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

[ZealouslyStriving]

42 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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 

 

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

Who implemented the prohibition?

Brigham

Who taught that all the blessings would eventually come to them?

Brigham

My statement is 100% accurate. The fact the some people ignored Brigham's clear teaching is none of my concern.

[Rain]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Yes. Leaders have taught that, in your words, their "personal preference" modern prophets and apostles are for our day and they take priority over past leaders.  It's not stuck in stone priority chart. 

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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

 

[smac97]

On 6/8/2024 at 9:35 AM, MrShorty said:

Quote

I'm not going out of my way to find ways to reject prophetic counsel.

Does this tend to make us right or make us conservative?

A few questions:

Question 1. I do not understand the juxtaposition.  How do you differentiate being "right" from being "conservative"?

Question 2. What do you mean by "conservative"?  What are we conserving by, as a general rule, following prophetic counsel?

Question 3. I think there is far more risk in ignoring prophets than in following their counsel.  We are not, after all, really talking about extraordinary "Jews in the Attic" conundrums.  We are looking at a broad principle that, at its extreme margins, has some exceptions to it.  Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment?

Question 4. In 2003, Elder L. Tom Perry said: “We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.”  Do you agree that "intelligent obedience" is superior to "be{ing} blindly obedient"?

Question 5. I have previously quoted Michael Ash: "I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true."  Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment?

Question 6. I have previously stated:

Quote

My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it. 

Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment?

On 6/8/2024 at 9:35 AM, MrShorty said:

I can't help but look at the history of the priesthood and temple ban and think that -- at least that part of our history -- could have used a bit more "going out of [our] way to find ways to reject prophetic counsel" and a bit less loyalty and obedience to fallible prophets/apostles.

Question 7. I am curious as to what you mean here.  What is it you think the Latter-day Saints could/should have done regarding the priesthood ban while it was still in place?

On 6/8/2024 at 9:35 AM, MrShorty said:

It seems to me that there must be a muddy, messy middle ground between the two extremes.

Question 8. What "two extremes" are you referencing here?

On 6/8/2024 at 9:35 AM, MrShorty said:

An appropriate balance between blindly rejecting everything prophets and apostles (ancient and modern) teach

This is extreme, I agree.

On 6/8/2024 at 9:35 AM, MrShorty said:

and blindly accepting everything they teach.

Question 9. Who is suggesting this?  Where?  I previously provided a fairly extensive set of quotes from prophets and apostles regarding the guardrails that are in place relative to following prophetic counsel.  None of this counsel recommends or encourages "blindly accepting everything they {prophets and apostles} teach."

On 6/8/2024 at 9:35 AM, MrShorty said:

One of my frustrations is that it seems no one wants to talk about how to navigate that unstable equilibrium between two slippery slopes (one leads to blind acceptance and one leads to blind rejection).

I don't understand.  I have previously spoken about my "rebuttable presumption" approach referenced above (which approach, I should note, I formulated after listening to . . . prophetic counsel).  In response, you said:

Quote

Quote

Again, I have a a rebuttable presumption that I should listen to the counsel from the leaders of the Church, but that circumstances may arise in which a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  If so, the presumption is "rebutted," and I am under no obligation to acquiesce to such remarks

Agreed. The devil is in the details of exactly how one rebuts teachings of the church and its leaders, but I, too, retain the option of choosing when something that the brethren claim is revelation is not revelation.

I have also quoted Michael Ash for his "four-legged stool" approach to the pursuit of truth.  

Nowhere have I suggested or advocated for the notion of "blind acceptance" of prophetic counsel.  To the contrary, I have now quoted Elder Perry's counsel against blind obedience.  

So I am both A) quite willing to "talk about how to navigate" prophetic counsel, and B) providing substantial reasoning and citations addressing "the details of exactly how one rebuts teachings of the church and its leaders."

On 6/8/2024 at 9:35 AM, MrShorty said:

At the end of the day, it seems that I can only hope to do my best and hope that God knows how to redeem me from my mistakes.

Yes.  A big part of the "how" is, in my view, listening to the prophets and apostles the Lord has sent to us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 10, 2024 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Who implemented the prohibition?

 

One final reply on the subject from me and I'll drop it (feel free to have the last word if you want). It is only with the clarity of hindsight that the answer to this question becomes clear. With the priesthood ban in the rearview mirror, and the historical record studied from one end to the other we can definitively (as close to it as history can get) state that Brigham implemented the ban. What's also clear from the historical record is that Brigham's peers did not necessarily understand this (that the ban started with Brigham). Many of Brigham's successors certainly did not. So again if we want to know how the ban was understood by those that lived with it, your clear bright lines are not helpful. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

One final reply on the subject from me and I'll drop it (feel free to have the last word if you want). It is only with the clarity of hindsight that the answer to this question becomes clear. With the priesthood ban in the rearview mirror, and the historical record studied from one end to the other we can definitively (as close to it as history can get) state that Brigham implemented the ban. What's also clear from the historical record is that Brigham's peers did not necessarily understand this (that the ban started with Brigham). Many of Brigham's successors certainly did not. So again if we want to know how the ban was understood by those that lived with it, your clear bright lines are not helpful. 

😝

[MrShorty]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

I'm inclined to agree, as my universalist self grows more and more assured of his position. The only thing really standing in the way of full acceptance is that the part of me that grew up and spent 50+ years in a high demand religion is still a bit uncomfortable with this level of universalism. He seems to be coming around, though.

[Calm]

Just now, MrShorty said:

I'm inclined to agree, as my universalist self grows more and more assured of his position. The only thing really standing in the way of full acceptance is that the part of me that grew up and spent 50+ years in a high demand religion is still a bit uncomfortable with this level of universalism. He seems to be coming around, though.

I would have thought it is the aware of how fallible and limited humans are self that is the last, final, and as close to absolute as a mortal gets hold out.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I'm inclined to agree, as my universalist self grows more and more assured of his position. The only thing really standing in the way of full acceptance is that the part of me that grew up and spent 50+ years in a high demand religion is still a bit uncomfortable with this level of universalism. He seems to be coming around, though.

An interesting experiment / exercise might be to list those some of the particulars of the high demand religion and identify how they might be used to build communion with God and by extension our fellow man (and self, as in "love thy neighbor as thyself") at the same time. I think charity, the pure love of Christ, is at the root of this communion. 

[Nemesis]

I’m going to lock up this thread if the personal attacks don’t cease.  You are warned.  
 

Nemesis

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

I’m going to lock up this thread if the personal attacks don’t cease.  You are warned.  
 

