Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“Is this a faith position or a reasoned one? And if a reasoned one, why was 1978 the right time?”

With the understanding that I consider your answer wholly based on faith [in your prophet’s revelatory process],

Again: I sort of reject the premise of the first question, as I believe that most "faith position{s}" have substantial elements of reasoning to them.

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

what part of the question is not feasible?

Your questions presuppose empirically testable answers, which render them essentially unfeasible.

Also, the first question asks about "a faith position" as differentiated from "a reasoned one."  I reject this either/or juxtaposition, as it relies on the false dilemma fallacy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I think it is specious logic to to expect questions of faith to be empirically answerable/testable.  If they were empirically testable, they wouldn't be questions of faith.

I just wanted to add, for someone that claims to being against logical fallacies, you sure do a lot of strawmanning. 

I don't claim to be immune to fallacious reasoning.  Your questions seem to be posting questions of faith, with the expectation that they be empirically answered, or that such answers are empirically testable.  I think that is specious reasoning (of the "hidden premise" variety).

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again: I sort of reject the premise of the first question, as I believe that most "faith position{s}" have substantial elements of reasoning to them.

Your questions presuppose empirically testable answers, which render them essentially unfeasible.

Also, the first question asks about "a faith position" as differentiated from "a reasoned one."  I reject this either/or juxtaposition, as it relies on the false dilemma fallacy.

Thanks,

-Smac

And I have agreed that the question was inelegantly worded. Pointing out that people’s faith can be reasoned. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your questions seem to be posting questions of faith, with the expectation that they be empirically answered, or that such answers are empirically testable. 

Quite the opposite. Understanding that questions of faith cannot be empirically answered, I was asking if there was any empirically  based reasoning behind his sentiment. Or if it was strictly a matter of faith which as you say cannot be empirically answered. 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quite the opposite. Understanding that questions of faith cannot be empirically answered, I was asking if there was any empirically  based reasoning behind his sentiment.

There are all sorts of "reasoning" that are not "empirical" (that is, "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic").

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or if it was strictly a matter of faith which as you say cannot be empirically answered. 

Again, I reject the either/or juxtaposition that you seem to be advancing here (X is either a "matter of faith" or a matter of reasoning, logic, etc.), particularly since you seem intent on foisting it onto us.  

As Elder Perry put it: “We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.”  Reasoning is an integral part of our faith, not an alternative to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And I have agreed that the question was inelegantly worded. Pointing out that people’s faith can be reasoned. 

Sounds like we agree more than we disagree, then.  Whoda thunk?

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, I reject the either/or juxtaposition that you seem to be advancing here (X is either a "matter of faith" or a matter of reasoning, logic, etc.), particularly since you seem intent on foisting it onto us.  

Since you say " it is specious logic to to expect questions of faith to be empirically answerable/testable," perhaps you can help me out.

 

How can I word question to determine if something is "a question of faith."  In this example the statement was the priesthood/temple ban's "lifting happened exactly when it was supposed to happen." 

What words should I use to ask if I, as a non-believer, can understand why 1978 was exactly the right moment for God to lift the ban? Or on the other hand, determine if the poster is stating a faith based position. 

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Since you say " it is specious logic to to expect questions of faith to be empirically answerable/testable," perhaps you can help me out.

How can I word question to determine if something is "a question of faith."  

Just ask it.  But don't fault the answer on the basis that it (the answer) is not empirically testable.

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In this example the statement was the priesthood/temple ban's "lifting happened exactly when it was supposed to happen." 

Okay.

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What words should I use to ask if I, as a non-believer, can understand why 1978 was exactly the right moment for God to lift the ban?

Again, your questions presuppose empirically testable answers, which render them (the questions) essentially unfeasible.

Consider, for example, Question X: "Who is, as of July 9, 2024, the President of the United States?"  The answer is empirically testable, correct?  There is no reasonable dispute that Joe Biden is the President.  

Now consider Question Y: "In 1978, did God speak to or inspire Spencer W. Kimball and other leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding the removal of the priesthood ban in effect at that time?"  The answer to this question is not empirically testable.  The particulars of how it is framed or worded do not really matter.  This question intends to elicit an answer that is not empirically testable.  The person posing the question can't really do much with the answer without first examining the assumptions baked into the question (does God exist, was Spencer W. Kimball a prophet, etc.).

Your question to Bernard was as follows:

Quote

Quote

Whatever the reason for the ban, its lifting happened exactly when it was supposed to happen. IMO.

Is this a faith position or a reasoned one? And if a reasoned one, why was 1978 the right time?

Putting aside the juxtaposition issue (which we have previously addressed), are these questions more like X (intended to elicit an empirically testable answer) or Y (not intended to elicit an empirically testable answer)? 

If X, then this is all a futile exercise.

If Y, then my previous answer stands:

Quote

Quote

Yeah, I tried to clarify with my edit, but my framing was a little bit off. It seems that your position is that prophets from at least the 1940's were seeking divine guidance on the ban. Therefore based on your faith in prophets, 1978 was "exactly" the right time, because that's when your prophets claimed to received revelation.

