New Book on Ending Priesthood Ban (by Matthew Harris)

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, theplains said:

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

I rather condemning document of the doctrines the church wants people to ignore as uninspired folklore and speculation.

[Teancum]

19 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.

All more evidence that all religion is man made and there is not some theistic deity speaking through so called prophets.

19 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

 

This constant, "men of their times" argument really undermines the who concept of what a prophet should be. It is impossible to believe in the flaming sword story where God enforces his teachings with an angel ready to smite a prophet if he doesn't do what God wants him to do with the idea that prophets were just "men of their times" with flawed personal beliefs. 

Which is it?  Does God make sure prophets respond to his will or does God let men do whatever they want even if it is against God's core values for over 100 years?  What doctrine needed a flaming sword more?  A doctrine taught that excluded an entire race of people from temple and priesthood blessings or a group of men who somehow needed more wives who at times were young girls?  

Edited August 20, 2024 by california boy

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

This constant, "men of their times" argument really undermines the who concept of what a prophet should be. It is impossible to believe in the flaming sword story where God enforces his teachings with an angel ready to smite a prophet if he doesn't do what God wants him to do with the idea that prophets were just "men of their times" with flawed personal beliefs. 

Which is it?  Does God make sure prophets respond to his will or does God let men do whatever they want even if it is against God's core values for over 100 years?  What doctrine needed a flaming sword more?  A doctrine taught that excluded an entire race of people from temple and priesthood blessings or a group of men who somehow needed more wives who at times were young girls?  

Exactly!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

I agree.  I think we may disagree as to what those reasons are.

Having practiced law for 20 years, I have had extensive experience in testing my competence as an adjudicator of right and wrong.  While most of the time I can accurately predict the outcome of a disputed issue, there have been many times when I have reached the wrong conclusion.  Upon further review, the reasons for my failure to correctly judge an issue typically fall into categories:

(1) On my part, ignorance, or failure to fully account for and/or properly apply all relevant factual and/or legal factors.

(2) On my part, self-interested bias (or anger, or some other emotion).

(3) The judge made a mistake.

A decent amount of the time, when I incorrectly predict the outcome of a dispute, (1) and/or (2) are in play.  On some rare occasions, (3) is in play.  Put another way, most of the time my "legal barometer" is imperfect, owing either to my ignorance or a self-serving bias or - on rarer occasions - because the judge just got it wrong.

In the context of the Restored Gospel, I use my moral barometer to gauge whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, etc.  I think it would be hubristic of me to declare that my moral barometer is perfectly calibrated at all times and as to all issues.  Sometimes ignorance affects its calibration, or bias, or pride or other emotion.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think I lack sufficient light, knowledge, experience, and circumstance to {fully reconcile some few issues with my moral barometer}.

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.

You sort of prove my point.  Your comment seems to presuppose that you and I have perfectly calibrated moral barometers, at all times and in all places.  I question that.

That said, you may have a point.  As a child my parents gave me an illustrated Bible to read during Sacrament Meeting (I was fidgety, bored, etc.).  I ended up reading it many times over.  I remember being troubled by its recitation of the story of Moses, with the two biggies being A) the killing of the firstborn, and B) the Lord hardening the Pharoah's heart over and over.  As to the latter:

• Exodus 4:21: "And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go."
• Exodus 7:3: "And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt."
• Exodus 8:19: "Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said."
• Exodus 9:7: "And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go."
• Exodus 10:1: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him."
• Exodus 11:10: "And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land."
• Exodus 14: "For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in.  And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that he shall follow after them ... And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel."

Much later, I encountered excerpts from the JST which mitigated this concern for me a bit:

• JST Ex. 4:12: " … and I will prosper thee; but Pharaoh will harden his heart, and he will not let the people go."
• JST Ex. 7:3: "And Pharaoh will harden his heart, as I said unto thee; and thou shalt multiply my signs …"
• JST Ex. 10:1: " … for he hath hardened his heart, and the hearts of his servants, therefore I will show these my signs before him ..."
• JST Ex. 11:10: "… And Pharaoh hardened his heart …"
• JST Ex. 14:4: "And Pharaoh will harden his heart …"
• JST Ex. 14:8: "And Pharaoh hardened his heart, and he pursued …"
• JST Ex. 14:17 "And I say unto thee the hearts of the Egyptians shall be hardened, and they …"

This helped me a bit, but I still struggled, and now struggle, with the killing of the firstborn.  And with animal sacrifice generally.  And with polygamy generally.  And with the slaying of Laban.  And so on.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

In the end, we all must proceed as we deem fit and proper.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

I like to use this passage to resist presentism, implicit notions/expectations of infallibility, and so on.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

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.