Nemesis

I am having a good conversation with MrShorty.  Please don't mess up this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

@smac97

Re: questions 1 and 2. What I see us "conserving" is tradition. When we defer to current prophets, who, themselves, tend to defer to past prophets, the net result is that the status quo is preserved and change is prevented/avoided. From there, the conversation is mostly the same as this thread I started: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74982-examples-of-the-church-being-progressive/

Re: 3. I think I substantially agree, but I'm not sure how we quantify the "risk" so that we can say the risk is "far greater" when not following prophets. I also don't think we can simply neglect the edge cases in this discussion. When I try to quantify the risks of following prophets, overall, it seems that prophets teach a lot of "generic, good, Christian" things. The problem really is deciding what to do in these edge cases, like when prophets teach racial inferiority/superiority or encouraging conversion therapies or other controversial things.

Re: 4, 5, 6: Agree

Re: 7: With the benefit of hindsight from my lofty perch in the 21st century, it seems like it would have been nice at any time in the 19th century for someone to question or express some kind of skepticism towards the predominant racial beliefs of the day. Instead, I see mostly LDS leaders and members reaffirming those beliefs about racial inferiority/superiority. During the early to mid-20th century, I would like to be able to look back and see people expressing skepticism about racial segregation and beliefs about racial superiority/inferiority. Instead, I see things like Elder Petersen's '54 talk to church educators which suggested that Elder Petersen at least (and I'm not aware of any real pushback against his beliefs) wasn't even yet willing to consider racial equality and desegregation. Somewhere between '78 and 2013, it would have been nice to see other attempts to disavow past teachings. I wonder what might have happened had a prominent Latter-day Saint (say a state Supreme Court Justice or a president of BYU) who had doubts about the justifications for the ban had publicly expressed his skepticism. I recognize that I have a lot of advantage due to hindsight, but it really seems to me that the history of the priesthood and temple ban needed more skepticism, more people willing to doubt and question apostolic teachings, more people at all levels of the church who were willing to look past the "iron gates of what they thought they knew" to see if God might have something completely different to teach them. That's a lot harder in the moment, I know. If we are to learn something from this history, I would suggest that we ought to be trying to see if we can learn something about how to be appropriately skeptical of our own truth claims.

Re: 8 and 9: You are, of course, correct that we teach (at least in a "lip service" kind of way) to critically evaluate and obtain our own testimonies of everything prophets and apostles teach. IMO, our rhetoric always seems to assume that, when you seek your own testimony, you will invariably and unfailingly find it. We never really talk about cases where one doesn't receive a testimony of something prophets and apostles and scriptures teach. As @SeekingUnderstanding said, the difficult situations are when the four legs of the stool are pointing at different alleged "truths." IMO, our rhetoric simply lacks a robust discussion about those situations, and tends towards "just follow the prophet." In the aggregate, following the prophet will often be a good choice, but it doesn't seem to always be the right choice.

[The Nehor]

Going back to page one when a gay Mormon complained about corporations ruining Pride please enjoy this helpful reminder that corporations don’t care about woke or unwoke and don’t care about old-fashioned values or racial equality or justice or anything but enriching shareholders.

 

[smac97]

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not going out of my way to find ways to reject prophetic counsel.

Does this tend to make us right or make us conservative?

Question 1. I do not understand the juxtaposition.  How do you differentiate being "right" from being "conservative"?

Question 2. What do you mean by "conservative"?  What are we conserving by, as a general rule, following prophetic counsel?

Re: questions 1 and 2. What I see us "conserving" is tradition.

So conserving "tradition" may or may not be conserving what is "right" (contingent, I suppose, on whether the "tradition" is based on, or in accordance with, or not conflicting with, scriptures, revelation, etc.).  Hence the challenge in the juxtaposition.  

Or maybe not.  Again, I think there is far more risk in ignoring prophets than in following their counsel.  By way of illustration, look at the example you are providing.  The end of the priesthood ban is coming up on the half century mark.  And it lacks revelatory provenance in the first place.  And ever since the Brethren have been getting better and better in their messaging and counsel.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

When we defer to current prophets, who, themselves, tend to defer to past prophets, the net result is that the status quo is preserved and change is prevented/avoided.

This presupposes that change is presumptively superior to "the status quo."  Maybe, maybe not.  I think the Brethren are doing a really good job of changing things that can and should be changed, and otherwise resisting sociopolitical trends and pressures.  The objective, after all, is not about "deference," but about revelation.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Question 3. I think there is far more risk in ignoring prophets than in following their counsel.  We are not, after all, really talking about extraordinary "Jews in the Attic" conundrums.  We are looking at a broad principle that, at its extreme margins, has some exceptions to it.  Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment?

 

Re: 3. I think I substantially agree, but I'm not sure how we quantify the "risk" so that we can say the risk is "far greater" when not following prophets.

If the Restoration happened, if the Church is what it claims to be, if Joseph's prophetic mantle has been passed on, if authority and revelation continue to be guiding influences in the lives of the General Authorities, then it seems almost axiomatic that listening to their counsel will usually (mostly?  almost always?) be advisable, much more so than disregarding or defying their counsel.  

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I also don't think we can simply neglect the edge cases in this discussion.

Sure.  I am not neglecting them.  I am, instead, accounting for them, contextualizing them, addressing them, etc.  Again, I have provided quotes of prophetic counsel about prophetic counsel.  I have cited the four-legged stool approach espoused by Michael Ash.  I have cited my own "rebuttable presumption" formulation.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

When I try to quantify the risks of following prophets, overall, it seems that prophets teach a lot of "generic, good, Christian" things.

Mostly, yes.  Much of our faith is shared by the broader Christian community, and so in that sense can be characterized as "generic" (as in "characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things; not specific").  This is, in my view, a very good thing.  We are taught to have faith in and obey God, pray and read scriptures, repent of our sins, love and serve our fellow man, and so on.

That said, prophets and apostles also teach many things which are unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  By way of example, consider the addresses given at the April 2024 General Conference. 

Many of the talks were given by apostles, "special witnesses of Jesus Christ."

Elder Dushku's talk, Pillars and Rays, was built on Joseph Smith's theophanies, quotes modern prophets and scripture, and describes the Restoration as "{a} veritable flood of divine revelation and blessings will follow: new scripture, restored priesthood keys, apostles and prophets, ordinances and covenants, and the reestablishment of the Lord’s true and living Church, which will someday fill the earth with the light and witness of Jesus Christ and His restored gospel."

