Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

 apparently that is not enough unless I'm willing to throw something in to show how how I am ashamed of the past (even when just stating a fact) or unless I give those opposed to the Church every benefit of every doubt

I think you are inflating what is being suggested.  
 

Your choice of course to accept or reject.  If you want to be a teacher, it is best to understand how those who you wish to teach precision to, correct narratives, the truth, the gospel, whatever will interpret what you say.  If your purpose is to just voice whatever you think needs to be voiced or to lecture without regard to how it is received, you have no need to care how something gets interpreted or sounds like to anyone but yourself.

Edited June 8 by Calm

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Since we are discussing facts…

This is from Mark Peterson (a prophet seer and revelator at the time):

https://archive.org/details/RaceProblemsAsTheyAffectTheChurchMarkEPetersen/page/n15/mode/1up

So I’m not sure that the following is a factual statement: “with the understanding that they would be given in a future time and the understanding that the faithful would receive every blessing available to the promised to the faithful in eternity no matter what mortal barriers existed here.” 

What do you think?

This was what I was going to respond. The idea that there would eventually be some chance for exalted equality was not universally taught.

This was retroactively declared to be so but it just wasn’t.

[ZealouslyStriving]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Since we are discussing facts…

This is from Mark Peterson (a prophet seer and revelator at the time):

https://archive.org/details/RaceProblemsAsTheyAffectTheChurchMarkEPetersen/page/n15/mode/1up

So I’m not sure that the following is a factual statement: “with the understanding that they would be given in a future time and the understanding that the faithful would receive every blessing available to the promised to the faithful in eternity no matter what mortal barriers existed here.” 

What do you think?

I think I believe the teachings of a man who became President of the High Priesthood and likely initiated the prohibition over the opinions of one who never served in the same office:

"And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive ALL the blessings which WE now are entitled to. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God." ( Brigham Young, JD 11:41)

Edited June 9 by ZealouslyStriving
Corrected reference

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think I believe the teachings of a man who became President of the High Priesthood

You are either after factual data or not. You said “with the understanding that they would be given in a future time and the understanding that the faithful would receive every blessing available to the promised to the faithful in eternity no matter what mortal barriers existed here”

Is that how Mark Peterson understood the ban? Is that what he taught church members about the ban? Are you after facts as you assert? Or merely the reinforcement of your own dogmatic position? 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are either after factual data or not. You said “with the understanding that they would be given in a future time and the understanding that the faithful would receive every blessing available to the promised to the faithful in eternity no matter what mortal barriers existed here”

Is that how Mark Peterson understood the ban? Is that what he taught church members about the ban? Are you after facts as you assert? Or merely the reinforcement of your own dogmatic position? 

I don't care what Mark E. Peterson's opinion on it was- the man who put the prohibition in place taught otherwise. What a lesser apostle opined 100 or so years later is utterly unimportant to me.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I don't care 

Dogma it is. You dont care about “the understanding” of what the priesthood ban entailed. Only your own dogmatic interpretation. At least be honest about it. 

Edited June 9 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Dogma it is. At least be honest about it. 

Have I been dishonest?

Speaking of honesty... Might want to update your profile name- "Understanding" seems to be the furthest thing from what you are "Seeking".

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Have I been dishonest?

you: We should be factual. The priesthood ban was understood to be temporary and the faithful would be exalted

 

me: Here is evidence showing that’s not how it was “understood” from apostle in the 1950’s

you: I don’t care. 
 

You say you were interested in presenting the facts.  When presented with factual information that goes against your dogmatic interpretation, you say you don’t care.
 

21 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Speaking of honesty... Might want to update your profile name- "Understanding" seems to be the furthest thing from what you are "Seeking".

Already tried. The mods (may they live forever) did not grant my request. But personal attack noted. 

Edited June 9 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

As another data point for how the ban was “understood” by leaders of the church consider Jane Manning James. She was sealed to Joseph Smith as a servant for eternity.
 

Quote

attached as a Servitor for eternity to the prophet Josep[h] Smith and in this capacity [...] connected with his family[, to] be obedient to him in all things in the Lord as a faithful Servitor.

Obviously this is only of interest to those interested in what actually happened versus some dogmatic version of “truth”. 

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think I believe the teachings of a man who became President of the High Priesthood and likely initiated the prohibition over the opinions of one who never served in the same office:

"And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive ALL the blessings which WE now are entitled to. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God." ( Brigham Young, JD 11:41)

Seed of Cain? 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

Seed of Cain? 

The topic is whether it was taught that blacks will receive the same eternal reward, if faithful, as whites. I'll leave it to others debate other issues.