I'm not particularly focused on the "exactly" thing, but I suppose the timing of the revelation was correct because the Lord chose it.  Of course, these presupposes that God exists, that He is perfect in every respect, omniscient, omnipotent, and so on.  If God is as I believe Him to be, He does not make mistakes.

I am not saying you, as the questioner, must adopt my frame of reference.  Instead, I am suggesting that you cannot find fault with an answer to a Question Y-type inquiry because it (the answer) is not empirically testable (as you might otherwise be able to find fault with an answer to a Question X-type inquiry, which answer would be empirically testable/falsifiable).

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or on the other hand, determine if the poster is stating a faith based position. 

There is no question that Bernard is "stating a faith based position."  The disagreement arose when you differentiated such a "faith based position" from "a reasoned one."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2024 by smac97

[JVW]

@smac97 Setting aside the reason of "because the prophet said so", why do you believe that 1978 was the right time to lift the priesthood ban?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

@smac97 Setting aside the reason of "because the prophet said so",

Has a prophet "said so"?  Which one?  When?  Where?

1 hour ago, JVW said:

why do you believe that 1978 was the right time to lift the priesthood ban?

See here:

Quote

Quote

Yeah, I tried to clarify with my edit, but my framing was a little bit off. It seems that your position is that prophets from at least the 1940's were seeking divine guidance on the ban. Therefore based on your faith in prophets, 1978 was "exactly" the right time, because that's when your prophets claimed to received revelation.

I'm not particularly focused on the "exactly" thing, but I suppose the timing of the revelation was correct because the Lord chose it.  Of course, these presupposes that God exists, that He is perfect in every respect, omniscient, omnipotent, and so on.  If God is as I believe Him to be, He does not make mistakes.

I likewise repose some faith in God's timing as to pretty much any other interaction or intervention (or the lack of these things).  I don't fault God for letting the Children of Israel languish in bondage for 400 years, even though I cannot comprehend reasoning for such a duration.  The same goes for the timing of Christ's ministry, its duration, His anticipated return, and so on.  I believe the timing of these things are "right" because the timing is chosen by our omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent Heavenly Father.  Whatever He does is "right."

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks,

-Smac

[gopher]

Has new information come out about the priesthood ban that is convincing believers to accept that it didn't come from God?  The last thing I've heard was the church disavowed the past theories that the ban was because of divine disfavor, inferiority or unrighteousness of blacks.  I understand it's a winning issue for critics in our race-conscious society and it's often brought up by LGBT supporters hoping for a similar reversal, but I thought believers would be relieved that the ban wasn't put into place because of anything black members had done.  We still don't have the official reason(s) for the ban, so it's not clear why any believers would adopt any speculation that erodes their trust in prophets of God.

[MrShorty]

@gopher I don't think there is necessarily new information, but those who are studying the existing information (like Dr. Paul Reeves) are not finding any evidence for a revelation. In explaining his position that the ban had no divine origins, Reeves has noted that there is no claim to revelation for implementing the ban that does not lean on disavowed racist theories of racial origins and meanings. I don't think there is anything new that clearly points to "not revelation," but there is also a clear lack of evidence for any revelation not based on disavowed racial theories. In that absence, more and more LDS are choosing to reject any kind of divine origins for the priesthood and temple ban.

If you haven't seen it, the B H Roberts foundation has published recent survey data that suggest that LDS are split over this issue: https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/05/how-do-members-explain-the-priesthood-and-temple-ban/

I think you're right about the main problem with the priesthood and temple ban. The lack of clear, unambiguous revelation pointing us to a clear divine origin for the ban, it becomes easy to erode our trust in our prophets', apostles', and our own ability to discern the mind and will of God. For a church that claims to be built on the rock of revelation with a foundation of prophets and apostles, anything that casts doubt on our ability to receive revelation erodes trust in any claims we make based on revelation.

[MrShorty]

On 7/5/2024 at 11:27 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And if a reasoned one, why was 1978 the right time?

I obviously can't speak for others, but how about this thought train. I will admit that this train is heavily influenced by Scott Woodward (see this episode of his and Cassie Griffith's Church History Matters podcast: https://churchhistorymatters.podbean.com/e/was-the-racial-ban-church-policy-or-doctrine-setting-the-stage-for-a-revelation-from-1908-1978/ ).

Most attempts to explain the timing that I encounter involve something about how people influence what God chooses to reveal to His church and what He chooses to withhold. This thought train begins with a statement Woodward takes from Pres. Kimball (in a letter to Ed Kimball) claiming that we don't always/often receive revelation unless we are standing on our tiptoes striving to receive it. I will add that we also seem to believe that our sincerity and intent can determine whether or not God will grant us revelation (see Moroni 10:4). One thing I find interesting reading through Ed Kimball's history is how much of that history shows Pres. Kimball et al's diligence and earnestness in seeking revelation and breaking down barriers to revelation. Woodward observes that, at the end of the process, the very first time that all of the apostles were gathered together earnestly and sincerely seeking to receive and follow God's will, God grants the revelation.

