New Book on Ending Priesthood Ban (by Matthew Harris)

[The Nehor]

On 8/15/2024 at 11:17 AM, california boy said:

If all BY wanted to do is discourage interracial marriage, why didn't he just prohibit that instead of preventing an entire race of people from having access to the priesthood and temple blessings.  

I think you are trying to rewrite history the way you want it to be.

Because you let them hang around and treat them as equals the next thing you know:

 

[MrShorty]

On 8/16/2024 at 10:34 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, I don't get shocked by Brigham's 'mule' comments.  People forget how utterly endemic and common such views were.

 

On 8/16/2024 at 10:50 AM, Rain said:

I don't think anyone thinks it is unique to the church. What bothers some people more is the claim that it came not only from God  (yes, leaders in other churches also claimed this), but also through his only prophet(s). 

I think I've said it before, but I think this is the central issue in my own "faith crisis" (if you want to call it that). In recent years, some in the church have talked about "inoculation" or "how to build resilient faith." As I see people in groups like this one, I think this might be a core issue to building this kind of resilient faith. How to get people to understand how commonly held opinions get branded as revealed truth and then become disavowed. I don't know how best to incoporate this into our understanding of the church, but it seems key to me.

[LoudmouthMormon]

It helped me once I realized humans don't stop being human, just because they get a church calling.

I also ran into a witty phrase: "The Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, but Catholics don't believe it.  LDS prophet is fallible when voicing opinions, but the Mormons don't believe it."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 8/16/2024 at 10:04 AM, Teancum said:

We clearly see that LDS top leadership has nothing special going on

 

On 8/16/2024 at 10:34 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

But just in case anyone is thinking this backward history-dustbin bullcrap was somehow unique to the LDS, that person would be well served to read more.

Yep. Different ways of saying the same thing. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Different ways of saying the same thing. 

I once sat at a red light that refused to turn green for 3 cycles.  Eventually I just ran it.   I also concluded that all traffic lights everywhere just aren't worth obeying.   Glad to find you and Teancum agreeing with my conclusion. 

Edited August 18, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I once sat at a red light that refused to turn green for 3 cycles.  Eventually I just ran it.   I also concluded that all traffic lights everywhere just aren't worth obeying.   Glad to find you and Teancum agreeing with my conclusion. 

Sounds like you rightfully concluded there was something broken with the stoplight you were waiting at. I agree with you. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I once sat at a red light that refused to turn green for 3 cycles.  Eventually I just ran it.   I also concluded that all traffic lights everywhere just aren't worth obeying.   Glad to find you and Teancum agreeing with my conclusion. 

Did you get ticketed for it and when you contested it did the judge insist that you have to follow the traffic rules no matter what and the traffic light is always to be followed and obeyed.

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sounds like you rightfully concluded there was something broken with the stoplight you were waiting at. I agree with you. 

Sounds like you took an example of revelation not revealing what you wanted it to reveal when you wanted it to be revealed, and concluded revelation doesn't exist.   I disagree with you.

I note you didn't interact with the relevant part of my humorous logical extreme analogy.  Any particular reason why?  I mean, Nehor had no problem playing along:

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Did you get ticketed for it and when you contested it did the judge insist that you have to follow the traffic rules no matter what and the traffic light is always to be followed and obeyed.

Full disclosure, it didn't happen to me, but it did really happen to my dad.  Yes, he got pulled over.  When he explained himself to the cop, the cop verified his story and exercised his discretion and did not write a ticket.  The analogy gets too stretched at that point to remain relevant. 

 

Edited August 18, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Sounds like you took an example of revelation not revealing what you wanted it to reveal when you wanted it to be revealed, and concluded revelation doesn't exist.   I disagree with you.

I note you didn't interact with the relevant part of my humorous logical extreme analogy.  Any particular reason why?  I mean, Nehor had no problem playing along:

Oh sorry, I missed your analogy. I thought the one broken stoplight was the idea of Modern Day prophets. Not this particular case of modern prophets failing.

Well, sure. Every single instance of a miracle or prophesy that I have been able to dig into has been exactly the same as this one. Each one that is actually available for examination has been better explained naturally. Brigham Young's transformation into Joseph? Not mentioned in our earliest records. Wait a few decades and people who weren't even there witnessed it! Joseph Smith's civil war prophecy? Not impressive when you actually read the actual text of the revelation. Ancient Old Testaments prophesying about Jesus? Misreadings, mistranslations, and propaganda. There is a reason why it was non-Jews who converted to the early Church. Growing up, I was always impressed by my mom's miracle stories. As she told it, she'd pray and someone would be healed. She'd be prompted to make a call at the right time. As an adult, however, I got to witness some of these stories in the making. As an example, one of my children had pretty severe jaundice. She'd call and tell me she had a prompting that the kid would be better that day. The kid actually got worse. This happened several different times with her promptings turning out to be wrong. Turns out the miracles she told were just the hits leaving out the misses. My Dad too. He was in the stake presidency and upon reorganization felt prompted that he was going to be the new stake president. Didn't happen. A few months later he was called as Stake Patriarch and it turns out *that, was what his earlier prompting was about. 

