that impact each other: continuing restoration which typically involves revelation, continuing revelation on both restored and completely new matters, and the structure the Lord put in place for these two processes. I think this is evident in the restored leadership structure which establishes doctrine and policy (presidencies and quorums with keys, i.e., D&C 107:29).

Continuing restoration: Did the ban contradict anything that had been restored? We have many opinions, but has anyone today [pick a moment since 1830] received a revelation answering this specific question, and what did the Lord tell them to do about it?

Continuing revelation: Likewise, did the ban contradict anything that had been revealed and published to the saints and the world? Again, we have opinions, but has anyone since 1830 received a revelation answering this, including what do about it?

Structure: Did the ban contradict the structure of the quorum of three presidents, the earthly vehicle for restoration and restoration? I haven’t seen much discussion on this one. But this structure is the vehicle for all Church restoration and revelation and as such is a vital, essential factor in knowing and deciding what to do.

The ban seems to have had a neutral effect on the structure of three presidents, but an obvious effect on its racial composition. Where all are alike unto God, the racial structure of the First Presidency does not seem to be an eternal principle. We might have many opinions as to how Black men might have served as one or more of the three presidents before 1850 and then without any ban. But has anyone today received a revelation addressing this and what to do about it, considering this quorum's most fundamental role in continued restoration and revelation?

Edited June 11 by CV75

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think we have beat this one to death for now at least. If you are fine with a church and its leadership who claim that the church is led by direct revelation from God getting something so important so wrong for so ling then more power to you. 

Okay.

• Abraham misled Pharoah about his (Abraham's) wife. 
• Jacob tricked his father Isaac.  
• Moses killed an Egyptian and buried the body.
• David arranged the death of Uriah to steal Bathsheba.
• Solomon, the wisest of all, strayed.
• Jonah hated the people of Nineveh.
• Peter chopped a guy's ear off.
• Paul held the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen to death.
• Alma the Younger did all sorts of bad things.

As I have said previously:

Quote

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.

We are all of us sinners.  We all need grace and forgiveness.  Mormon 9:31 all the way, baby!

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Direct revelation from God is supposed to be something that distinguishes Mormonism from other religions.

Yes.  Infallible leaders, on the other hand, is not part of our doctrine.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

It avoids apostasy.

Is that what the revelation in 1978 did?

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

It ensures the doctrines are correct.

Is that what the revelation in 1978 did?

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me that the bumbling of the priesthood ban demonstrates quite well that while the LDS leaders are good decent men ( I never had argued they are not) they really do not have any more special insight or guidance to the will and mind of God than any other religious movement. 

Most of the time, their counsel is to reiterate and emphasize previously-revealed principles.  We sustain them as they guide the Church according to scriptures and continuing revelation.  I don't think two centuries of prophetic counsel can or ought be set aside because of the priesthood ban.  But reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

For me, The Book of Mormon and other foundational events of the Restoration, and my spiritual experiences with these things, are what keep me in the Church.  I don't think I would find these in "any other religious movement."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 11 by smac97

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

• Abraham misled Pharoah about his (Abraham's) wife. 
• Jacob tricked his father Isaac.  
• Moses killed an Egyptian and buried the body.
• David arranged the death of Uriah to steal Bathsheba.
• Solomon, the wisest of all, strayed.
• Jonah hated the people of Nineveh.
• Peter chopped a guy's ear off.
• Paul held the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen to death.
• Alma the Younger did all sorts of bad things.

What does pointing to what Teancum sees as mythological stories (and not the kinds of myths that actually happened but were rewritten/emphasis changed to fit a teaching narrative) demonstrate here?  Not following your thought process.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

What does pointing to what Teancum sees as mythological stories (and not the kinds of myths that actually happened but were rewritten/emphasis changed to fit a teaching narrative) demonstrate here?  Not following your thought process.

I am not speaking from Teancum's point of view, but from my own.  He too is critiquing my point of view.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not speaking from Teancum's point of view, but from my own.  He too is critiquing my point of view.

Thanks,

-Smac

So you are basically saying ‘I am okay with fallibility in my leaders because I see that prophets/spiritual leaders have always sinned/been immoral at times”?

Edited June 11 by Calm

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I am not speaking from Teancum's point of view, but from my own.  He too is critiquing my point of view.

So you are basically saying ‘I am okay with fallibility in my leaders because I see that prophets/spiritual leaders have always sinned/been immoral at times”?

Yes.  "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."  If the Lord can work with and through the likes of Moses, Abraham, Jonah, etc. despite their various flaws and sins, he can work with and through Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

Thought this was interesting to listen to, haven't finished but thought I'd share. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-happened-behind-the-scenes-before-and-after/id1289043118?i=1000657978471

c/p'd intro:

Forty-six years ago this month, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, under then-President Spencer W. Kimball, lifted its prohibition preventing Black men from entering the all-male priesthood and Black women and men from participating in temple rites.

This historic shift, the most significant since the faith stopped practicing polygamy, abruptly ended this racist ban, but it hardly ended racism within the church. After all, 126 years of theological justifications for the ban remained, including influential works such as “Mormon Doctrine” by apostle Bruce R. McConkie.

Cleanup still needed — and needs — to be done.

Building on President Gordon B. Hinckley’s outreach efforts, current church leader Russell M. Nelson has called on members to lead out against racism and has cemented ties with the NAACP.

Matthew Harris’ new book, “Second-Class Saints: Black Mormons and the Struggle for Racial Equality,” explores the history of the priesthood/temple ban, from its racist roots under Brigham Young to its removal and its aftermath, with an eye especially on its effects on Black Latter-day Saints.

