MrShorty
-
Posts
1496 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by MrShorty
-
-
That particular TR question is an interesting one, isn't it? Before Pres. Nelson rewrote the TR questions, the explanation around that question was that it's specific purpose was to try to prevent polygamous offshoots from getting people to infiltrate our temples and ordinances.
I'm not likely to move in the right circles to hear them, but has anyone really heard anecdotes of people being denied temple recommends based on that question? It seems that every anecdote I've heard over the years involving supporting LGBTQ+ family members, or supporting political causes, or whatever have always been adjudicated in favor of giving the recommend. It seems that, whenever the question of "does that TR question apply to this scenario?" comes up, the conclusion is always, "no, that TR question is not aimed at that scenario." except for situations involving polygamy. I'm not entirely sure I know what scenarios the church has in mind for those questions around supporting something/someone contrary to the church, but it seems that they are really only interested in the most egregious offenses. The kinds of scenarios that average, well-intentioned LDS encounter to we think might apply don't seem to be the scenarios our leaders are looking for.
-
21 hours ago, Vort said:
Perhaps I would have better said that they don't believe in modern revelation in the sense preached throughout the Restoration—that is, that God reveals Himself to His prophets. They certainly believe in revelation such as inspiration and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which puts them in the same class as most of the rest of modern Christianity.
As an outsider, I'm not sure I can really say what they believe or don't believe. I observe that, up through Pres. W. B. Smith in the 1990's, they wrote their "revelations" in the D&C as if it was the voice of God speaking. Sections added by Pres. McMurray and Pres. Veazey are more circumspect and less obvious about being in the voice of God. I don't know what that might mean for the tangent we are on, but I make the observation.
-
12 hours ago, Vort said:
I am sure this is true for some. I doubt it is the common sentiment among CoC members, who seem to have long since abandoned any real belief in the Book of Mormon, restoration, modern revelation, and so forth.
As an outsider looking in, I kind of agree that they place less emphasis on the Book of Mormon and on the unique things of the restoration (though I would add that I have seen someone representing CoC say that they mostly just dislike the Nauvoo era stuff, but are just fine with most of the Kirtland era stuff). But I think it is a gross misrepresentation to say that they do not believe in modern revelation. Their D&C has 165 sections, and the most recent one I see was dated 2006. As I have watched their rhetoric around choosing Pres. Veazey's successor, they have emphasized their desire to seek God's direction as a prophetic people in making this important choice. We can argue until we're blue in the face over which revelations are "true" and which aren't, but it seems pretty clear from my vantage point as an external observer that they clearly believe God guides and directs them through revelation.
-
If it might interest anyone, this short (3 minute) video features Apostle Lachlan Mackay of Community of Christ sharing his feelings regarding this transaction.
I'm not sure why this seems important to me. Maybe just to remind us that, while our branch of the Restoration is celebrating today, another branch of the Restoration is probably experiencing some mixed emotions.
-
Speaking of speculative speculations... I recently came across a new one (at least to me). It was in a youtube video put out by some seminary teacher or similar grass roots CES person. I doubt I could find it again (you are welcome to search if you want). In a nutshell, this theory alleges that this prophecy is fulfilled by Patriarch Eldred G. Smith, the last Smith (and, allegedly, a descendent of Abel) to hold the position of church-wide patriarch. The theory claims that, when the church decided to discontinue the position of church patriarch in '79, that was the point when Abel's descendants had fully received their portion of priesthood and so the curse on Cain's descendants could be lifted. As noted in the church essay, the church has disavowed (whatever that really means) the theories proffered to justify the ban -- including theories based on ancient Biblical lineages -- but these theories persist.
I think I've said before that perhaps the most interesting part of the history of the priesthood and temple ban is what it shows us about how the church receives revelation. In this vein, I find Elder Petersen's '54 talk to religion teachers (available from Fair, if interested) an interesting data point. In this talk, Elder Petersen expresses the belief that any of these "prophecies" about the removal of the curse were pure speculation unsupported by scripture. A quarter century before the lifting of the ban, one of the apostles who would live to see it seemed skeptical that the ban could ever be lifted, based on his understanding of scripture and these alleged "prophecies." Clearly something changed in that quarter century, and I'm unaware of anything that details how Elder Petersen's opinions changed, but Ed Kimball's history (focused on Pres. Kimball) provides insights into when and how his views might have changed. Whatever conclusions and speculations there are about the priesthood and temple ban, I find it interesting that somewhere in the process of revelation to the church is a process where an apostle can be skeptical of "prophecies" given by "early brethren" to later change and be part of fulfilling those same prophecies he was so skeptical about years earlier.
