where does it say "the prophet cannot lead us astray"???

[The Folk Prophet]

The Folk Prophet, and everyone, my objective here is to urge others to disavow past teachings and move forward with the Church. Past teachings regarding black people have been immeasurably harmful to the Church.

 

I'm afraid you're going to have to do more than just say this for it to hold any weight. Can you provide any level of support to this so-called "immeasurable harm"?

 

Disavowing something is more than saying “we don't know so don't teach, preach, or otherwise expound on these things.”

 

To avow is to assert. To disavow is to no longer assert. Right along with the church, we no longer assert that these are doctrinal or even true. We simply allow for the fact that they may not be false either. Neutrality on the issues is perfectly within the scope of disavowal. Moreover, there is no mandate that church members disavow ANY theory. Ask all the progressives out there (heck, you seem to be one yourself, so you certainly have theories that the church doesn't assert to be true.) You can debate the merit of the ideas all day long, but you can't support that it's black-and-white wrong for any member to consider the idea that there may be some merit to some of them.

 

All of the definitions you have provided fit well within the scope of, "they may be true, but we don't know, so we are declaring them unknown, non-doctrinal points".

 

There is no getting around it. They have NOT been declared false. WE DON' T KNOW. Period. To claim the unknowable false is just as mistaken as claiming it true. We do not know, and that is our plain position, and your strong rebuke that holding an "I don't know" position on the unrevealed is sinful is a bunch of sanctimonious baloney.

 

I am sorry if you feel it’s important to defend the notion that black people descended from Cain. Telling anyone they are a descendant of Master Mahan is not kind or productive and we don't even know if there's any merit to it. I am sorry if you are planting your flag on that hill. 

 

You seem incapable of understanding the plain explanations being given for our position, but I'll state it again. No one cares about supporting or sustaining the disavowed theories. Nor are we. What we care about is defense of a gospel position of our past prophet's revelatory aptitude.

 

And, moreover, it is decidedly more nuanced than what you're making it seem. There are principles, as JaG has pointed out, that we know are doctrinally true. That descendants inherit the curse of their forefathers is factual taught in scripture. That Cain had some sort of posterity is also factual. We do not any longer ascribe this inheritance to the African race (or any race for that matter), but somewhere, at some point in life, there were decedents of Cain running around. Your offense at the idea of being descended from "Master Mahan" is pretty rude to these folk, whether they be living or dead. The simple fact is that there's nothing wrong at all with having descended from anyone, and no one should ever have concern over the fact that they come from such-n-such, as long as they choose to accept Christ, follow His teachings and commandments, etc. Then God is no respector of persons, which we well know, so if (and I place a big emphasis on this word) there were some merit to the theory (which I don't think anyone is even claiming...but if...) then so what?

 

You're making a big stink about nothing - primarily because no one is actually promoting the disavowed theories.

 

My point is not to declare “the past prophets were wrong, wrong, WRONG!!” and I am not shaking my fists. 

 

May not be your point, but it certainly is the end result. And I'm not sure what you consider "fist shaking", but your condemnatory tone certainly seems to carry that sentiment.

 

My point is that all members should completely disavow...“the theories

 

Why completely? The church, as an institution, yes. The members as individuals? Why?

 

Can you not see that there are a whole multitude of truths out there that are not currently revealed to the church, and considering, just perhaps, that something that isn't "avowed" by the church might have some truth to it only becomes harmful if it leads to distraction, disobedience, or otherwise looking beyond the mark? I cannot fathom how it could possibly be harmful for someone to think that there's something to the idea that the priesthood restriction might, at some level, be related to the curse of Cain. We deny this as doctrinal...along with a whole myriad of other things. But the mere allowance that there may be some truth to it is a far cry from supporting, sustaining, or even believing it.

 

I could point to a variety of discussions had on the forums here relating to pre-Adamites races, plural marriage, the role of the Savior as relating to worlds other than ours, etc., etc., where people hold different intellectual views that are all, every single one, non-doctrinal and "disavowed". Even the apostles hold some of these views, as has been demonstrated by a variety of quotes in the said discussions.

 

But, once again, it really doesn't come down to teaching the theories. It comes down to this:

 

Someone posits: Prophets cannot be led astray, but look at all their "mistakes". How can that be understood?

 

The answer is either centered in faith and trust in the prophets or in accusation and blame.

 

I hope it's clear on which side I stand.

 

There is, quite simply, more to it than you are trying to shove down our throats, and it is, decidedly, safer to take a position of "we don't know but we trust in prophets and we trust in God", than it is to read into what has been said a bunch of concrete "this is the new doctrine!" sorts of proclamations.

 

Though it is not my point, past prophets were actually wrong in this case. 

 

Because you say so ADAMANTLY? (*fist shake*) Because the essay sure didn't say this. In fact, nowhere in the essay can you find words like, wrong, mistaken, inaccurate, incorrect, or the like. This was CLEARLY intentional because our leaders are actually smart enough to realize that (bum bum bum) they don't know.