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The topic is whether it was taught that blacks will receive the same eternal reward, if faithful, as whites.

As one who feels responsible for perpetuating of not implementing this tangent, I think you are overlooking the deeper issue that seem more important than this surface issue. The deeper and more important issue, IMO, is how do we as a church discern what is and is not right and true and good.

For example, I drew attention to your "pulling rank" statement. It appears that a part of your discernment process is to privilege the statements of those who have held the position of "President of the church" above those who were "merely apostles." Elder Petersen seemed to privilege scripture (or, at least, his interpretation of scripture) over the teachings of modern prophets and apostles, in keeping with the statements that @smac97 quoted.

In one comment, I asked if you think it is important for the church to correctly discern right and wrong. You continue to insist that it doesn't seem to matter because God will redeem those who go astray due to the church's mistakes, as long as the "keep their other covenants" (whatever that really means).

If it helps, I firmly agree with you that God will redeem those whose ordinances were/are delayed by the church's mistakes. My belief is rooted in scriptural and apostolic testimony that Christ's atonement is infinite and somehow (I'm not sure how) allows God to bring justice, love, and mercy together in harmony divine (thank you Eliza R. Snow) coupled with my own sense of justice and fairness. As imperfect as my own discernment might be, I firmly believe that God really can redeem "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. I have no idea how He judges when to redeem them and when not to.

As I noted in the thread that presented the recent survey data about how church members view the priesthood and temple ban, one of the things that stands out to me is how we went from being "certain" that God wanted to deny Blacks the priesthood and temple ordinances and we were fairly certain about why God wanted this (ancient Biblical curses and/or valiance in the pre-existence) to a place were we disavow all racist justifications and have no idea (collectively) if God ever wanted the ban to exist in the first place. IMO, the really interesting topic isn't about the surface issue relating to the eternal status of races and their potential rewards. It's trying to understand the processes of discernment that led to the implementation of the ban, the perpetuation of the ban, the lifting of the ban, and the implications of those discernment processes for the the claims we make around 21st century controversial issues. As it relates to this specific thread -- how do we know with such certainty that God requires sexual minorities to reconcile their faith and sexuality in the ways that we insist He requires (either through lifetime celibacy or mixed orientation marriages)? These kinds of questions will also spill over into just about every moral truth claim that the church makes. I want to understand these discernment processes so I can understand how we decide what is right and good and true.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The topic is whether it was taught that blacks will receive the same eternal reward, if faithful, as whites. I'll leave it to others debate other issues.

Why is there a question as to whether it was taught? Is the question more about when during the Restoration that  it began to be taught, or whether it contradicts specific earlier teachings?

It would seem that the Black members who stayed on before, during and after it began to be taught had already found a good reason to hang on!

[ZealouslyStriving]

20 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As one who feels responsible for perpetuating of not implementing this tangent, I think you are overlooking the deeper issue that seem more important than this surface issue. The deeper and more important issue, IMO, is how do we as a church discern what is and is not right and true and good.

For example, I drew attention to your "pulling rank" statement. It appears that a part of your discernment process is to privilege the statements of those who have held the position of "President of the church" above those who were "merely apostles." Elder Petersen seemed to privilege scripture (or, at least, his interpretation of scripture) over the teachings of modern prophets and apostles, in keeping with the statements that @smac97 quoted.

In one comment, I asked if you think it is important for the church to correctly discern right and wrong. You continue to insist that it doesn't seem to matter because God will redeem those who go astray due to the church's mistakes, as long as the "keep their other covenants" (whatever that really means).

If it helps, I firmly agree with you that God will redeem those whose ordinances were/are delayed by the church's mistakes. My belief is rooted in scriptural and apostolic testimony that Christ's atonement is infinite and somehow (I'm not sure how) allows God to bring justice, love, and mercy together in harmony divine (thank you Eliza R. Snow) coupled with my own sense of justice and fairness. As imperfect as my own discernment might be, I firmly believe that God really can redeem "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. I have no idea how He judges when to redeem them and when not to.

As I noted in the thread that presented the recent survey data about how church members view the priesthood and temple ban, one of the things that stands out to me is how we went from being "certain" that God wanted to deny Blacks the priesthood and temple ordinances and we were fairly certain about why God wanted this (ancient Biblical curses and/or valiance in the pre-existence) to a place were we disavow all racist justifications and have no idea (collectively) if God ever wanted the ban to exist in the first place. IMO, the really interesting topic isn't about the surface issue relating to the eternal status of races and their potential rewards. It's trying to understand the processes of discernment that led to the implementation of the ban, the perpetuation of the ban, the lifting of the ban, and the implications of those discernment processes for the the claims we make around 21st century controversial issues. As it relates to this specific thread -- how do we know with such certainty that God requires sexual minorities to reconcile their faith and sexuality in the ways that we insist He requires (either through lifetime celibacy or mixed orientation marriages)? These kinds of questions will also spill over into just about every moral truth claim that the church makes. I want to understand these discernment processes so I can understand how we decide what is right and good and true.