-
-
16 hours ago, Vort said:
Are you willing to consider that maybe God actually did institute that policy?
I like to think I'm open minded (but who doesn't like to think they are open minded?). For me, I think this particular issue falls in line with similar issues like slavery in the Bible or genocide in the Bible where the scripture/prophet(s) claim that God commanded/approved of something and we only have the scripture's/prophet's word that God said or did something. As noted, I would like to think that I am open to the possibility that God said or did things that seem so immoral to me. However, in cases like these, something about the immorality of the practice -- something about how the practice seems so anti-thetical to my understanding of the gospel and goodness and the nature of God and man -- demands a higher burden of proof than the explanation that God did not do what fallible prophets and errant scripture claim of Him.
I think I have mentioned here before that, IMO, Ben Spackman captures the real problem of the priesthood and temple ban in his blog post about slavery in the Bible: https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/Spackman writes,
QuoteScripture simply doesn’t reflect the eternal ideal, as we understand. How do we account for this? What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman?
Spackman writes in the context of slavery, but I find the same thing can be said of allegations that God commanded genocide or that God commanded/approved of a race based ban on priesthood ordination and temple ordinances (I think it is important to remember that this wasn't just about who could officiate priesthood ordinances, but also who could receive ordinances that we claim are necessary for exaltation).
Even if I ever find myself convinced that God caused or approved of these "evils," I expect these issues to still end up under the problem of evil umbrella, as we then have to wrestle with the whys and wherefores and such of God who can and does inflict (or allow to be inflicted) practices on His people that seem so contrary to what we believe is right and good and true.
Adding as a hedge against "presentism" or some other "maybe we in the 21st century don't or can't understand God's moral calculus on these things. I think it is pretty solidly accepted in LDS circles that a major purpose of our mortal experience is learning to judge good and evil, right and wrong. IMO, if we are too quick to simply write this sort of thing off as "God's morality is inscrutable to mere mortals," then I think we are failing in some way to pursue our purpose in this life and learning how to judge right and wrong. Perhaps at the end of the day, I can begrudgingly accept that I just don't understand right and wrong the same way God understands right and wrong, but I am going to be uncomfortable with an inscrutable morality until the moment I can stand before God and ask Him to help me understand it.
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
In which case, God was tacitly supporting the so-called Priesthood ban by not revoking it, for whatever reasons he had. Thus it was divinely supported, whatever the circumstances of its original implementation.
1 hour ago, Vort said:But we are to understand that the same all-knowing, all-powerful God responsible for such marvelous, miraculous institutions was too afraid to let black people hold his Priesthood until the late 20th century?
I think one of the most compelling things that I got out of Paul Reeves "Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood" was when Br. Reeves drew a parallel between the priesthood and temple ban and the problem of evil. I have long observed that part of the problem of evil is whether or not God causes or just allows evil to occur.
God could have prevented the holocaust, but He didn't, so somehow He must have tacitly approved it.
God could have prevented the wars that are currently raging in the world, but He didn't, so He must tacitly approve them.One of the never ending issues that gets brought up in the problem of evil is whether God causes evil or simply allows evil. Because we usually assume that God is all-powerful so He could intervene, I often see an implicit conclusion that God somehow approves of the evil that occurs in the world, including human on human evil.
You are correct that God intervened in some remarkable and powerful ways to restore His church to the Earth. I'm not sure why He chose to allow the church to adopt and perpetuate this particular policy, but I don't believe that He wanted it. Somehow, just as with other evils that exist in the world, He chose not to intervene as the saints adopted some awful beliefs and practices. I don't have an answer for why He would do that, just as I don't have an answer for why God allows other evils to exist in the world.
-
23 minutes ago, Vort said:
President McKay wanted to change the Church's policy with respect to who can receive the Priesthood. But in sincerely and repeatedly asking of God, he reported something like "the heavens were a brass ceiling over my head".
23 minutes ago, Vort said:In contrast, when President Kimball asked that very same question of the Lord a decade or so later, he eventually received a clear spiritual response. When he presented the revelation to the Brethren, all testified that they received the same spiritual response. As a believing Latter-day Saint, I see no other reasonable interpretation except that God did not want LDS Church policy changed in the 1950s or 1960s or early 1970s when his prophet asked back then, but he did want it to change in the late 1970s when his prophet asked at that time.