If "lower the bar" = "set aside implicit notions/expectations of prophetic/apostolic infallibility," then I agree.

If "lower the bar" = "refrain from unrighteous judgment," then I agree.

If "lower the bar" = "take prophets off lofty pedestals and recognize that they made, and make, mistakes along with the rest of us," then I agree.

If "lower the bar" = "recognize that the role of a special witnesses of Jesus Christ is not to be perfect in every respect, but to testify of Jesus Christ in their 'special' capacity," then I agree.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

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

Oh, I think the reconciliation will come eventually.  At some point we will have the scales of ignorance prejudice and bias removed from our eyes, and we will see things clearly.  We will then be able to competently acknowledge the same thing Nephi did in 2 Nephi 26:7: "O the pain, and the anguish of my soul for the loss of the slain of my people! For I, Nephi, have seen it, and it well nigh consumeth me before the presence of the Lord; but I must cry unto my God: Thy ways are just."

Meanwhile, however: "Ye cannot behold with your natural eyes, for the present time, the design of your God concerning those things which shall come hereafter, and the glory which shall follow after much tribulation."  (D&C 58:3.)

If your moral barometer is perfectly calibrated at all times and in all circumstances, then you are in a far better position than me.  In my ignorant and blinkered state, I cannot reconcile all things pertaining to God.  Consequently, I must adopt some measure of ambivalence about such difficulties, aware of and content with the reality that we "see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12), that while we know that God "loveth his children," we nevertheless "do not know the meaning of all things" (1 Nephi 11:17), that God "has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; {and} that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend" (Mosiah 4:9), that those who "receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day" (D&C 50:24), but that until that "perfect day" comes, we "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7), trusting that "all flesh is in {His} hands," and that our effort should focus on "press{ing} forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endur{ing} to the end," as those who do "shall have eternal life" (2 Nephi 31:20).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 8/20/2024 at 6:13 AM, Teancum said:

I am quite familiar with your arguments on how one should form opinions about historical figures.

I figured as much.  But I'm writing to the general readership as much as to you.

On 8/20/2024 at 6:13 AM, Teancum said:

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. 

I am glad we can agree on this point.

On 8/20/2024 at 6:13 AM, Teancum said:

That said, we do not need to ignore them.

I quite agree.  That's why I included this bit:

Quote

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.)  

It seems we agree on this point as well.

On 8/20/2024 at 6:13 AM, Teancum said:

One can weigh the entirety based on whatever we have in the historical record and then make conclusions. 

And the quality of that weighing will be pretty . . . questionable if the quantum of evidence "in the historical record" is incomplete, uneven, of questionable provenance, and so on.

I agree that we must still "make conclusions," but I think they can be provisional.  

On 8/20/2024 at 6:13 AM, Teancum said:

My conclusions about Brigham are based on a broad reading of biographies about him and from his own words.

So are mine.  My conclusions are also based on Mormon 9:31, and on a desire to avoid presentism, and so on.

What are you conclusions about Martin Luther King, Jr.?  To what extent do his moral/personal failings (rampant marital infidelity, plagiarizing his doctoral thesis) affect your conclusions about him?  Do these flaws negate his efforts to advance the civil rights of black people in the United States?  Or do you admire him and appreciate his efforts notwithstanding these substantial lapses in moral judgment?

On 8/20/2024 at 6:13 AM, Teancum said:

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.

No, I don't seek to "excuse" him. Rather, I refrain from condemning him, while at the same time learning from his errors.  Do you see a difference between doing that and "excus{ing} him"?

On 8/20/2024 at 6:13 AM, Teancum said:

I understand that.

Apparently not, since I don't think I have ever "excuse{d}" Brigham Young in the way you suggest.

On 8/20/2024 at 6:13 AM, Teancum said:

And it is an argument that he has no special providence as a so called prophet, seer and revelator. 

It is not.  It is an argument against inferences of infallibility.

On 8/20/2024 at 6:13 AM, Teancum said:

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. 

That certainly is a reasonable point.  Why God does, or does not do, something is often beyond our ability to comprehend.  We either lack the knowledge or the capacity to understand God's motives.

On 8/20/2024 at 6:13 AM, Teancum said:

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.

It's also a good one to use to demonstrate that God works with and through imperfect people to do amazing things.