In an ideal, perfect world our mortal leaders would get everything right 💯% of the time, but seeing as we are not.... We let the Lord work out all things for our good, even when we inadvertantly get in our own way.

FWIW, I believe the Atonement broke any previous curses/bans/prohibitions and that Brigham, doing his best, implemented an incorrect policy- but my belief could be wrong- which is why I don't criticize Brigham or others. Also my world is way too out-of-context to sit in judgement of the thinking of others who lived 150 years ago.

Edited June 9 by ZealouslyStriving

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As one who feels responsible for perpetuating of not implementing this tangent, I think you are overlooking the deeper issue that seem more important than this surface issue. The deeper and more important issue, IMO, is how do we as a church discern what is and is not right and true and good.

For example, I drew attention to your "pulling rank" statement. It appears that a part of your discernment process is to privilege the statements of those who have held the position of "President of the church" above those who were "merely apostles." Elder Petersen seemed to privilege scripture (or, at least, his interpretation of scripture) over the teachings of modern prophets and apostles, in keeping with the statements that @smac97 quoted.

In one comment, I asked if you think it is important for the church to correctly discern right and wrong. You continue to insist that it doesn't seem to matter because God will redeem those who go astray due to the church's mistakes, as long as the "keep their other covenants" (whatever that really means).

If it helps, I firmly agree with you that God will redeem those whose ordinances were/are delayed by the church's mistakes. My belief is rooted in scriptural and apostolic testimony that Christ's atonement is infinite and somehow (I'm not sure how) allows God to bring justice, love, and mercy together in harmony divine (thank you Eliza R. Snow) coupled with my own sense of justice and fairness. As imperfect as my own discernment might be, I firmly believe that God really can redeem "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. I have no idea how He judges when to redeem them and when not to.

As I noted in the thread that presented the recent survey data about how church members view the priesthood and temple ban, one of the things that stands out to me is how we went from being "certain" that God wanted to deny Blacks the priesthood and temple ordinances and we were fairly certain about why God wanted this (ancient Biblical curses and/or valiance in the pre-existence) to a place were we disavow all racist justifications and have no idea (collectively) if God ever wanted the ban to exist in the first place. IMO, the really interesting topic isn't about the surface issue relating to the eternal status of races and their potential rewards. It's trying to understand the processes of discernment that led to the implementation of the ban, the perpetuation of the ban, the lifting of the ban, and the implications of those discernment processes for the the claims we make around 21st century controversial issues. As it relates to this specific thread -- how do we know with such certainty that God requires sexual minorities to reconcile their faith and sexuality in the ways that we insist He requires (either through lifetime celibacy or mixed orientation marriages)? These kinds of questions will also spill over into just about every moral truth claim that the church makes. I want to understand these discernment processes so I can understand how we decide what is right and good and true.

I would say the Church discerns what is right, good and true the exact same way you do, except of course in councils. Experience with councils gets better each year.

A finer point, the Church as an institution does not discern between what is and is not right, true and good. That is a human function, facilitated by the light of Christ and the gift of the Holy Ghost. These and spiritual gifts for those who have them must be used even when the keys of revelation have been bestowed. So, it takes time to get things right on absolutely everything, individually and in councils.

Certain right, true and good things were revealed and restored before the Church was even organized. What was learned in the First Vision and subsequent angelic visits, the translation of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of some keys (Aaronic, Melchizedek): I'm sure I'm missing some important things. Others have been revealed and restored since the Church was organized in 1830. 

Just as with individuals, the light shines in the darkness in which the Church operates and yet progresses in spite of constant opposition. And as with individuals, a good measure of grace is present despite the fallibility of those who strive to get things right.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

In an ideal, perfect world our mortal leaders would get everything right 💯% of the time, but seeing as we are not.... We let the Lord work out all things for our good, even when we inadvertantly get in our own way.

FWIW, I believe the Atonement broke any previous curses/bans/prohibitions and that Brigham, doing his best, implemented an incorrect policy- but my belief could be wrong- which is why I don't criticize Brigham or others. Also my world is way too out-of-context to sit in judgement of the thinking of others who lived 150 years ago.

Putting this in terms of how we (or Brigham) discerned what is right, true and good, the Lord makes it possible to do better today than yesterday, no matter what we think of and in specific cases. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The topic is whether it was taught that blacks will receive the same eternal reward, if faithful, as whites. I'll leave it to others debate other issues.