With unprecedented access to the papers of Kimball, McConkie, Hugh B. Brown and Joseph Fielding Smith, Harris offers an insider view of the decision-making process among the church hierarchy regarding issues of race and this momentous move. Join us for this conversation.

[The Nehor]

On 5/20/2024 at 8:52 PM, MustardSeed said:

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.  

I find that second statement very unlikely. He hurt people in life both directly and indirectly.

[The Nehor]

On 5/20/2024 at 6:16 PM, CV75 said:

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.

This is a ridiculous comparison.

The Church did away with overt support for racism just behind the United States as a whole and there is little indication it would have done so if the surrounding culture hadn’t changed.

The Church and the US aren’t independent entities that can be compared in this way.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is a ridiculous comparison.

The Church did away with overt support for racism just behind the United States as a whole and there is little indication it would have done so if the surrounding culture hadn’t changed.

The Church and the US aren’t independent entities that can be compared in this way.

Keep reading (if you haven't).

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I find that second statement very unlikely. He hurt people in life both directly and indirectly.

Short term yes, I can’t imagine how hurt and possibly pissed off Mary and Joseph were by his staying in temple without letting them know. 

[Calm]

Quote

 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 withoutargument or resistance.

Without resistance or argument?  Maybe among the leaders and much of the membership, but I have heard of plenty of anecdotes among members of resistance and such and there is still plenty of outright racism in the Church that is at times justified by the ban.

[Teancum]

On 6/11/2024 at 5:17 PM, smac97 said:

Okay.

• Abraham misled Pharoah about his (Abraham's) wife. 
• Jacob tricked his father Isaac.  
• Moses killed an Egyptian and buried the body.
• David arranged the death of Uriah to steal Bathsheba.
• Solomon, the wisest of all, strayed.
• Jonah hated the people of Nineveh.
• Peter chopped a guy's ear off.
• Paul held the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen to death.
• Alma the Younger did all sorts of bad things.

All great evidence that these stories, or more likely myths, and the people involved had no better insight to what god wants then anyone else.  An appeal to the bible does not persuade me. The bible is just writings of people thousands of years ago trying to make sense of the world.  They made a god in their image not visa versa.

 

On 6/11/2024 at 5:17 PM, smac97 said:

As I have said previously:

We are all of us sinners.  We all need grace and forgiveness.  Mormon 9:31 all the way, baby!

Ok. So?  You and I do not claim to know the mind and will of God. 

On 6/11/2024 at 5:17 PM, smac97 said:

Yes.  Infallible leaders, on the other hand, is not part of our doctrine.

I never have argued infallibility nor am I now. But I do expect men who claim to be led by direct revelation to get the major things correct, or to fix errors that creep in. I was always taught this is why with the restoration there would not be another apostasy.

On 6/11/2024 at 5:17 PM, smac97 said:

Is that what the revelation in 1978 did?

Is that what the revelation in 1978 did?

After more than 100 years of a mistake, yes this corrected the ban. One could argue that the church was in a state of some apostasy as a result. Plus the church has outside pressure on it as well as internal pressure to make the change.  Growth in Brazil where many members were of mixed race and the building of a temple there seemed to be a prime motivator in rescinding the ban.

 

On 6/11/2024 at 5:17 PM, smac97 said:

Most of the time, their counsel is to reiterate and emphasize previously-revealed principles. 

And who decided this parameter?

On 6/11/2024 at 5:17 PM, smac97 said:

 

We sustain them as they guide the Church according to scriptures and continuing revelation.

And who decided this parameter?

On 6/11/2024 at 5:17 PM, smac97 said:

 

 

I don't think two centuries of prophetic counsel can or ought be set aside because of the priesthood ban.

In the 20th and 21st century can you let me know four or five items pf "prophetic council" that was given that could not be found in the normal course of any religious system?

On 6/11/2024 at 5:17 PM, smac97 said:

 

 

  But reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Well obviously we disagree on this topic.

On 6/11/2024 at 5:17 PM, smac97 said:

For me, The Book of Mormon and other foundational events of the Restoration, and my spiritual experiences with these things, are what keep me in the Church.  I don't think I would find these in "any other religious movement."

Thanks,

-Smac

For me the Book of Mormon and the other foundational events of Mormonism rest on the claim of prophetic guidance which INO, the LDS church leaders don't have high marks or a good track record on.

[Teancum]

On 6/11/2024 at 9:16 PM, Tacenda said:

Thought this was interesting to listen to, haven't finished but thought I'd share. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-happened-behind-the-scenes-before-and-after/id1289043118?i=1000657978471

c/p'd intro:

Forty-six years ago this month, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, under then-President Spencer W. Kimball, lifted its prohibition preventing Black men from entering the all-male priesthood and Black women and men from participating in temple rites.

This historic shift, the most significant since the faith stopped practicing polygamy, abruptly ended this racist ban, but it hardly ended racism within the church. After all, 126 years of theological justifications for the ban remained, including influential works such as “Mormon Doctrine” by apostle Bruce R. McConkie.

Cleanup still needed — and needs — to be done.

Building on President Gordon B. Hinckley’s outreach efforts, current church leader Russell M. Nelson has called on members to lead out against racism and has cemented ties with the NAACP.

Matthew Harris’ new book, “Second-Class Saints: Black Mormons and the Struggle for Racial Equality,” explores the history of the priesthood/temple ban, from its racist roots under Brigham Young to its removal and its aftermath, with an eye especially on its effects on Black Latter-day Saints.

With unprecedented access to the papers of Kimball, McConkie, Hugh B. Brown and Joseph Fielding Smith, Harris offers an insider view of the decision-making process among the church hierarchy regarding issues of race and this momentous move. Join us for this conversation.

Harris's book might be a good read. The podcast that cannot be named has a Harris podcast and they plan to run a series drilling into the details of the book.