Elder Soares, in his talk Covenant Confidence through Jesus Christ, speaks of temples ("{t}he construction of new houses of the Lord across the world" under the direction of a modern prophet ("under the inspired leadership of President Russell M. Nelson").  He goes on to speak of temples and temple covenants, and the need to prepare for these things.

And so on.  These teachings are more than "generic, good" things, they are also unique, Latter-day Saint things.  Many aspects of the Restored Gospel are new and, in many ways, unique to this dispensation and unique to the Church, such as Joseph Smith's theophanies, the restoration of the priesthood, the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon, an open canon, temple worship, family history work, the missionary program, and so on.

It would be odd and unreasonable to expect the Restored Gospel to be totally alien and new, so we should expect modern prophets and apostles to reiterate anciently-revealed truths.  However, that is not all they do.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

The problem really is deciding what to do in these edge cases, like when prophets teach racial inferiority/superiority

Again, my question #7: "What is it you think the Latter-day Saints could/should have done regarding the priesthood ban while it was still in place?"

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

or encouraging conversion therapies

Could you elaborate on this?  

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

or other controversial things.

What "other controversial things" do you have in mind?

The Book of Mormon can be characterized as "controversial."  Does that mean prophets and apostles ought not encourage us to read it, pray about it, live according to its precepts, share it with others, etc.?

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Re: 4, 5, 6: Agree

Cool.  I suspect we agree more than we disagree.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

 

Quote

I can't help but look at the history of the priesthood and temple ban and think that -- at least that part of our history -- could have used a bit more "going out of [our] way to find ways to reject prophetic counsel" and a bit less loyalty and obedience to fallible prophets/apostles.

Question 7. I am curious as to what you mean here.  What is it you think the Latter-day Saints could/should have done regarding the priesthood ban while it was still in place?

 

Re: 7: With the benefit of hindsight from my lofty perch in the 21st century, it seems like it would have been nice at any time in the 19th century for someone to question or express some kind of skepticism towards the predominant racial beliefs of the day.

What do you think this would have looked like?  And how do you know it did not happen?

Regarding "some kind of skepticism towards the predominant racial beliefs of the day," what do you make of Joseph Smith?

Quote

Joseph Smith's views on Black people varied during his lifetime. As founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, Smith included Black people in many ordinances and priesthood ordinations but had differing views on racial segregation and the curses of Cain and Ham. He shifted his views on slavery several times, eventually taking an anti-slavery stance later in life.
...
During the Nauvoo settlement, Smith began preaching abolitionism and equality of the races. He called for "the break down [of] slavery" during his 1844 presidential campaign, and wanted to free all enslaved persons by 1850.
...
Smith was apparently present at the priesthood ordination of Elijah Abel, a multi-ethnic man with partial Black heritage, to the offices of elder and the seventy and permitted the ordination of several Black men into the priesthood of the early church.
...
After Smith's death, Brigham Young barred Black people from temple endowments, marriage sealings, and the priesthood. There is no contemporary evidence suggesting that the anti-Black-priesthood restriction originated with Smith.
...
Smith said that Black and white people would be better off if they were "separate but legally equal", advocating segregation:^{[7]: 79 [17][page needed]} "Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." He also said, "They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability."
...
Joseph Smith began his presidential campaign on a platform of the government buying enslaved people into freedom over several years. He called for "the break down of slavery" and the removal of "the shackles from the poor black man".

Do any of these buck the racialist sentiments prevalent in the 19th century?  

In hindsight, Joseph had some flaws in his perspective, though the extent to which this was based on animus is, I think, up for debate:

Quote

Joseph Smith's views on Black people varied during his lifetime. As founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, Smith included Black people in many ordinances and priesthood ordinations but had differing views on racial segregation and the curses of Cain and Ham.  He shifted his views on slavery several times, eventually taking an anti-slavery stance later in life.
...
Smith initially expressed opposition to slavery, but avoided discussion of the topic after the church was formally organized in 1830. During the Missouri years, he tried to maintain peace with the members' pro-slavery neighbors.
...
Smith published an essay sympathetic to slavery the following year, arguing against a possible "race war", providing justification for slavery based on the biblical curse of Ham, and saying that northerners had no "more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say that the North shall."
...
Smith said that Black and white people would be better off if they were "separate but legally equal", advocating segregation:
...
Some Mormons have held racist views, and exclusion from temple and priesthood rites was not the only discrimination against Black people; as mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith barred them from holding office or joining the Nauvoo Legion military.

Or how about the Latter-day Saints generally?  Their views on slavery were one of the biggest sources of friction between them and their neighbors in Missouri.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Slavery was gradually abolished in the Northern States in the late 1700s and early 1800s, including in the early Latter-day Saint centers of New York and Ohio. In the Southern States, including Missouri, slavery and the domestic slave trade continued. Many Americans supported slavery. Of those who opposed it, some focused on limiting the spread of slavery, some hoped to see it gradually end, and some—an outspoken few known as abolitionists—called for a more immediate and unconditional end to slavery. Because the exaggeration of racial differences was common in early American social, scientific, and religious thought, even many abolitionists advocated returning black Americans to Africa rather than integrating them into American society.

Though most early Latter-day Saint converts were from the Northern States and were opposed to slavery, slavery affected Church history in a number of ways. In 1832, Latter-day Saints who had settled in Missouri were attacked by their neighbors, who accused them of “tampering with our slaves, and endeavoring to sow dissentions and raise seditions amongst them.”

The Saints were in quite a difficult circumstance, it seems.

Quote

That winter, Joseph Smith received a revelation that a war would begin over the slave question and that slaves would “rise up against their masters.” The next year, concerns that free black Saints would gather to Missouri was the spark that ignited further violence against the Saints and led to their expulsion from Jackson County.

In the mid-1830s, the Saints tried to distance themselves from the controversy over slavery. Missionaries were instructed not to teach enslaved men and women without the permission of their masters. The Church’s newspaper published several articles critical of the growing abolitionist movement. After the Saints had been driven from Missouri and had settled in Illinois, however, Joseph Smith gradually became more outspoken in his opposition to slavery. He asked how the United States could claim that “all men are created equal” while “two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours.” As a U.S. presidential candidate in 1844, Joseph called for the federal government to end slavery within six years by raising money to compensate former slaveholders.

Orson Pratt spoke against slavery:

Quote

An Act in Relation to Service

Signed into law by Governor Brigham Young on Feb. 4, 1852, An Act in Relation to Service was a hotly contested bill that revealed fundamental disagreements between Latter-day Saint leaders regarding theology, race, and the nature of slavery. The bill was designed to govern the relationship between Black enslaved people in Utah Territory and their white enslavers.