Everything I have seen that is proclaimed as evidence of the divine can be better explained by naturalism. YMMV. So yes, in your analogy, none of the stop lights are working.

Edited August 19, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[LoudmouthMormon]

An understandable perspective.  If God isn't going to go about proving His existence, then surely there'd be no way to quantify miracles and prophesies.  Good science is all about testable experiments with repeatable results, yeah?

And yet, from my perspective (and that of many other folks), I've witnessed miracles, and seen prophesies come true.  I'm almost 30 years in to following the roadmap laid out in my patriarchical blessing, and seen some of it's long-term promises come true.  I've acted on spiritual promptings without understanding why, and seen results that had me saying "oh, I get it now".  I've given blessings where I legitimately just had no earthly clue what to say, and just voiced the words that came to me, and seen blessings flow as a result.  I'm naturally skeptical, and try hard to apply that skepticism everywhere, including such things.  I think I've had more hits than misses.  When it comes to just trying to discover and convey God's will, instead of trying to exercise His power in ways I want to get what I want, they've all been hits with no misses.   

I get that you're happy to poo-poo my experiences as 'better explained by naturalism'.  As I said, it's an understandable, even a respectable perspective.  But I'm content to let spiritual impressions guide my entire life, and let the chips fall where they may.

Lots of faithful folks in the same boat as me.  Impossible to quantify scientifically, also impossible to disprove scientifically.   Science and faith make great friends, but lousy enemies, because when they fight, it's impossible to find a clear winner or loser.

As I say to my athiest buddies when I find them to be good people interested in the truth, I'll put in a good word for you on the other side.  You seem to mean well.   

Edited August 19, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Teancum]

On 8/17/2024 at 7:10 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

It helped me once I realized humans don't stop being human, just because they get a church calling.

I also ran into a witty phrase: "The Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, but Catholics don't believe it.  LDS prophet is fallible when voicing opinions, but the Mormons don't believe it."

Nobody expects that LDS leaders are not human and subject to all to foibles we all are subject to. But for a religion that claims the be led by prophets, seers and revelators, to bungle and screw up for so long on a major doctrinal point, and the perpetuate teachings that were accepted as doctrinal that were later simply brushed off is a major problem for you and them. It is a clear demonstration that these men really have no special guidance by some god and certainly have no better prophesy and revelatory ability than anyone else.  But I know that the bar has been lowered quite substantially for what to expect from LDS leaders and far is prophecy, seering and revelating  goes.

[Teancum]

On 8/14/2024 at 3:27 PM, smac97 said:

Brigham Young was, in the end, a complex figure.  Overwhelmingly good and decent, but he had substantial flaws and errors as well.

How are you certain that he was overwhelmingly good and decent?  My study of the man and his life and his words reveal a man that really was not all that good and decent.

[theplains]

On 8/13/2024 at 6:45 PM, smac97 said:

From the Trib: Jana Riess: The private LDS Church battles to lift the Black priesthood/temple ban

I think I'm going to buy this book.

See  The Way to Perfection.  It's free, and it comes from a former LDS president.

[Teancum]

On 8/14/2024 at 5:07 PM, smac97 said:

I have never been able to fully reconcile a few aspects of the Gospel with my personal moral barometer, such as polygamy, animal sacrifice, and a few others.

Perhaps you should explore the conflict these create for your further. The two you mention are worthy of exploration and why you can't reconcile them.  There may be hope for you yet. 😉

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, theplains said:

See  The Way to Perfection.  It's free, and it comes from a former LDS president.

Why?  What purpose do you see it filling for him to read it as Joseph Fielding Smith was not a trained historian and the book is not a historical text.

[Teancum]

On 8/14/2024 at 5:27 PM, smac97 said:

Dallin H. Oaks, Ahmad Corbitt and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are, IMO, able "to say th{at} activism isn't the method God uses to get them to listen." 