I don't think it's a question of the historical happenings, but the interpretation. In a couple of podcast/youtube videos, Scott Woodward made the observation that, the very first time that the combined quorums of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 approached God, unitedly prepared to receive and accept the direction from God to extend priesthood to all, God granted the revelation. (See the race and priesthood series of the church history matters podcast at doctrine and covenants central). The implication that I see in this is that maybe Pres. McKay received no answer because the Q15 and the rest of the church writ large was unwilling/unable to receive and accept the revelation that God wanted to give. The revelation to extend the priesthood had to wait until the top quorums of the church and a threshold of the lay membership had prepared themselves to receive and accept that revelation.
I think I've said before here that the history of the priesthood and temple ban is a solid case study in what we believe about how God reveals things to the church. Perhaps in some future day, we will have a similar conversation about LGBT issues (and the hiring of brother Sherinian will be one data point in that larger narrative).
-
2 hours ago, Vort said:
The problem with this illustration of principle is that the so-called Priesthood ban was of God. This is absolutely sure,
I'm finding a growing number of faithful LDS who are much less than "absolutely sure" that it was of God. That's a big part of why the priesthood and temple ban is such a prominent issue for the church. Some are convinced that it came from God, others aren't, and nobody seems to have clarity to support their certainty. Certainly, Pres. McKay's experience is one data point in the overall analysis, but I'm unconvinced that it "absolutely" proves that the ban was of God.
However, my intent is not to dive into that rabbit hole. I find it interesting that the church's preferred answer to any of this hand-wringing over choices that the church makes is to have us choose to just trust them, that they are accurately representing God's will in everything they do, and that we as lay members are not responsible for the church's choices or doctrines or policies. What do we thing God wants us to do with our disagreements with the institutional church?
-
2 hours ago, zil2 said:
You're making assumptions without sufficient detail, at least as regards me. But if you don't want to go into specifics, then there's nowhere to go. So all I can say is that you are falsely accusing me.
My apologies. I wasn't intending to accuse any individual of anything. My intent was to explore this idea that, when we find something uncomfortable in what the church is doing that we as LDS tend towards "silent loyalty," and whether that is a good thing or not.
-
16 hours ago, zil2 said:
This is outside my stewardship, so I will trust the Lord to deal with it properly in his own due time.
This probably goes way deeper than just who is filling what job posting in the church, but I am a bit unsettled by this attitude.
For example (please focus on this as an example of a principle and let's not get bogged down in the specifics of the history), I think I've mentioned in this forum that I am often more troubled by the perpetuation of the priesthood and temple ban until '78 than its implementation back in the mid-19th century. As Pres. Oaks illustrated in his remarks at the Be One Celebration in 2018, this kind of "silent loyalty while not having a testimony" of whatever teaching or practice or policy or hire seems to be a part of what perpetuates false doctrines, practices, teachings, and bad hires. But, the church would descend into chaos if every member had to "vote" on each and every choice the church makes.
At the end of the day, I think @Grunt has the right idea. We ought to feel we have the right to be vocal about things we find problematic at church. But, we also have real trouble with questions of "activism towards the church" (as Elder Corbett taught us) and anything that even vaguely resembles it.
A single PR professional hire is probably relatively low on the priority list, so I doubt this specific scenario is going to have much impact. Even so, I find myself still troubled by the idea that we as church members need to quietly accept whatever the leadership throws at us without ever expressing concerns or doubts or contrary opinions.
-
51 minutes ago, zil2 said:
And if (generic) you believe that the safest, most comfortable mortality is the best way to accomplish the best eternal ends, then I reckon you think God himself is evil even if he didn't create it. Or at the least, he's an indifferent jerk or plays favorites, or whatever.
The essence of the statement from C. S. Lewis that I quoted above. I agree that "soul growth" (or other way to say that evil and suffering in this life contribute to our eternal progression) is one of the central parts of our theodicy (along with free will). While I do see something compelling about this explanation for the problem of evil, I also note that it still seems incomplete. Some people lead a charmed life and only face mild suffering (yours truly) while others wallow in near constant poverty or illness or suffer other injustices. While I lead a charmed life and retain a belief in God, I see others whose suffering leads them to "curse God and die," and I'm not sure that I would not follow suit if I were placed in the same scenario. I think "soul growth" works as a partial explanation for the problem of evil, but I'm not sure it fully and completely answers the issue.