 

And this is exactly the view we are taking. We do not know, and we confess we do not know. To claim the past prophets were wrong is to claim we DO know, and to claim we know more than our current leaders, who, quite wisely, haven't declared the past prophets wrong.

 

Even Uchtdorf's now famous  “To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine" doesn't go so far as to proclaim exactly what those mistakes were or who made them (prophets or bishops?) because, as he well knows, we don't really know for sure.

 

Unfortunately, it is sometimes not possible to “reconcile current teachings with past ones” (The Folk Prophet).

 

But in this case it is quite easy to reconcile current teaching with past ones. And there is no valid reason not to make a good effort to do so.

 

For example, as discussed earlier in this thread, Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory from the pulpit when speaking as the prophet and those teachings have been explicitly repudiated. 

 

And yet, there are still a myriad of ways to reconcile Brigham's teachings with current ones. (http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory)

 

There actually is something to be gained by respectfully acknowledging a past prophet was mistaken if it means we can move forward with more light and knowledge and grow the church.

 

How do you know it's more light and knowledge? I refer you to the joke quote in my signature. Applied here, how do you know the current leaders aren't the biased ones giving us false premises? The bottom line is, you don't. You can't possibly know. If you pit them against each other, one has to be right and one has to be wrong. And there is no de facto "newer is always better" that can possibly be applied, neither could quotes that support such an idea, because even if there were such quotes, they could be wrong!

 

There's only one reasonable way to approach the teachings of prophets. They are, were, and will be right. If we take this as our core premise, then reconciling older doctrines with newer ones by re-evaluating their meaning instead of just fully casting them aside makes a whole lot more sense. Casting prophetic teachings aside is an extremely dangerous spiritual premise.

 

If, and when, the prophet declares that so-and-so was a fallen prophet and everything he said after such-and-such a date was false doctrine then maybe we're in a different boat. But until this occurs, it strikes me that reconciling conflicting ideas by understanding them within the scope of further-light-and-knowledge is the appropriate stance, rather than just completely casting them aside, and while at it, throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

Continuing to defend any disavowed theory regarding black people to any degree will continue to harm people and the Church. 

 

How?

Edited July 22, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Timpman]

You are ignoring common definitions of "disavow."

 

The Folk Prophet: "You seem incapable of understanding the plain explanations being given for our position, but I'll state it again. No one cares about supporting or sustaining the disavowed theories. Nor are we."

 

Just_A_Guy said “Speaking for myself:  I do not defend the first two theories as you have stated them…B ut t hat which I do defend, I defend because it has not been expunged from LDS teaching.” I took that to mean he does defend the third statement. Please forgive me and correct me if am wrong.

 

The Folk Prophet: "What we care about is defense of a gospel position of our past prophet's revelatory aptitude."

 

Can you explain this?

 

     May not be your point, but it certainly is the end result. And I'm not sure what you consider "fist shaking", but your condemnatory tone certainly seems to carry that sentiment. 

 

Nope. I don't mean to convey that sentiment. 

 

My point is that all members should completely disavow...“the theories

 

Why completely? The church, as an institution, yes. The members as individuals? Why?

 

Can you not see that there are a whole multitude of truths out there that are not currently revealed to the church, and considering, just perhaps, that something that isn't "avowed" by the church might have some truth to it only becomes harmful if it leads to distraction, disobedience, or otherwise looking beyond the mark? 

 

Holding even the faintest belief that the disavowed theories might have any merit is hurtful to black people and harmful to the Church as it negatively affects Church growth, in my opinion.

 

But, once again, it really doesn't come down to teaching the theories. It comes down to this:

 

Someone posits: Prophets cannot be led astray, but look at all their "mistakes". How can that be understood?

 

The answer is either centered in faith and trust in the prophets or in accusation and blame.

 

I hope it's clear on which side I stand. 

 

My answer is to forgive past prophets for saying a few incorrect things and not condemn them.

 

Though it is not my point, past prophets were actually wrong in this case.

 

Because you say so ADAMANTLY? (*fist shake*) Because the essay sure didn't say this. In fact, nowhere in the essay can you find words like, wrong, mistaken, inaccurate, incorrect, or the like. This was CLEARLY intentional because our leaders are actually smart enough to realize that (bum bum bum) they don't know. 

 

No, but the word “disavow” clearly means to repudiate (reject), refuse to accept, or deny any support for. Also, it is not a stretch to say “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form” applies to the sentence that precedes it.

 

For example, as discussed earlier in this thread, Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory from the pulpit when speaking as the prophet and those teachings have been explicitly repudiated.

 

And yet, there are still a myriad of ways to reconcile Brigham's teachings with current ones. (http://en.fairmormon...Adam-God_theory) 

 

As that page says, “There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought.” It then presents  “some of the better-known approaches.” None of those approaches have strong merit except number 4. All we have to do is read the section above that, which is titled “Rejection of Adam-God by the LDS Church.”

 

How do you know it's more light and knowledge? 