The theophanies of Joseph Smith must be accounted for.  The Gold Plates and the coming forth of The Book of Mormon must be accounted for.  The spiritual experiences I have had regarding light and knowledge given through Latter-day Saint prophets and apostles must be accounted for.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 21, 2024 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

When my kiddos were young, wife and I made several decisions on when to let them work out their issues with each other, and when to intervene.  Now they're grown up, and both of them complain separately to us about times we didn't step in to protect them from the evil machinations of their siblings, or use parental power to force the other kid to do/think/be something else.  We did have a few "We Are Not Like That In This House" moments, but more often than not, we just engaged in conversation, offered perspectives, urged empathy and forgiveness and repentance.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Which is it?  Does God make sure prophets respond to his will or does God let men do whatever they want even if it is against God's core values for over 100 years?

False dichotomy.   The correct answer is "both", depending on the situation, according to the wisdom and purposes of God.

And the proper timeframe for putting up with crap is millenia, not a mere 100 years.  

Edited August 20, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[california boy]

7 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

False dichotomy.   The correct answer is "both", depending on the situation, according to the wisdom and purposes of God.

And the proper timeframe for putting up with crap is millenia, not a mere 100 years.  

Can you explain just how that works?  

Polygamy gets a flaming sword 

Banning blacks from the priesthood and temple blessings gets a 100+ year, I will get to it later

What is the logic here?  Which one was more proper time and why then.  What was the purpose of God to keep the ban in place?  Or is this one of those "God has his ways that we have no idea why" kind of answer.  

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

False dichotomy.   The correct answer is "both", depending on the situation, according to the wisdom and purposes of God.

And the proper timeframe for putting up with crap is millenia, not a mere 100 years.  

Can you explain just how that works?  

Polygamy gets a flaming sword 

Banning blacks from the priesthood and temple blessings gets a 100+ year, I will get to it later

Saul got a few years of persecuting the Saints, then a theophany on the road to Emmaus.

The Hebrews got 400 years of bondage, then another few decades wandering in the wilderness.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

What is the logic here?  

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  (Isaiah 55:8.)

"Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works."  (Jacob 4:10.)

"Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)

Then-Elder Oaks in 2003:

Quote

The Lord’s Timing

My first point on the subject of timing is that the Lord has His own timetable. “My words are sure and shall not fail,” the Lord taught the early elders of this dispensation. “But,” He continued, “all things must come to pass in their time” (D&C 64:31–32).

The first principle of the gospel is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith means trust—trust in God’s will, trust in His way of doing things, and trust in His timetable. We should not try to impose our timetable on His. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said:

“The issue for us is trusting God enough to trust also His timing. If we can truly believe He has our welfare at heart, may we not let His plans unfold as He thinks best? The same is true with the second coming and with all those matters wherein our faith needs to include faith in the Lord’s timing for us personally, not just in His overall plans and purposes.”

Indeed, we cannot have true faith in the Lord without also having complete trust in the Lord’s will and in the Lord’s timing.

In our service in the Lord’s Church we should remember that when is just as important as who, what, where, and how.

For a vivid illustration of the importance of timing, we can look to the earthly ministry of the Lord and His succeeding instructions to His Apostles. During His lifetime the Lord instructed the Twelve Apostles not to preach to the Gentiles but “rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:6; see also Matt. 10:5; Matt. 15:22–26). Then, at the appropriate time, this instruction was reversed in a great revelation to the Apostle Peter. Only then, at the precise time dictated by the Lord, was the gospel taken to the Gentiles (see Acts 10–11).

As this example shows, continuing revelation is the means by which the Lord administers His timing. We need that revelatory direction. For example, many of us or our descendants will doubtless participate in the fulfillment of prophecies about the building of the city of New Jerusalem (see D&C 84:2–4). But in this matter the timing is the Lord’s, not ours. We will not be approved or blessed in clearing the ground or pouring the footings for that great project until the Lord has said that it is time. In this, as in so many other things, the Lord will proceed in His own time and in His own way.

We prepare in the way the Lord has directed. We hold ourselves in readiness to act on the Lord’s timing. He will tell us when the time is right to take the next step. For now, we simply concentrate on our own assignments and on what we have been asked to do today. In this we are also mindful of the Lord’s assurance: “I will hasten my work in its time” (D&C 88:73).

People who do not accept continuing revelation sometimes get into trouble by doing things too soon or too late or too long. The practice of plural marriage is an example.