-
@zil2 You are correct that the creatio ex nihilo group has to grapple with God as the creator of evil, where those of us who don't subscribe to creatio ex nihilo have the luxury of being able to say that evil exists independent of God. But that is only part of the problem of evil. As it relates to the OP, there is also the problem of various ways that evil and suffering exist (sports injury, war, natural disaster, illness, accidents, etc.) that God (we usually believe) could intervene to prevent or alleviate, but He chooses not to intervene.
- laronius and JohnsonJones
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, zil2 said:
I submit that it's a major problem because they do not understand God correctly. Only when God is properly understood can the option of "evil" be properly understood.
Your probably right. I encountered something C. S. Lewis wrote in A Grief Observed where he wrote
QuoteNot that I am (I think) in much danger of ceasing to believe in God. The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him. The conclusion I dread is not ‘So there’s no God after all,’ but ‘So this is what God’s really like. Deceive yourself no longer.'
So, I think you may be right. The problem of evil reveals bits of what we believe about God, what we believe about ourselves, what we believe about this mortal sojourn.
I might add here that, if this is true, you can probably count me in among those who don't understand God correctly. Perhaps part of why the problem of evil has become a point of study for me is in an attempt to come to a correct understanding of who and what God is.
-
Curious timing that this thread would come up now. I think I am correctly seeing that the OP is not completely serious, but I would note that the problem of evil has been a central part of my own research recently. Most commentators on the problem suggest that the problem of evil is the most common reason why people refuse to convert to Christianity (or theism more generally) or the most common reason they deconvert. I bumped against a bit of [Elder] C. S. Lewis's story and how the problem of evil was a major factor in his own resistance to conversion.
I understand that we can point out how silly it is to see a minor sports injury as proof positive that God doesn't exist, when there are much more important and significant evils in the world. It still seems like the problem of evil is still a major stumbling block for many people.
-
Yente, Yente, Yente! Is this what matchmaking has come to? Matchmaking via reaction to internet forum posts?
...Not...that...I'm sentimental
It's just that I'm terrified...- Vort, NeuroTypical and Carborendum
-
1
-
2
-
I have recently finished Brian McLaren's Faith After Doubt and am currently reading his Do I Stay Christian. It seems to me that McLaren echoes the OP, with perhaps more of a progressive Christian leaning rather than a conservative Christian leaning. One thread that ran through McLaren's writing was a question of "gatekeepers." Should a church be open and inviting with minimal entrance requirements and boundary maintenance, or should it be more like a country club with extensive entrance requirements and strict boundary maintenance. IMO, this is where a lot of the hard work for churches is happening right now -- deciding how to balance a desire to be "inclusive" (to reflect the Great Commission that the gospel is universally applicable to all) against the need to protect the flock from being preyed on by "the world." I suppose we will see how well we do, but it does feel like Christianity is struggling a bit right now with that balancing act.
- mordorbund, LDSGator, JohnsonJones and 1 other
-
4
-
17 hours ago, estradling75 said:
Bottom line is I see no way of saying the Church is true and lead by God, without placing the blame for the Priesthood Ban directly on him.. either through direct action or just allowing it to happen.
One of the most interesting insights that I got from Reeves' book (I mentioned in my book review/summary thread) was the parallel between the "problem of prophetic fallibility" and the "problem of evil." In the book, Reeves focuses on human agency, as so many of LDS discussions of the problem of evil do. I'm not convinced that human agency alone sufficiently answers the problem of evil, though it certainly belongs in the discussion. This is another thing that this issue and the problem of evil have in common -- whether through direct causation, or idly standing by while stuff happens, an omnipotent God bears some responsibility on some level when bad things (including race based teachings and policies) happen in the church. I don't have all of the answers, but somehow these issues need some way for us to understand God's role in allowing, implementing, tolerating, etc. beliefs and practices that do not live up to the ideals of eternal truth and morality and righteousness.
-
19 hours ago, Vort said:
Moreover, as my original point was, the Priesthood ban itself, apart from any explanations for it, has never been said by Church leaders (or faithful members) to be uninspired by God or to have arisen from the racial bias of men.