The argument that Oaks and Corbitt make are self serving for them and the church. Sort of like Oaks saying criticism of church leaders is not proper even if the criticism is true.  Why should they be above criticism?  Why should the church be free from activism?  It is pretty clear the priesthood ban being lifter was much in part from outside pressure. Now granted, the Church is the ultimate top down organization and activism may get you kicked out. I think a number of changes in policies over the past few decades are a result of vocal member, some of which got the boot. The debacle of the 2015 policy on gay couples and their children is a fine example.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Brigham Young was, in the end, a complex figure.  Overwhelmingly good and decent, but he had substantial flaws and errors as well.

How are you certain that he was overwhelmingly good and decent?  My study of the man and his life and his words reveal a man that really was not all that good and decent.

Back in 2023 I participated in a thread about supposed "hate speech by senior church leaders."  In that thread I addressed, at some length, issues pertaining to treatment of historical figures, presentism, the application of Mormon 9:31, OD-1, faultfinding, coping with hypocrisy, navel-gazing, notions and expectations (often implicit) of infallibility,  and so on.  I summed up my overall position in this post.  Much of it pertains to how I think modern audiences, including current and former Latter-day Saints, treat Brigham Young (and other historical figures) :

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

Quote

 

The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.
...
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 best 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.

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.

As regarding Brigham Young, I maintain that he was "a complex figure.  Overwhelmingly good and decent, but he had substantial flaws and errors as well."  I think this is evidence based on assessments of the man seen in Arrington's Brigham Young: American Moses, John G. Turner's  Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet, and Chad Orton's and William Slaughter's 40 Ways to Look at Brigham Young: A New Approach to a Remarkable Man.

Years ago my father expressed his view that Brigham Young could not have done what Joseph Smith did in restoring the Gospel, and Joseph Smith could not have done what Brigham Young did in keeping the Saints together, moving them west, establishing communities, preserving the Church, building safe, self-sustaining and unified societies/communities, advancing education and industry, developing programs to assist the poor and needy (PEF, Bishop's Storehouse), building temples, mitigating/minimizing conflicts, supporting suffrage, and so on.

Overall, Brigham Young’s children generally regarded him with respect, admiration, and loyalty regarding his leadership, wisdom, and commitment to his faith.  He was often described as a strong yet compassionate figure who took his role as a father seriously, despite the demands of his public duties. One of his daughters, Susa Young Gates, who in her own right became a prominent writer and women’s rights advocate, described him as a loving but firm parent who taught the importance of education, discipline, and religious devotion.

There were obviously flaws in the man.  He had racialist views common in the era.  He had had at least 56 wives, ten of which divorced him (on various grounds, mostly emotional distance and issues inherent in polygamy).  He was authoritarian (perhaps a necessity at the time).  His policies and statements toward Native Americans were often contradictory.

Brigham Young was called upon to lead the Church during some of its greatest difficulties.  He made many hard decisions, and had both great accomplishments and great errors in his ledger.  In the end, though, "{o}verwhelmingly good and decent, but he had substantial flaws and errors as well" seems apt.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I have never been able to fully reconcile a few aspects of the Gospel with my personal moral barometer, such as polygamy, animal sacrifice, and a few others.

Perhaps you should explore the conflict these create for your further.

I do.

47 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The two you mention are worthy of exploration and why you can't reconcile them. 

I can't fully reconcile them, no.  I think I lack sufficient light, knowledge, experience, and circumstance to do so.

I'm kind of okay with that.  For myself, I think attempting a full reconciliation would be necessarily fail, as doing so would have me run headlong into too much presentism, presumption, ignorance, and so on.  I have previously summed up my position here:

Quote

For what it's worth, I empathize with his sentiments about polygamy.  I am not very comfortable with the concept.  I do not understand it.  So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.

Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.

Neither does the slaying of Nehor.

Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").

And so on.

There are all sorts of things in play here.  Context matters.  A lot.  Historical context.  Social/cultural context.  Scriptural context.  Gospel context.  So does accuracy in conveyed information.  So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease is not the most reliable moral barometer in the world.  So objectivity helps.  So does research.  Lots of research.  And patience.  And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky").  And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions.  But most of all . . . faith.  Lots and lots of faith.

Also, Mormon 9:31.  I know I cite this one a lot, but boy, it seems apt and prescient.

My faith is always a work in progress.  It does not require a complete "reconciliation."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Dallin H. Oaks, Ahmad Corbitt and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are, IMO, able "to say th{at} activism isn't the method God uses to get them to listen." 

The argument that Oaks and Corbitt make are self serving for them and the church.

Every argument you make can likewise be characterized as "self serving," yet that does not tell us much about the merits of your arguments.

Also Pres. Oaks had been an apostle for about three years when he wrote Criticism.  I think his assessment was substantially more related to the doctrines of the Church than to any supposed self-serving concerns.