The importance of the Lord’s timing is also evident in His dietary laws. The Lord gave one dietary direction to ancient Israel. Much later, because of the “evils and designs” that exist in these “last days” (see D&C 89:4), He has given us a Word of Wisdom suited to the circumstances of our time, accompanied by the promised blessings we need in our time.

The Lord’s timing also applies to the important events of our personal lives. A great scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants declares that a particular spiritual experience will come to us “in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will” (D&C 88:68). This principle applies to revelation and to all of the most important events in our lives: birth, marriage, death, and even our moves from place to place.

It is not enough that we are going in the right direction. The timing must be right, and if the time is not right, our actions should be adjusted to the Lord’s timetable as revealed by His servants.

Several years ago President Gordon B. Hinckley announced the construction of a large number of new temples, essentially doubling the number of operating temples of the Church from about 50 to about 100 in just a few years. Having additional temples has always been the direction to go, but until the prophet of the Lord signaled this as a major initiative, no one could have properly urged such a sudden and dramatic increase for the Church and its people. Only the Lord’s prophet could signal the Church to double its operating temples in just a few years.

In my October 2001 general conference talk, I gave another illustration—the importance of following the Lord’s timing with those we try to interest in hearing the gospel message. Proclaiming the gospel is His work, not ours, and therefore it must be done on His timing, not ours. There are nations in the world today that must hear the gospel before the Lord will come again. We know this, but we cannot force it. We must wait upon the Lord’s timing. He will tell us, and He will open the doors or bring down the walls when the time is right. We should pray for the Lord’s help and directions so that we can be instruments in His hands to proclaim the gospel to nations and persons who are now ready—persons He would have us help today. The Lord loves all of His children, and He desires that all have the fulness of His truth and the abundance of His blessings. He knows when groups or individuals are ready, and He wants us to hear and heed His timetable for sharing His gospel with them.

Why the Lord does, or does not do, something, and the timetable by which He does or does not act, is generally not a matter to be found in man's grasp of "logic."

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Which one was more proper time and why then.  What was the purpose of God to keep the ban in place?  Or is this one of those "God has his ways that we have no idea why" kind of answer.  

The second one, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Saul got a few years of persecuting the Saints, then a theophany on the road to Emmaus.

The Hebrews got 400 years of bondage, then another few decades wandering in the wilderness.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  (Isaiah 55:8.)

"Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works."  (Jacob 4:10.)

"Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)

Then-Elder Oaks in 2003:

Why the Lord does, or does not do, something, and the timetable by which He does or does not act, is generally not a matter to be found in man's grasp of "logic."

The second one, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

The answer I expected.  When logic and reason can't be used, just say it is not for us to know the will of God.  Who is all mysterious, secret and beyond our comprehension.  Kind of a catchall to sweep up all the messy parts that don't make sense.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

The answer I expected.  

And yet, you asked.

16 hours ago, california boy said:

When logic and reason can't be used, just say it is not for us to know the will of God.  Who is all mysterious, secret and beyond our comprehension.  Kind of a catchall to sweep up all the messy parts that don't make sense.

You speak as if this is some sort of cop-out, and perhaps that this perspective (that we are working with limited light and knowledge) is unique to the Latter-day Saints and their beliefs.

Every adherent of every belief system deals with unanswerable questions.  It would be presumptuous, even arrogant, for we humans to think we have an answer to every question under heaven.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 21, 2024 by smac97

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet, you asked.

You speak as if this is some sort of cop-out, and perhaps that this one unique to the Latter-day Saints and their beliefs.

Every adherent of every belief system deals with unanswerable questions.  It would be presumptuous, even arrogant, for we humans to think we have an answer to every question under heaven.  

Then why don’t we take that ignorance more seriously?

We will give long involved instruction about what God wants from people and repeat them with feelings of great surety. It is only when we see previous mistakes or are dealing with esoteric topics that we pull out this reasoning. Shouldn’t we accept that ignorance MUCH more generally? Why don’t we?

[LoudmouthMormon]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

What is the logic here?  Which one was more proper time and why then.  What was the purpose of God to keep the ban in place?  Or is this one of those "God has his ways that we have no idea why" kind of answer.  

I literally gave some logic in the post you quoted. 

"When my kiddos were young, wife and I made several decisions on when to let them work out their issues with each other, and when to intervene.  Now they're grown up, and both of them complain separately to us about times we didn't step in to protect them from the evil machinations of their siblings, or use parental power to force the other kid to do/think/be something else.  We did have a few "We Are Not Like That In This House" moments, but more often than not, we just engaged in conversation, offered perspectives, urged empathy and forgiveness and repentance."