And it is a very mixed bag as to whether they would receive that reward. Depended on which apostle you chose to quote.

[ZealouslyStriving]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And it is a very mixed bag as to whether they would receive that reward. Depended on which apostle you chose to quote.

You've quoted Mark E. Peterson, an Apostle 100 years after the fact- and I've quoted Brigham Young, President of the Church and the man blamed for thinking up the prohibition.

I know who's words I give more credence- but if you want to convince yourself that an Apostle opining 100 years after the fact carries as much weight as the President of the Church speaking contemporaneously to the events... knock yourself out.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

know who's words I give more credence- but if you want to convince yourself that an Apostle opining 100 years after the fact carries as much weight as the President of the Church speaking contemporaneously to the events... knock yourself out.

I think the problem is you talked about correcting the narrative and presenting facts for precision, but you still picked and chose which facts (opinions of leaders) you wanted for what you see as the correct narrative as opposed to a complete narrative.

And your reasoning based on priesthood hierarchy is fair and valid, but also a choice that is not forced by logic, so it is just your personal preference and not a “just the facts” presentation.

There is nothing wrong with what you ended up doing, but it is debatable whether it is what you claimed you were intending imo.

Edited June 10 by Calm

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You've quoted Mark E. Peterson, an Apostle 100 years after the fact- and I've quoted Brigham Young, President of the Church and the man blamed for thinking up the prohibition.

I know who's words I give more credence- but if you want to convince yourself that an Apostle opining 100 years after the fact carries as much weight as the President of the Church speaking contemporaneously to the events... knock yourself out.

I wouldn’t rate them as equal. I will say there was a mixed bag of ideas. Later iterations of the reasoning for the Priesthood Ban didn’t show Brigham Young nearly the same level of deference. Brigham Young denied the ‘less valiant’ in premortality idea but it was extensively taught as an explanation for the Ban for decades.

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

A finer point, the Church as an institution does not discern between what is and is not right, true and good. That is a human function, facilitated by the light of Christ and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

More and more, I'm coming to agree with you. Discernment is an individual task. That is why I labeled myself as a "cafeteria Mormon" in the "changing views" thread. That's also a big part of why I am less and less convinced that we are "The One True Church." I believe God wants us individually to discern right and wrong for ourselves, but I also think He wants us to find community with fellow believers. I'm becoming less convinced that God cares which religious community we choose to find communion with.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You've quoted Mark E. Peterson, an Apostle 100 years after the fact- and I've quoted Brigham Young, President of the Church and the man blamed for thinking up the prohibition.

I know who's words I give more credence- but if you want to convince yourself that an Apostle opining 100 years after the fact carries as much weight as the President of the Church speaking contemporaneously to the events... knock yourself out.

The first presidency (that would be a president of the church with as much authority as Brigham) in 1894 designed a ceremony for Jane James to seal her to Joseph as a servant for eternity. These were men who served with Brigham Young.

Sincere question: If Brigham was clear and it was understood that she would receive exhalation like everyone else why would they do that?
 

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The first presidency (that would be a president of the church with as much authority as Brigham) in 1894 designed a ceremony for Jane James to seal her to Joseph as a servant for eternity. These were men who served with Brigham Young.

Sincere question: If Brigham was clear and it was understood that she would receive exhalation like everyone else why would they do that?
 

Couldn't tell you.

Can you find BY quote that contradicts the clear one I posted?

[CV75]

7 hours ago, MrShorty said:

More and more, I'm coming to agree with you. Discernment is an individual task. That is why I labeled myself as a "cafeteria Mormon" in the "changing views" thread. That's also a big part of why I am less and less convinced that we are "The One True Church." I believe God wants us individually to discern right and wrong for ourselves, but I also think He wants us to find community with fellow believers. I'm becoming less convinced that God cares which religious community we choose to find communion with.

I think this is because agency is the greater determinant of our reality than discernment. Both are fallible as we move between the light of Christ and His own revealed word, but by His grace they lead to our communion with Him no matter where we begin or have gone.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Couldn't tell you.

Can you find BY quote that contradicts the clear one I posted?

I am not aware of one and have no idea what that would show. Your claim was not that “Brigham Young taught that exaltation would be eventually available”. No. It was 

 

Quote

Exalting ordinances were delayed (right or wrong) for a time with the understanding that they would be given in a future time and the understanding that the faithful would receive every blessing available to the promised to the faithful in eternity no matter what mortal barriers existed here.

Even if this was Brigham’s understanding, this was not the understanding of some later leaders as shown by their words and actions.