Also, Bro. Corbitt made his remarks while serving as first counselor in the in the YM General Presidency.  I doubt he was target of any appreciable amounts of activism, so it's hard to go along with imputing self-serving motives onto him as well.

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sort of like Oaks saying criticism of church leaders is not proper even if the criticism is true.

As an attorney, I appear before judges all the time.  Sometimes judges are called upon to maintain behavioral decorum and propriety in the proceedings, and do so by reminding participants, instructing them to stop obstreperous or other untoward behaviors, and so on.  These are not self-aggrandizing or self-serving behaviors by the judge.  These principles exist outside of his preference for them, and are applicable whether he is saying so or not.

I am reminded of this clip from Band of Brothers, where Captain Sobel (previously the CO of Easy Company, later replaced by **** Winters, who then became a major) attempted to walk by Major Winters without rendering a salute to Maj. Winters as a superior officer:

"We salute the rank, not the man."  Most folks who have served in the military recognize the need to maintain military order, discipline, decorum, etc., as the military has objectives many orders of magnitude more important than the personality conflicts between officers.

The military is not alone.  Other organizations must likewise maintain some measure of order and discipline and decorum within themselves.  I assume you acknowledge this to some extent.  Or do you feel utterly free to publicly badmouth / disparage / malign / insult, say, your employer and/or its leadership on social media?

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why should they be above criticism?  Why should the church be free from activism?

Both then-Elder Oaks and then-Bro. Corbitt provide extensive commentary on these issues in their respective articles.

And it's not really that they are "above" criticism by members of the Church, but rather about how such criticism should be handled.  Those who are not in the covenant are, of course, free to say what they like.

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is pretty clear the priesthood ban being lifter was much in part from outside pressure.

Joseph and Mary's flight into Egypt could likewise be characterized as "much in part from outside pressure."  And yet Joseph went there because "the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt."

Both events occurred because of revelation.

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Now granted, the Church is the ultimate top down organization and activism may get you kicked out.

It's about more than that.

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think a number of changes in policies over the past few decades are a result of vocal member, some of which got the boot. The debacle of the 2015 policy on gay couples and their children is a fine example.

Who "got the boot" over this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

But for a religion that claims the be led by prophets, seers and revelators, to bungle and screw up for so long on a major doctrinal point, and the perpetuate teachings that were accepted as doctrinal that were later simply brushed off is a major problem for you and them.

Meh.  If that's a valid attack, it's a valid attack against the entirety of organized religion that claims authority.  Them Jewish folks got an awful lot to answer for all their mysoginistic and slavery-positive old testament days.  Same with Catholics.  Not to mention Muslims, although many of the especially problematic Islamic claims of authority persist to this day with an awful lot of people.

For that matter, there's no shortage of atheists claiming authority and running shows that results in all sorts of human tragedies.

[The Nehor]

On 8/16/2024 at 11:34 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, I don't get shocked by Brigham's 'mule' comments.  People forget how utterly endemic and common such views were.  

Evidence: I grew up in 1970's Salt Lake City.  My childhood was surrounded with about half LDS and half non-LDS.  Mom and her family were sons-of-the-pioneers LDS stock.  Dad was a drinking swearing areligious WW2 vet.  I grew up in casinos on Saturday and church on Sunday.  The schoolyard was similarly about 50/50.

It seemed like everyone I knew, mom's family, dad's drinking buddies, kids at school, everyone held similar attitudes towards blacks and mixing races and intermarriage.   The LDS folks seemed to have notions more affirming of black people's value as children of God, some of my dad's drinking buddies were still sore at how the Civil war ended, and hearkened back to the good old days when the KKK helped the culture not descend into the dank pits we had to deal with now.  But us kids would overhear numerous biological arguments about genetic incompatibility from both camps.  I think the words were 'defective mulattos' and a handful of spicier and more horrible phrases I think best to not utter. 

1970's SLC suburb of Holladay UT.  Elementary school playgrounds and middle school lunch rooms.  American Legion posts, Elks lodge, Moose lodge.  The local AFL/CIO Union shop.  Mom and her sisters throwing a tupperware or quilting party.  Boy scout sleepovers overhearing comments from the grownups talking to each other.

Yeah, I'm glad the humans outgrew that nonsense.  But just in case anyone is thinking this backward history-dustbin bullcrap was somehow unique to the LDS, that person would be well served to read more.

I don’t think anyone thinks it was limited to LDS.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Meh.  If that's a valid attack, it's a valid attack against the entirety of organized religion that claims authority.  Them Jewish folks got an awful lot to answer for all their mysoginistic and slavery-positive old testament days.  Same with Catholics.  Not to mention Muslims, although many of the especially problematic Islamic claims of authority persist to this day with an awful lot of people.