“The bill that the legislature passed was distinct from chattel slave laws then in force in the U.S. South. It did not free anyone then enslaved, but it did grant them limited rights. It stipulated that an enslaved person could not be transferred to a new enslaver or taken from the territory without their consent. It also required enslavers to educate their enslaved people, something expressly prohibited in southern slave codes. Also, likely in response to Orson Pratt’s speech, lawmakers dropped the clause from the proposed bill that would have made enslavement perpetual. Without that clause, the likely legislative intent was that the condition of servitude not pass to the next generation,” explained Reeve.

Pratt, nonetheless, wanted the bill rejected in its entirety. “Where in can [it] be expedient for us to suffer slavery to come into this territory when we can [avoid] it?” Pratt argued.

“Shall we hedge up the way before us by introducing this abominable slavery? No! My voice shall be against it from this time until the bill shall pass if you are determined to pass it.” Pratt was insistent and determined. “Shall we take then the innocent African that has committed no sin and damn him to slavery and bondage without receiving any authority from heaven to do [so]?” he questioned. “For us to bind the African because he is different from us in color [is] enough to cause the angels in heaven to blush!”

You note that "it seems like it would have been nice at any time in the 19th century for someone to question or express some kind of skepticism towards the predominant racial beliefs of the day."  In your view, does the above statement qualify as an "expression [of] some kind of skepticism"?

Slavery was, in some ways, an intractable social problem.  Opposing it amounted to a nearly existential threat to the the Saints while they were in Missouri.  Moreover, the folks in the 19th century were steeped in a milieu in which slavery was, to an extent, socially acceptable in some quarters, while being abhorrent in others.  This is not unlike some modern controversies, such as elective abortion, "gender-affirming" medical care (that is, chemical and/or actual castration or sterilization of minors), etc.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Instead, I see mostly LDS leaders and members reaffirming those beliefs about racial inferiority/superiority.

Yes, they were not wholly immune from the influences of their day.  Moreover, in the absence of any known revelatory origins for the ban, they were left to speculate and infer.  

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

During the early to mid-20th century, I would like to be able to look back and see people expressing skepticism about racial segregation and beliefs about racial superiority/inferiority.

Sure.  And perhaps this occurred to some extent.  Nevertheless, per Edward Kimball:

Quote

Mormon opinions about race relations (intermarriage, segregation, civil rights, school integration, and so forth) are similar to national opinions. This was true before the 1978 revelation (1972–76), during the period when it was announced (1977–82), and afterward (1983–85). Data came from the annual General Social Surveys conducted by the National Opinion Research Corporation under grants from the National Science Foundation. Armand L. Mauss, paper presented at Mormon History Association meeting, Logan, Utah, May 7, 1988; Armand L. Mauss to author, March 22, 2003. See also Armand L. Mauss, Mormonism and Minorities (Richmond: University of California Press, 1974). When Spencer was stake president in Arizona he observed that prejudice existed not only toward blacks, but also toward Latino members. See also Russell Peek to author, March 27, 1995, and March 14, 1995. In 1976, BYU students elected Robert L. Stevenson, a black man, as student body vice-president. 1977 Church Almanac (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1977), 23. Spencer met him. Spencer W. Kimball, Journal, September 7, 1976, in possession of the author.

In a perfect world, perfect Latter-day Saints would have fully arisen above their social milieu and been free of any racial or other prejudices.

Alternatively, in a telestial world, the Latter-day Saints are - compared to their compatriots - better and some things, or about the same (including, it seems, past racial sentiments) and sometimes even worse.  As Pres. McKay aptly put it: “The purpose of the gospel is . . . to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.”  This process can take a while, both individually and collectively.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Instead, I see things like Elder Petersen's '54 talk to church educators which suggested that Elder Petersen at least (and I'm not aware of any real pushback against his beliefs) wasn't even yet willing to consider racial equality and desegregation.

Edward Kimball's essay about his father, Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood, does a pretty good job of tracing the treatment of the ban up through its cessation in 1978.  An excerpt:

Quote

Although the priesthood ban deeply disturbed many members of the Church, particularly as the civil rights movement heightened awareness about the historical horrors of racism, the issue remained abstract for most. So few blacks joined the Church that most white members never had to deal with the effects of the ban. Those blacks who did accept baptism implicitly accepted their restricted status. Having sought membership in the Church and believing in its prophetic leadership, they found it unseemly to challenge the Church’s settled practice. In the face of sometimes insensitive treatment by other members, faithful black members demonstrated amazing patience. In 1974 the First Presidency reiterated that black male members could attend elders quorum meetings in the same way that prospective elders could, and while it would be permissible for black members to hold leadership positions in the auxiliary organizations, preference should be given to calling them to teaching or clerical positions so as to avoid any misunderstanding.

World War II and its aftermath began a cascade of changes that would continue in American society through the rest of the century. Black military units proved their competence and valor, and they expected to take advantage of postwar prosperity and the G.I. Bill. The decade of the 1950s was a period of great ferment that would lead to the next decade’s explosion of civil rights action, with both moral and legal challenges to segregation in the South and social inequality elsewhere. Thus, during Spencer’s apostleship, the issue of racism was never far from his mind.

It's a good read.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Somewhere between '78 and 2013, it would have been nice to see other attempts to disavow past teachings.

Okay.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I wonder what might have happened had a prominent Latter-day Saint (say a state Supreme Court Justice or a president of BYU) who had doubts about the justifications for the ban had publicly expressed his skepticism.

A few thoughts here:

1. A quote from Brigham Young (!) in 1869:

Quote

Was the idea that Blacks were neutral in the "war in heaven" ever official doctrine?

The "neutral in the war in heaven" argument was never doctrine. In fact, some Church leaders, starting with Brigham Young, explicitly repudiated the idea.  This idea was repudiated well before the priesthood ban was rescinded. President Brigham Young rejected it in an account recorded by Wilford Woodruff in 1869:

Quote

Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Nutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said No they were not. There was No Nutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion. All took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary. All spirits are pure that Come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cane are Black Because He Commit Murder. He killed Abel & God set a Mark upon his posterity But the spirits are pure that Enter their tabernacles & there will be a Chance for the redemption of all the Children of Adam Except the Sons of perdition. {3}

...
{3} Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 6:511 (journal entry dated 25 December 1869). ISBN 0941214133.