I don't know if Woodward intended the implication, but there seems to me to be a clear implication that the '78 revelation could maybe have occurred years (decades???) earlier had we put in the effort and sincerely sought the revelation earlier.

I don't know that any of that actually answers your question, but I think there is plenty of support in LDS thought for the idea that we as a people have some impact on God's calculus as He decides what to reveal to us when. As I've said before, this is where this question intersects other intractable questions like the problem of evil.

I've also said that the real issue I see behind the priesthood and temple ban is what it tells us about the process of revelation. If my thought train here has some basis in truth, then it suggests that we maybe need to put more effort into our own efforts to prepare ourselves for revelations. Sometimes, a discussion group like this will throw up a question, "Would you leave the church or stay if the church claimed a revelation changing _________?" When a majority of respondents say "leave because I don't think God could or would grant that revelation," I think to myself that we have just discouraged God from granting that revelation by our unwillingness to seek or receive it.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Maybe God allowed it to continue until 1978, so that in our present time those who accept the Restored Gospel through personal revelation will be more easily distinguished from those who believed it through tradition and had no firm foundation? Maybe he allowed to continue as a trial of faith, so folks would either turn to Him for confirmation of the Restoration or turn to today's presentism and worldly wisdom? A sifting.

[Senator]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Maybe God allowed it to continue until 1978, so that in our present time those who accept the Restored Gospel through personal revelation will be more easily distinguished from those who believed it through tradition and had no firm foundation? Maybe he allowed to continue as a trial of faith, so folks would either turn to Him for confirmation of the Restoration or turn to today's presentism and worldly wisdom? A sifting.

I really despise the "trial of faith" explanations for life's sufferings and injustices. Especially if it is just a test for God to sift the "valiant" from all the other "losers".

Edited July 10, 2024 by Senator

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, Senator said:

I really despise the "trial of faith" explanations for life's sufferings and injustices. Especially if it is just test for God to sift the "valiant" from all the other "losers".

In school after learning comes the test/s.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Maybe God allowed it to continue until 1978, so that in our present time those who accept the Restored Gospel through personal revelation will be more easily distinguished from those who believed it through tradition and had no firm foundation? Maybe he allowed to continue as a trial of faith, so folks would either turn to Him for confirmation of the Restoration or turn to today's presentism and worldly wisdom? A sifting.

At this point you might as well say God gave the ban as revelation as part of the upcoming trial of faith.

One would think God would instead remove the Priesthood Ban really early instead to try the faith of racists instead of trying the faith of those opposed to racism.

[Peacefully]

It would be interesting if the prophet received a revelation that rescinded the priesthood for all straight, white, males for a season. 

Edited July 11, 2024 by Peacefully

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

It would be interesting if the prophet received a revelation that rescinded the priesthood for all straight, white, males for a season. 

Only straight White males eh? Are those of Spanish and Portuguese descent included in that designation? They are western Europeans after all. 

[Peacefully]

28 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Only straight White males eh? Are those of Spanish and Portuguese descent included in that designation? They are western Europeans after all. 

Yep, that’s fine. It’s just a thought experiment on my part. I’m still mulling it over. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Peacefully said:

Yep, that’s fine. It’s just a thought experiment on my part. I’m still mulling it over. 

That would eliminate pretty much 90% or more (pure guess) of Priesthood holders.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

It would be interesting if the prophet received a revelation that rescinded the priesthood for all straight, white, males for a season. 

I don’t want there to be fewer people to fill callings unless I am one of those who are excluded. No thanks.

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Only straight White males eh? Are those of Spanish and Portuguese descent included in that designation? They are western Europeans after all. 

One drop of the blood of…..ummmmm……..Shem disqualifies you. Unless you can prove your worthiness by kissing another guy enthusiastically with at least a moderate amount of tongue. We’ll go with that.

Why are you trying to make fine distinctions like this? You are undermining faith by doing so.

38 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

That would eliminate pretty much 90% or more (pure guess) of Priesthood holders.

Sometimes the Lord asks for unreasonable things.

[Peacefully]

57 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

That would eliminate pretty much 90% or more (pure guess) of Priesthood holders.

Do you think there would be any pushback? It seems easy enough to say things will happen in the Lord’s time until the shoe is on the other foot. I know it is really one of those unknowable things but I’m on a business trip with time on my hands and it was just something that crossed my mind. 

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

It would be interesting if the prophet received a revelation that rescinded the priesthood for all straight, white, males for a season. 

Why only STRAIGHT white males actually? 

[Peacefully]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t want there to be fewer people to fill callings unless I am one of those who are excluded. No thanks.

One drop of the blood of…..ummmmm……..Shem disqualifies you. Unless you can prove your worthiness by kissing another guy enthusiastically with at least a moderate amount of tongue. We’ll go with that.

Why are you trying to make fine distinctions like this? You are undermining faith by doing so.

Sometimes the Lord asks for unreasonable things.

The more I think about, the more it hurts my brain.