I recommend caution against making this a definitive characteristic of what true
Scotsmenfaithful LDS believe or don't believe. Part of the reason I mention Patrick Mason, Paul Reeve (the author of Let's Talk About Race and the Priesthood published by Deseret Book), Scott Woodward, and other faithful LDS in this discussion is because I would classify them as faithful LDS who don't believe the priesthood and temple ban is of divine origin. Back to @mikbone's comment about core vs. other doctrines, let's not make this particular piece of difficult history a part of the core doctrines that we believe all faithfulScotsmenLDS will believe. -
@zil2 I understand the idea, and I agree that there is at least part of God's judgement that considers what our parents, teachers, leaders, and even prophets have and have not taught us. At what point does this idea end up at, "none of us is accountable for our sins, because, at some level, our sins are just a reflection of ways that our parents, teachers, leaders, and prophets have failed to teach us correct principles."
If you will indulge a somewhat tongue in cheek case study, I am reminded of something Senator Harry Reid said in a speech at BYU. He said that he is often asked how he can be both a Democrat and a Mormon. He said that he often answers that he is a Democrat because he is a Mormon, followed by some discussion of the different lessons he learned from parents and church leaders and scriptures that motivate him to be a Democrat. Now it is well known among LDS church members (that lean very heavily Republican) that being a Democrat is a sin (not really, but let's pretend for this brief moment). Considering the Sen Reid committed this sin because of things he learned from parents and the church, will Sen. Reid be absolved of the sin of being a Democrat, and his parents and leaders and such will be held accountable for his sin?
In the "proving contraries" theme, we also have a long history of talking about personal accountability and moral agency wherein we emphasize that we are each responsible for our own instruction and learning. I don't claim to know how God will judge us, but, as I noted, I think God will perfectly know how to balance personal accountability against things that we did not know because others around us did not teach us. I'm not sure what that means for the hear and now and how I engage with what our prophets and apostles teach.
-
1 hour ago, Grunt said:
I can't believe "I followed the Prophet" won't be a positive defense on judgement day.
15 hours ago, zil2 said:If they lead us astray and for some reason Christ doesn't stop them (yet?), trust that the sins will be on the leaders' heads,
Looking at the history on Wikipedia, human courts have had a mixed history with these "Nuremburg" defenses. I guess I'm just not as convinced that God's court universally accepts a "Nuremburg" defense. I trust that God's judgements are a perfect blend of justice and mercy ("Where justice, love, and mercy meet In harmony divine" as Sister Snow put it), and I'm sure God knows how best to handle, "I followed the prophet against my own better judgement on that issue, because I decided that is what You would have me do," and "I chose not follow the prophet and follow my own best judgement on that issue, because I decided that is what You would have me do," situations. I don't claim to know exactly how God judges those, but I trust that God knows best. Of course, that trust doesn't always help in the here and now.
-
17 hours ago, Vort said:
I do not know Patrick Mason, but I assume that Brother Mason wants other Saints to accept him as a fellow Saint, despite the fact that he disbelieves that the Priesthood ban was of divine origin. Fair enough. But does Brother Mason so honor those who insist that the Priesthood ban was indeed given by God? Or does he argue against them and try to illustrate how a just God could not possibly have been the author of blah blah blah? Because although I do not know Brother Mason, I know many others who insist that the Priesthood ban was not divine, and they somehow have little compunction to acknowledge and honor the beliefs of those who disagree with them on that issue.
I suppose I ought to be careful speaking for Brother Mason, but I don't recall him every saying anything like, "I wish those who believe in divine origins of the priesthood ban (or any other issues he's talked about) would leave the church or be quiet" or anything similar. If you don't think it is out of line, In any case, whatever Mason's views might be, I'm inclined towards saying that, " If we encourage those with[out] doubts to leave, then we all are lost." [If that isn't too far removed from your intention with that statement.]
I recall some years ago, in one of those evolution-creation threads here (or a thread adjacent to one of them), asking if we thought that Elder Joseph Fielding Smith and Professor Steven Peck could share a pew together, as contentious as the creation-evolution debate can be. It sometimes seems to me that this is a central part of whether or not "LDS Protestantism" ends up becoming another splinter group or whether we manage to stay together -- our ability (or inability) to share a pew with someone who believes something different from us. There is a lot of discussion to be had here (like, as @mikbone mentioned, questions of "core" vs. "esoteric" doctrines and which "core" doctrines are necessary to be considered LDS and how to maintain boundaries around those core doctrines and so on).
Eclipse
in Current Events
Posted
Just got home this morning from my own eclipse trip to central Tx (hill country). Clouds cleared at just the right moment to capture this shot with my telescope.
I arrived a few days early, and left a few days later, so I never had to fight any traffic.