Now you get it!

[Teancum]

On 8/16/2024 at 12:34 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, I'm glad the humans outgrew that nonsense.  But just in case anyone is thinking this backward history-dustbin bullcrap was somehow unique to the LDS, that person would be well served to read more.

It seems odd that you want to have your standard for The Church of Jesus Christ the same as the rest of the culture is is part of.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Back in 2023 I participated in a thread about supposed "hate speech by senior church leaders."  In that thread I addressed, at some length, issues pertaining to treatment of historical figures, presentism, the application of Mormon 9:31, OD-1, faultfinding, coping with hypocrisy, navel-gazing, notions and expectations (often implicit) of infallibility,  and so on.  I summed up my overall position in this post.  Much of it pertains to how I think modern audiences, including current and former Latter-day Saints, treat Brigham Young (and other historical figures) :

As regarding Brigham Young, I maintain that he was "a complex figure.  Overwhelmingly good and decent, but he had substantial flaws and errors as well."  I think this is evidence based on assessments of the man seen in Arrington's Brigham Young: American Moses, John G. Turner's  Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet, and Chad Orton's and William Slaughter's 40 Ways to Look at Brigham Young: A New Approach to a Remarkable Man.

Years ago my father expressed his view that Brigham Young could not have done what Joseph Smith did in restoring the Gospel, and Joseph Smith could not have done what Brigham Young did in keeping the Saints together, moving them west, establishing communities, preserving the Church, building safe, self-sustaining and unified societies/communities, advancing education and industry, developing programs to assist the poor and needy (PEF, Bishop's Storehouse), building temples, mitigating/minimizing conflicts, supporting suffrage, and so on.

Overall, Brigham Young’s children generally regarded him with respect, admiration, and loyalty regarding his leadership, wisdom, and commitment to his faith.  He was often described as a strong yet compassionate figure who took his role as a father seriously, despite the demands of his public duties. One of his daughters, Susa Young Gates, who in her own right became a prominent writer and women’s rights advocate, described him as a loving but firm parent who taught the importance of education, discipline, and religious devotion.

There were obviously flaws in the man.  He had racialist views common in the era.  He had had at least 56 wives, ten of which divorced him (on various grounds, mostly emotional distance and issues inherent in polygamy).  He was authoritarian (perhaps a necessity at the time).  His policies and statements toward Native Americans were often contradictory.

Brigham Young was called upon to lead the Church during some of its greatest difficulties.  He made many hard decisions, and had both great accomplishments and great errors in his ledger.  In the end, though, "{o}verwhelmingly good and decent, but he had substantial flaws and errors as well" seems apt.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I am quite familiar with your arguments on how one should form opinions about historical figures. I agree what we should not just take a few of the negative attributes, actions, words or deeds and use that to color the person under study.  That said, we do not need to ignore them. One can weigh the entirety based on whatever we have in the historical record and then make conclusions.  My conclusions about Brigham are based on a broad reading of biographies about him and from his own words. You can excuse him on the race and priesthood ban based on a premise of him simply holding racist views that were common when he was alive if you wish. I understand that. And it is an argument that he has no special providence as a so called prophet, seer and revelator.  If the ban was an error that he introduced it is not unreasonable to wonder why a so called prophet would not have received correction from God for such an egregious error.  Your argument is a great one to use to demonstrate that the LDS prophets are nothing more any other human and receive no special guidance at all from God.

 

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do.

I can't fully reconcile them, no. 

That may be a good indicator that there really is a reason you cannot reconcile them.

 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I think I lack sufficient light, knowledge, experience, and circumstance to do so.

Or they are indicators that there was no supernatural guidance or direction for the perpetuation of unethical and immoral doctrines put in the name and mouth of God.

 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm kind of okay with that.  For myself, I think attempting a full reconciliation would be necessarily fail, as doing so would have me run headlong into too much presentism, presumption, ignorance, and so on. 

If that works for ya great. I did that as well, until I couldn't any longer.

 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Also, Mormon 9:31.  I know I cite this one a lot, but boy, it seems apt and prescient.

You like to use this passage to make a lot of excuses for the failure of prophets, seers and revelators that fail in their roles. And as I have noted before, apologists for the church have a tough road to hoe. So they need to lower the bar and expectations for the LDS prophets.

 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

My faith is always a work in progress.  It does not require a complete "reconciliation."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Faith is the crutch believers need to use when they cannot reconcile things that are clearly unreconcilable.