It makes logical sense: Our Father in Heaven, with his understanding of the impacts of pain injustice and death from an eternal perspective, sometimes acts and sometimes lets injustice set. 

I mean, an answer to this issue won't convince people to bend their knee and profess Christ as their savior.  It's not an answer designed to persuade someone to have faith.  But it does provide a logical explanation.  You may not like the answer, but it's logically consistent with the notion of a loving God allowing evil to exist.   Right?

Edited August 21, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[smac97]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

And yet, you asked.

You speak as if this is some sort of cop-out, and perhaps that this one unique to the Latter-day Saints and their beliefs.

Every adherent of every belief system deals with unanswerable questions.  It would be presumptuous, even arrogant, for we humans to think we have an answer to every question under heaven.  

Then why don’t we take that ignorance more seriously?

I think we do.  

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We will give long involved instruction about what God wants from people and repeat them with feelings of great surety.

I said we don't have an answer to every question, not any question.

For example, we know (that is, we strongly believe) that Jesus Christ turned water to wine, walked on water, raised the dead, and so on.  We don't know how He did these things.

We know that Christ made spittle mud and used it to heal a blind man.  We don't know why He did so.

We know that the age of accountability is eight years.  We don't know why this is so.  

And so on.

I suspect your objection is more or less a pretext for critiquing the Church's stance on same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage.  I think we know quite a bit about the what and the why and so on re: these issues, but not all.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is only when we see previous mistakes or are dealing with esoteric topics that we pull out this reasoning.

This seems like a good thing.  Course corrections and acknowledgments of what we don't know are good things.

Alternatively, there are some things that we do know.  

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Shouldn’t we accept that ignorance MUCH more generally? Why don’t we?

d

Edited August 21, 2024 by smac97

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think we do.  

I said we don't have an answer to every question, not any question.

For example, we know (that is, we strongly believe) that Jesus Christ turned water to wine, walked on water, raised the dead, and so on.  We don't know how He did these things.

We know that Christ made spittle mud and used it to heal a blind man.  We don't know why He did so.

We know that the age of accountability is eight years.  We don't know why this is so.  

And so on.

I suspect your objection is more or less a pretext for critiquing the Church's stance on same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage.  I think we know quite a bit about the what and the why and so on re: these issues, but not all.

This seems like a good thing.  Course corrections and acknowledgments of what we don't know are good things.

Alternatively, there are some things that we do know.  

d

No, it is not nearly that specific in terms of what criticisms this opens up. How do we know God likes the ministering program? How do we know God is in favor of abstinence only sex education? How do we know that God supports two meal fasting once a month specifically? We plead ignorance when things suddenly look unseemly in our beliefs or practices but we will rattle off long lists of things we think please and displease God because they rationally make sense as extrapolations of other things. A lot of our church culture is made up of these extrapolations. Why do we trust these conclusions?

[MrShorty]

I'm inclined to agree that, for a believer anyway, "God's moral calculus is too complicated or different from my own to understand" is sometimes the only possible "answer" to the problem of evil. I'm also inclined to agree that it is very much an unsatisfying answer. We try to say that it isn't an "excuse," but it so rarely seems to lead to anything other than shoulder shrugging.

It seems to me that one of the most popular theodicies for LDS is some kind of soul growth theodicy. What follows is my poor attempt at applying a soul growth theodicy to the priesthood and temple ban.

To start, it seems that we all agree with the observation that God allowed (or even commanded/encouraged) the race-based restrictions. We seem to have no insights to offer as to why God might have done this, but it seems that we all agree that God waited for decades and generations to correct this "error." From what I see in books like Harris's book in the OP, Ed Kimball's history of Pres. Kimball's efforts in the years leading up to the '78 revelation, and conversations around these sources, it also seems clear (at least to me) that God withholds revelation sometimes until we as His people earnestly and diligently seek it. It's weak sauce, I know, but what if God's purpose included us wishing that things had happened differently and trying to explore ideas for improvement? As @nehor said, maybe God wants us to learn how to take our own ignorance more seriously. If we take our ignorance more seriously, then maybe we can reduce the time of perpetuating the next false tradition to a few years instead of decades. Maybe we can approach God sooner with our urgent and sincere requests for revelation earlier in the process?