2. A quote from Joseph F. Smith in 1912:

Quote

{T}here is no revelation, ancient or modern, neither is there any authoritative statement by any of the authorities of the Church … {in support of the idea} that the negroes are those who were neutral in heaven at the time of the great conflict or war, which resulted in the casting out of Lucifer and those who were led by him. {4}
...
First Presidency letter from Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose, to M. Knudson, 13 Jan. 1912.

3. A quote from Joseph Fielding Smith in 1924:

Quote

"We know of no scripture, ancient or modern, that declares that at the time of the rebellion in heaven that one-third of the hosts of heaven remained neutral. ... That one-third of the hosts of heaven remained neutral and therefore were cursed by having a black skin, could hardly be true, for the negro race has not constituted one-third of the inhabitants of the earth."{2}
...
Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Negro and the Priesthood," Improvement Era 27 no. 6 (April 1924), 565.

Of course, there are other statements which presume and perpetuate racialist sentiments and notions as justifications for the ban.

4. The Church's position on the origins of the ban are laid out here (a study manual), and includes a quote from then-Elder Oaks:

Quote

Invite a student to read aloud the following statement, which is a portion of the introduction to Official Declaration 2 (found in the Doctrine and Covenants). Ask students to think about how this information might help those who have concerns about this historical issue.

“The Book of Mormon teaches that ‘all are alike unto God,’ including ‘black and white, bond and free, male and female’ (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice” (introduction to Official Declaration 2).

...

Point out the line that states, “Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.” While some people may suggest reasons why males of African descent were not ordained to the priesthood for a time, those reasons may not be accurate. Invite a student to read the following statement by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

“If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, ‘Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,’ you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here [race and the priesthood], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. …

“… Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent” (Life’s Lessons Learned [2011], 68–69).

See also these comments by Elder Oaks from 2007:

Quote

Helen Whitney: Another subject. Take me back to the time just before the ban on the priesthood was lifted. 

Dallin H. Oaks: I can’t remember any time in my life when I felt greater joy and relief than when I learned that the priesthood was going to be available to all worthy males, whatever their ancestry. I had been troubled by this subject through college and my graduate school, at the University of Chicago where I went to law school. I had many black acquaintances when I lived in Chicago, the years ’54 through ’71. I had many times that my heart ached for that, and it ached for my Church, which I knew to be true and yet blessings of that Church were not available to a significant segment of our Heavenly Father’s children. And I didn’t understand why; I couldn’t identify with any of the explanations that were given. Yet I sustained the action; I was confident that in the time of the Lord I would know more about it, so I went along on faith. 

Nobody was more relieved or more pleased when the word came.  I remember where I was when I learned that the priesthood would be available to all worthy males, whatever their ancestry. I was at a mountain home that our family had purchased to have a place of refuge. I had my sons up there, and we were digging something. We had a big pile of dirt there. I’ve forgotten what it was now, but the phone rang in the house. I went inside, and it was Elder Boyd K. Packer. He said: “I have been appointed to advise you as a representative of the academic people, many of whom have been troubled by the ban on the priesthood, professors, and students, and so on. As president of Brigham Young University and as their representative [Elder Oaks was president of BYU at this time], I’ve been appointed to advise you that the revelation has been received that all worthy male members will be eligible to receive the priesthood, whatever their ancestry.” I thanked him, and I went outside and I told my boys, and I sat down [voice cracks with emotion] on that pile of dirt and cried. And I still feel emotion for that moment. I cried for joy and relief that the Lord had spoken through His prophet, that His blessings were now available to all: the blessings of the priesthood, the blessings of the temple, and the blessings of eternity. That’s what we desired. I praise God for it. 

I think most members of the Church, like Elder Oaks, were conflicted.  So most weighed a doubt (the provenance of the priesthood ban) against a certainty (faith in the reality of the Restoration) and stuck with the Church.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I recognize that I have a lot of advantage due to hindsight, but

Huge advantage, this.  Presentism ought to be avoided.  I have commented on this here:

Quote

In this thread, my thesis is as follows:

A) Rejection of Racism: Racism and bigotry are terrible things, and contravene the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

B) 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.  

C) 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.

D) 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.)  

E) 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.

F) Navel-Gazing / Failure/Refusal to Credit Improvements in the Church: "Navel-gazing" is "self-indulgent or excessive contemplation of oneself or a single issue, at the expense of a wider view."  This is what is happening with in this thread as regarding Elder Petersen's unfortunate views/remarks.  When a "wider view" of the Church is taken as it exists in the here and now, when we give fair and reasonable consideration to its extensive improvement in addressing and condemning racism and other prejudices (including express and repeated repudiations of the racialized/racist teachings of past leaders), when we acknowledge these improvements and give credit where it's due, we are much better situated to review and consider the Church's condition, both past and present.  Navel-gazing impedes that.

G) Avoiding the Nirvana Fallacy: I have not previously raised the Nirvana Fallacy in this thread.  I do so now.  This fallacy is described here:

Quote

In La Bégueule (1772), Voltaire wrote Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, which is often translated as "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (literally: "The better is the enemy of the good").

The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969, who said:

The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing "imperfect" institutional arrangement. This nirvana approach differs considerably from a comparative institution approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.

The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing "imperfect" institutional arrangement. This nirvana approach differs considerably from a comparative institution approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.

My sense is that some members of the Church are harboring idealized, unrealistic expectations about the Church, and its leaders and members, and its history.  This is the "perfect" part of Voltaire's maxim.  Online "shock value" compilations and other critical work very hard to alienate members of the Church from their faith, and often do so using the means and methodologies I am summarizing here.  Such compilations are full of cheap shots presented for shock value.  Presentism.  Facile criticism.  Misrepresentation by omission and distortion.  A determined effort to keep these topics decontextualized and sensationalized.  Sarcasm.  No effort to study or meaningfully understand.  And intermingled with them are some legitimate criticisms. 

These summaries of the Church are, understandably, difficult or impossible to reconcile with the Church's narrative about itself, which has long tended toward an idealized presentation (though I am happy to note that the Church has made a lot of improvement on this in recent years.  Some members, then, end up facing seemingly irreconcilable options

• Option A: the Church is essentially good and decent and ordained of God (as claimed by the Church), or
• Option B: the Church is essentially flawed and corrupt, and even evil (as claimed by authors of the above-referenced "big lists").

Applying Voltaire's maxim, the "perfect" (the idealized perception of, and expectations about, the Church and its members) becomes the enemy of the "good" (Option A).  Consequently, some folks go with Option B, because it seems the only plausible means of reconciling what they thought about the Church with what they now know about the Church.

 I think we need to avoid the Nirvana Fallacy.  It doesn't work.  A good way to avoid or overcome it is to read a 2018 book written by Elder Bruce and Sister Marie Hafen, Faith is Not Blind.  

H) Faultfinding and Failure/Refusal to Credit Improvements in the Church: This thread is rife with faultfinding.  It is a toxic exercise, both because it contravenes many of the core principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which commands us to repent, to forgive, to leave judgments to God, to sustain the Brethren, to not speak evil of them, etc.), and also because a person determined to find fault will pretty much always succeed at it.

I) "Hate Speech": "Hate speech" is a relatively new idea.  It is primarily a political / legal phrase and concept.  It is also typically defined in quite broad and vague ways.  The unfortunate consequence of these characteristics (hate speech is new, it is primarily political/legal, it is broadly/vaguely defined), is that the phrase is quite prone to being arbitrarily weaponized against unpopular groups/speech and/or disregarded relative to popular groups/speech.  It also becomes a bit clunky and ill-adapted when deployed in a Latter-day Saint context.

I think most of these points are relevant to this current discussion.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

it really seems to me that the history of the priesthood and temple ban needed more skepticism, more people willing to doubt and question apostolic teachings, more people at all levels of the church who were willing to look past the "iron gates of what they thought they knew" to see if God might have something completely different to teach them.

Again, I am curious as to what you mean here.  What is it you think the Latter-day Saints could/should have done regarding the priesthood ban while it was still in place?

And how do you know that this didn't happen?  That some Latter-day Saints did examine this issue?  Is it your position that the only thing Latter-day Saints could/should have done to legitimately respond to the priesthood ban was to openly and publicly denounce it?  To publicly and deliberately speak and act against the Church and/or its leaders regarding it?  To leave the Church in protest because of it?

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

That's a lot harder in the moment, I know. If we are to learn something from this history, I would suggest that we ought to be trying to see if we can learn something about how to be appropriately skeptical of our own truth claims.

I'm not sure what you mean by "appropriately skeptical" here.  And what "truth claims" do you have in mind?  

Do you think the priesthood ban retroactively negates the reality of the foundational events of the Restoration?  That because Brigham Young instituted the ban in 1852, this negates the reality of Joseph Smith's First Vision in 1820, Moroni's visitations in 1823, Joseph's acquisition and translation of the Plates in 1827, the restoration of the priesthood in 1829, the organization of the Church in 1830, Joseph's various subsequent revelations and theophanies, and so on?

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Quote

It seems to me that there must be a muddy, messy middle ground between the two extremes.

Question 8. What "two extremes" are you referencing here?

Quote

An appropriate balance between blindly rejecting everything prophets and apostles (ancient and modern) teach and blindly accepting everything they teach.

Question 9. Who is suggesting this?  Where?  I previously provided a fairly extensive set of quotes from prophets and apostles regarding the guardrails that are in place relative to following prophetic counsel.  None of this counsel recommends or encourages "blindly accepting everything they {prophets and apostles} teach."

Re: 8 and 9: You are, of course, correct that we teach (at least in a "lip service" kind of way) to critically evaluate and obtain our own testimonies of everything prophets and apostles teach.

I didn't say that we only teach this as "lip service."  I think we teach it and mean it.

And again, what "two extremes" are you referencing here?

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

IMO, our rhetoric always seems to assume that, when you seek your own testimony, you will invariably and unfailingly find it.

Moroni 10:3-5 seems to carry that promise.  The timing, of course, is up to the Lord.  

And then there are expectations and presuppositions that can impede the process.  

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

We never really talk about cases where one doesn't receive a testimony of something prophets and apostles and scriptures teach.

I think we should have a testimony of the fundamentals, as derived from the Spirit, with the Book of Mormon / Moroni's Promise as the catalyst.  Everything else is derivative of, is "downstream" from, those fundamentals.

For example, my "testimony" of the Word of Wisdom is derivative, not direct.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As @SeekingUnderstanding said, the difficult situations are when the four legs of the stool are pointing at different alleged "truths."

Yes, I can appreciate the difficulty.  I addressed this last year:

Quote

Five principles have had a substantial impact on my thinking about this issue:

1. "Rebuttable Presumption" as a "Rule of Thumb"

My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that their cumulative counsel is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it. 

2. Ash's Four-Legged Stool / "Personal Revelation" as the Ultimate Guide / Vetting "Personal Revelation"

If I feel there is a conflict between what I perceive as "personal revelation" and prophetic counsel, I review the "four-legged stool" analogy from Michal Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

Ultimately, each individual must do what he thinks is right.  How he reaches the conclusion of what is "right" should ideally use all four legs of the stool, but in the end, personal revelation from the Holy Spirit is the final and decisive factor.  The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four legs is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

3. Vetting "Prophetic" Counsel

In addition to "vetting" what we are construing to be "personal revelation," I think we also ought to "vet" what we are construing from scriptural passages and from counsel from modern prophets and apostles.  "A prophet is only a prophet..." and all that.

But what about when a prophet is "acting as such" when counsel is provided, and the individual finds a conflict between that counsel and "personal revelation?"  Well, he may need to do a bit more digging.  For example, God knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?  The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Quote

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

With these things in mind, how should the individual view and construe a particular point of prophetic counsel?  As a "doctrine," a "principle" or an "application?"

If the point of counsel is "doctrine," then the likelihood of the Holy Spirit giving the individual a countermanding "personal revelation" is, I think, low to non-existent.  

If the point of counsel is a "principle" or "application," I think the individual has more - but certainly not unfettered - discretion and autonomy to determine how it ought to be applied in a particular context.

4. Non-Secrecy / Seeking Counsel from Local Leaders

I think a Latter-day Saint who is contemplating limiting the application of, or entirely setting aside and ignoring, or actually and directly defying and disobeying, "prophetic counsel" ought not do so in secret.  He ought to seek out counsel from a bishop or stake president prior to taking any drastic or substantive step.

5. Elder Oaks' 1987 Counsel

If, after having considered the matter relative to items 1-4 above, there remains an impasse between what the individual's purported "personal revelation" and prophetic counsel, I would recommend reviewing all five options laid out by Elder Oaks in his 1987 article, Criticism, which he describes as "at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders."  The last one he references is, perhaps, key:

Quote

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

 

That last point is, for me, the best answer to what the Latter-day Saints should have done regarding the priesthood ban.  I think many of them did do this.  So did the Brethren, as evidenced by the 1978 revelation.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

IMO, our rhetoric simply lacks a robust discussion about those situations, and tends towards "just follow the prophet."