[grapevine]

How much of what Matt Harris said is true?  It’s Gods priesthood not ours.  He can choose whom he gives it too.  Blacks could of had priesthood earlier if not for disagreements?  Doesn’t the lord call his servants and do they listen to him?  If they don’t he will who is all knowing replace them.  That day couldn’t of come sooner or later even.

 

Harris attacked Ezra Taft Benson for his stances.  Who didn’t hate communism?  Said he had to apologize for fourteen fundamental talk and Camilla Kimballs brother in law said she hated the talk.  No apology meant to underscore President Kimball's call.

Said Benson was holdout but overruled.  Then Delbert Stapley was in hospital who was  holdout.  Mark E Petersen sent to South America on assignment so there would be no opposition.  The President of the twelve not church makes those assignments.  They are made months in advance and Elder Petersen happened to have that assignment during the revelation.  Most assignments are weekend conference assignments but a few midweek ones throughout the year as well.

 

Every apostle in the room supported giving blacks the priesthood.  Had elder Stapley or Peterson been there would of supported it.  They did when called or visited support revelation.  Whatever apostles were there would of supported it.  God called them so he could talk to them.

Does Harris know how revelation works?  Has his own conclusions.

 

[MrShorty]

23 hours ago, grapevine said:

How much of what Matt Harris said is true?

It might depend on what you mean by "true." From what I gather, Harris is a well-respected and prominent historian in Mormon studies circles. I'm inclined to believe that, when Harris claims that he read through so-and-so's journal or diary and they said such-and-such, or other "facts" related to the topic, so-and-so actually said such-and-such. I don't think Harris is making up citations or sources or references out of whole cloth.

The narrative that a historian might weave together from "raw data" like that can reflect biases and educated judgements of the historian. If someone believes that the raw data merits a different summary narrative, then they are allowed to make their own summary narrative that they feel fits the data better. I haven't yet read Harris's book, but the narrative he weaves seems substantially in agreement with others I have read, like Ed Kimball or Paul Reeves. Harris may have biases, but his narrative seems to be in line with the narrative other respected historians have presented.

23 hours ago, grapevine said:

Does Harris know how revelation works?

I would extend this beyond Harris to all of us. Do any of us know how revelation works? IMO, the history of the priesthood and temple is an interesting case study in how we think revelation enters the church, how it gets recognized, and how we can get it wrong. For a church who claims to be built on the rock of revelation, understanding how revelation works is rather important. As such, I would be interested in anyone else's interpretation of the data that Harris presents, and the model of revelation that they believe comes out of that narrative.

[smac97]

On 8/21/2024 at 9:35 AM, The Nehor said:

Quote

Every adherent of every belief system deals with unanswerable questions.  It would be presumptuous, even arrogant, for we humans to think we have an answer to every question under heaven.  

Then why don’t we take that ignorance more seriously?

I think we do.  The Brethren have, in recent years, become considerably better and not conflating personal opinion and speculation with revealed doctrines.

On 8/21/2024 at 9:35 AM, The Nehor said:

We will give long involved instruction about what God wants from people and repeat them with feelings of great surety.

Yes.  We do so via prophetic counsel regarding revealed truths and instructions.

What we generally ought not do is speculate about what are essentially unrevealed issues, such as why God does or does not do something, God's timing in acting and not acting, etc.  

On 8/21/2024 at 9:35 AM, The Nehor said:

It is only when we see previous mistakes or are dealing with esoteric topics that we pull out this reasoning. Shouldn’t we accept that ignorance MUCH more generally?

I don't think so.  The Lord sends us prophets to provide us with guidance and instruction on important topics, mostly centering on our behavior.  Sometimes the Lord reveals His intentions and purposes, but mostly He does not.  When that happens, we are in "esoteric topics" territory, about which we ought to tread carefully, avoid speculation, and be content with what the Lord has revealed, without formulating answers about what He has not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2024 by smac97

[theplains]

On 8/19/2024 at 12:14 PM, Calm said:

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.

It's a record of church teachings at that point in history.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, theplains said:

It's a record of church teachings at that point in history.

Perhaps.  But it isn’t helpful at all imo at showing how we got to that point which is what I believe the point was.

[theplains]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps.  But it isn’t helpful at all imo at showing how we got to that point which is what I believe the point was.

How we got to that point? Satan puts it into the heart of man to teach false principles. This 
leads the people astray if believed.  But if it really was the design of God with the dark skin as
the sign of the curse or denying some races the priesthood, there shouldn't be any cause for
concern or calls about racism.