Respectfully, I disagree.  I think there is plenty of "robust discussion about those situations."  I have spoken about these issues extensively over many years, and have quoted some of the things I have said, most of which things include extensive citations to scriptures and counsel from modern prophets and apostles.  And I am just one guy, speaking on one message board.

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

In the aggregate, following the prophet will often be a good choice, but it doesn't seem to always be the right choice.

Overwhelmingly, in almost all circumstances, an individual will be better off following prophetic counsel than disregarding or defying it.  That's my view.  We are not, after all, really talking about extraordinary "Jews in the Attic" conundrums.  We are looking at a broad principle that, at its extreme margins, has some exceptions to it.

Again, the priesthood ban ended nearly a half century ago.  I say this not to minimize the adverse effects of the ban (they were, and continue to be, substantial), but to suggest that it is seemingly difficult for those who want to justify disregarding prophetic counsel to point to some point of counsel (or policy, or whatever) that is more recent, and that we ought to consider rejecting. 

By way of example: I will close by observing that contemporary discussions about the priesthood ban, taking place nearly 50 years after its cessation by revelation, often arise as a preparatory argument justifying disagreeing with, or rejecting, or even working against, the Church's teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the Law of Chastity.  Generally, the reasoning goes "Hey, the Church was wrong on the priesthood ban, so it is, or could be, wrong on gay marriage and gay sexual behavior as well."  Is this where we are headed?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 11, 2024 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

please enjoy this helpful reminder that corporations don’t care about woke or unwoke and don’t care about old-fashioned values or racial equality or justice or anything but enriching shareholders.

If only there was an easy way to test this claim.  Oh- here we go:

(It's always a monumental occasion when I agree with TheNehor.)

[MrShorty]

On 6/11/2024 at 2:47 PM, smac97 said:

The objective, after all, is not about "deference," but about revelation.

Exactly. As I see it, all of the questions around the priesthood and temple ban (and many other controversial topics) come down to revelation.

 

On 6/11/2024 at 2:47 PM, smac97 said:

Again, my question #7: "What is it you think the Latter-day Saints could/should have done regarding the priesthood ban while it was still in place?"

And I give the same answer once again -- they should have sought revelation. IMO, a big part of learning from this part of our history (Item D in your list of things to do when dealing with difficult history) is trying to understand why they did not seek revelation (or otherwise why God did not grant them revelation), so that we can see how we are making the same mistakes or how the same conditions might exist in our day that prevent us from seeking revelation.

You bring up the issue of slavery. I observe that, yes, the saints (seemingly predominantly Northerners with abolitionist leanings) in Missouri had issues with their slave-holding neighbors. I don't know if it all traces itself to Missouri, but it is interesting that this time in the South seems to have softened the church's attitudes towards slavery, to the point that Utah Territory in 1852 legalized slavery under the leadership of it's predominantly LDS legislature. The issue of slavery is another issue that can be used to bring up questions about how revelation works. As Ben Spackman put it, "What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman?" (https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/).

In many ways, this is the hardest part of understanding prophetic fallibility and scriptural errancy. As @Teancum noted in the other thread, it seems that God can when He chooses dramatically intervene to prevent prophets and apostles from straying too far from what He wants (as evidenced by the "angel with a flaming sword" in regards to polygamy). As with the problem of evil, we really struggle to understand why God intervenes in some cases and why He doesn't in others. But revelation is a key foundational principle for our faith. If we can't understand how and why God chooses to intervene and not intervene, then we risk perpetuating evils simply because we seemingly have no way of knowing when we are doing what God wants and when we are being left to our own devices. As you note at the end, this becomes important when trying to navigate "forward facing" issues like LGBT+ issues or women's issues or other difficult issues.

IMO, Spackman has succinctly captured the problem. What is our model of prophets, scripture, and revelation? As I continue to study and discuss these issues, I don't think we really understand our model of revelation. We are looking through a glass darkly, seemingly unaware of our inability to discern eternal truth, then stumbling along.

 

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Exactly. As I see it, all of the questions around the priesthood and temple ban (and many other controversial topics) come down to revelation.

 

And I give the same answer once again -- they should have sought revelation. IMO, a big part of learning from this part of our history (Item D in your list of things to do when dealing with difficult history) is trying to understand why they did not seek revelation (or otherwise why God did not grant them revelation), so that we can see how we are making the same mistakes or how the same conditions might exist in our day that prevent us from seeking revelation.

You bring up the issue of slavery. I observe that, yes, the saints (seemingly predominantly Northerners with abolitionist leanings) in Missouri had issues with their slave-holding neighbors. I don't know if it all traces itself to Missouri, but it is interesting that this time in the South seems to have softened the church's attitudes towards slavery, to the point that Utah Territory in 1852 legalized slavery under the leadership of it's predominantly LDS legislature. The issue of slavery is another issue that can be used to bring up questions about how revelation works. As Ben Spackman put it, "What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman?" (https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/).

In many ways, this is the hardest part of understanding prophetic fallibility and scriptural errancy. As @Teancum noted in the other thread, it seems that God can when He chooses dramatically intervene to prevent prophets and apostles from straying too far from what He wants (as evidenced by the "angel with a flaming sword" in regards to polygamy). As with the problem of evil, we really struggle to understand why God intervenes in some cases and why He doesn't in others. But revelation is a key foundational principle for our faith. If we can't understand how and why God chooses to intervene and not intervene, then we risk perpetuating evils simply because we seemingly have no way of knowing when we are doing what God wants and when we are being left to our own devices. As you note at the end, this becomes important when trying to navigate "forward facing" issues like LGBT+ issues or women's issues or other difficult issues.

IMO, Spackman has succinctly captured the problem. What is our model of prophets, scripture, and revelation? As I continue to study and discuss these issues, I don't think we really understand our model of revelation. We are looking through a glass darkly, seemingly unaware of our inability to discern eternal truth, then stumbling along.

 

Yes, they come down to revelation for the Church which is rooted in "the quorum of three presidents" (D&C 107:29 and previous applicable verses). From another thead, Posted Tuesday at 04:57 PM (edited) This I believe is an extremely understandable description of our model of revelation. The scriptures plainly teach what gets in the way of revelation and seeking the revelations the Lord desires to give.

Do the current policies and teachings dealing with sexuality contradict the structure of the quorum of three presidents, the earthly vehicle for revelation and restoration? Sexuality does not seem to be a factor in its composition, and we do not know the sexuality of those who served in it. Where all are alike unto God, the sexuality of members of the First Presidency does not seem to be an eternal principle. But Alma 13, for example, might be.

Some might opine as to whether, how or which gay men might have served as one or more of the three presidents since 1830 or anciently. Some might have what they believe is a personal revelation on this, or a firm expectation concerning the topics of revelations that this quorum, which could well include gay men, should seek.

When learning from Church history as to what to seek by way of revelation, we can go as far back in time as we wish, but what remains is our current interpretations of other peoples' descriptions (and interpretations). And so it boils down to learning from personal experience and reasoning, which integrates many kinds of choices offered by ourselves and from other people (see the Philosophy thread!). 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

otherwise why God did not grant them revelation

How can we learn this?

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

How can we learn this?

According to our model of Church revelation, we would have to be in the quorum of three presidents. According to our model of personal revelation, we would have to enjoy communion with God. In either case, believing that God is real is a first step.

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quoting Ben Spackman:  “or allow something so… inhuman”

I feel the need to point out calling slavery “inhuman” is wishful thinking***.  Unfortunately slavery is a very human thing imo, it seems to pop up in every culture and even community in one form or another (some version of the more powerful taking advantage of the less powerful that perpetuates the powerlessness of the vulnerable, such as promoting debt or addictions or outright conquest).
 

Quote

Spackman has succinctly captured the problem. 

In a culture that does not value freedom (liberty, freedom of choice, agency) as highly as ours or perhaps at all, might we interpret God allowing slavery as compassionate? (I would hope not, but if survival/life of any quality or community was valued higher that freedom or agency or the individual, perhaps they would see something like Maslow’s hierarchy as messed up). Did we come to value freedom and the individual so much because this was meant to be according to God’s plan (since we believe he values agency so much, but maybe we are projecting here) or is it a highly beneficial evolutionary development or are such viewpoints counterproductive in the long run, either to seeking to align ourselves to God’s Will (an odd goal if agency is so highly valued by God imo) or to the survival of the species (while technology appears to have benefited from competition, etc, it has also contributed to much death through wars and the problem of pollution that might not have arisen with a more inclusive and/or future of the community viewpoint).

This actually relates to your question of trying to figure out the why and how of prophets and revelation because how can we figure that out if we start from the position we can actually know what is the best human life out there?  What if we are wrong about agency and have inflated its place in God’s plans for us because of our own focus on it?
 

***there are definitions of “inhuman” as simply “lacking in compassion and mercy”, but the logic used to get to “inhuman” here seems to imply that not having compassion towards another human is unusual in a human and yet we see it constantly. 

Edited June 16, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

Do the current policies and teachings dealing with sexuality contradict the structure of the quorum of three presidents, the earthly vehicle for revelation and restoration? Sexuality does not seem to be a factor in its composition, and we do not know the sexuality of those who served in it. Where all are alike unto God, the sexuality of members of the First Presidency does not seem to be an eternal principle. But Alma 13, for example, might be.

Some might opine as to whether, how or which gay men might have served as one or more of the three presidents since 1830 or anciently. Some might have what they believe is a personal revelation on this, or a firm expectation concerning the topics of revelations that this quorum, which could well include gay men, should seek.

What?

[CV75]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What?

Please expand a little so I can answer your question.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please expand a little so I can answer your question.

I am wondering how the sexuality of the First Presidency matters in this context.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am wondering how the sexuality of the First Presidency matters in this context.

It seems it would matter to those who believe that sexuality affects the revelations the members of this quorum seek and receive. These men in each dispensation, dozens in this one so far, must have represented samplings along the spectrum of human sexuality, and yet we see that the policies, teachings and covenants they administered have remained the same.

This is an extension of the idea that had Black men been part of this quorum from the start, there would have been no ban. Since race is no more a factor than sexuality in the composition of this quorum, it wasn't eternal principle that kept Black men from being part of it. Some of the reasons are evidenced in the Church Essays on the topic. But in the case of sexuality, the odds are very high that non-strictly-heterosexual men were part of it, and we cannot tell who-was-what. Yet we have an analogous "ban" in the form of how we practice marriage and chastity, where sexual behavior is expressed only between husband and wife, irrespective of their sexuality.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But in the case of sexuality, the odds are very high that non-strictly-heterosexual men were part of it, and we cannot tell who-was-what. Yet we have an analogous "ban" in the form of how we practice marriage and chastity, where sexual behavior is expressed only between husband and wife, irrespective of their sexuality.

Given how homosexuality was viewed at the time, there is a very good chance that anyone experiencing homosexual attractions would have gone to great efforts to suppress and hide those attractions.  It is highly doubtful imo that they would have been pushing or even hinting that anyone with such feelings should be treated as not sinning.

Would a man who had Black parents but was able to ‘pass’ have promoted acceptance of Blacks or would he have been quiet out of concern that his heritage would be discovered?  Given the history I have read of some who ‘passed’ in the Church and the many more outside the Church, for much of the time most would not have been speaking up for removing the ban, understandably so given the hostility that often existed around them towards Blacks and fearing for both themselves and their families.

Edited June 16, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Given how homosexuality was viewed at the time, there is a very good chance that anyone experiencing homosexual attractions would have gone to great efforts to suppress and hide those attractions.  It is highly doubtful imo that they would have been pushing or even hinting that anyone with such feelings should be treated as not sinning.

Would a man who had Black parents but was able to ‘pass’ have promoted acceptance of Blacks or would he have been quiet out of concern that his heritage would be discovered?  Given the history I have read of some who ‘passed’ in the Church and the many more outside the Church, for much of the time most would not have been speaking up for removing the ban, understandably so given the hostility that often existed around them towards Blacks and fearing for both themselves and their families.

How ever it may be that we cannot tell another’s sexuality, or how they might hide it, that person’s sexuality (attraction as you put it) still exists and is real, for them. These brothers were nevertheless married and had children, and I can’t imagine none of them in the last 194 years had sexual attractions for men or other matters of sexual and gender concern. So, each one did not self-select out of callings or got filtered out of callings through careful screening (what would be the rationale?). This comparison is with Black men prior to the ban. I don’t imagine each of them self-selected or got filtered out either.

In both cases, it could be said that strong social attitudes of the time were enough to discourage their willingness to shine in the kingdom, but with that assumption, I would think a man of sufficient integrity to serve as a president in this quorum would have asked God about his standing with regards to his sexuality or race. Joseph Smith’s experience (JH-S 1:25) was emulated by many early saints.

Some may say that all things being equal, the not-strictly heterosexual president could help the quorum seek revelation on how to structure the covenants as they pertain to expressing human sexuality. I'm sure they did and this is what we have in place today. The Black man would have had no need to help the others on racial ramifications on the covenants, for there was no ban.