 

The Spirit tells me so and because of this:

 

This “revelation on the priesthood,” as it is commonly known in the Church, was a landmark revelation and a historic event. Those who were present at the time described it in reverent terms. Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, remembered it this way: “There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. … Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. … Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.”

 

… Soon after the revelation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.”

Edited July 22, 2015 by Timpman

[Vort]

Timpman, you are wrong, as has been demonstrated various ways. You take a narrow, almost private definition of "disavow" as being synonymous with "repudiate and reject", then cling to that as if your life depended on it.

 

You may believe whatever you wish. You may NOT misinterpret official statements and then pretend that your misinterpretation is truth. That is to say, you can do that, too, but you cannot require everyone else to sit quietly by and acquiesce to your twisting of meaning.

 

The Church never suggested that all such past teachings were categorically wrong. That is a misstatement, and to the extent you are saying that, you are speaking untruths. Let those who lead the Church take care of such things. If you are right (which you are not), have faith that the Church leadership will make that point clear.

 

In the meantime, many of us will continue to defend the Church's teachings from those who wish to make them conform to their own social theories and ends.

 

Please note: That you mean well and may even be sincere does not make your words true.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Vort

[Finrock]

I think this is somewhat relevant and might add some more food for thought. I don't know exactly what all the implications are but Brigham Young stated:

 

"If God should suffer the [President of the Church] to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray...it would be because they deserve it."

 

I believe this and I can conceive of some events in Church history where something like this has already happened

 

-Finrock

[estradling75]

I think this is somewhat relevant and might add some more food for thought. I don't know exactly what all the implications are but Brigham Young stated:

 

"If God should suffer the [President of the Church] to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray...it would be because they deserve it."

 

I believe this and I can conceive of some events in Church history where something like this has already happened

 

-Finrock

 

That would be "give them what they asked for even though I already told them it was a bad idea"

 

Like the lost 116 page God through his prophet said yes... because they wouldn't take no for an answer.

 

Another example would be the Ordaining of King Saul...  God told them "no kings", but when they did not listen he, through Samuel, picked Saul to be the king for them.

[Timpman]

Actually, "repudiate" is used as a synonym to "disavow." Applying a common definition to a word used in a statement is not misinterpreting that statement. 

[Timpman]

Well, I’m done here. I hope more members of the Church will avoid even tacitly defending the theories the Church has disavowed. It can be hurtful to black people and harmful to Church growth. 

[The Folk Prophet]

You are ignoring common definitions of "disavow."

 

I've looked at the various definition(s) several times as we've discussed this. The common meaning has to do with association, responsibility for, etc. I'll grant that some meanings behind it are related to a declaration that something is false, but there are, without question, more of the definitions that relate to simply disowning, rather than outright declaring false.

 

So which agenda is it that's driving you to demand that only the definitions that mean "lies and falsehood all around!" apply?

 

Oh yeah...it's causing immeasurable hurt...   Your opinion.

 

The Folk Prophet: "What we care about is defense of a gospel position of our past prophet's revelatory aptitude."

 

Can you explain this?

 

It's pretty simple really. The prophets were led by God through inspiration to do what they did and say what they said. Anything short of this is a BIG deal. The idea that our prophets and apostles are just standing up there babbling on about their personal opinions opens up a MAJOR can of worms as to actually following them by way of heeding their counsel. It allows for anyone, at any time, to simply say, "meh...that's just his opinion" as it relates to them. And I reject this as plain foolishness.

 

The Spirit tells me so and because of this:

 

Well we could argue back and forth all day about whose spiritual sensitivity is more in tune by way of an interesting LDS-only non sequitur, Argument by Holier-than-thou, but it would pretty much only prove that neither of us was spiritually sensitive at all.

 

Clearly the revelation on the priesthood itself was further light and knowledge. I'm struggling with this constant barrage coming from the progressive Mormon camp that the essays amount to the same thing.

 

It strikes me that we, as a people, have moved quite a ways away from being guided by the Spirit and trust in God in spite of things we don't understand into a realm of believing we're smarter than the prophets were because such-n-such research was done and that uncovered this-and-that and now we have greater light and knowledge.

 

Garbage.

 

I suspect that what people need is a good lesson on Light, what it actually means in scriptural context, how we actually get it, and how it relates to pure knowledge.

[Vort]

But, see, the hurt can't be measured, so requiring proof of "immeasurable hurt" is sure to fail. :)

[The Folk Prophet]

It can be hurtful to black people and harmful to Church growth. 

 

This is your go to reasoning, obviously, and yet you've failed to even attempt at explaining how.

 

Regardless, people being hurt by something and/or refusing to join the church (or leaving it) because of an issue has absolutely not bearing on true/false whatsoever.

 

The Lamanites were cursed by God. If that hurts a Lamanite's feelings and causes them to not join/leave the church, it's sad, but it doesn't change the truth.

 

Homosexuality is an abominable sin. If that hurts a homosexual's feelings and causes them not to join/leave the church, it's sad, but it doesn't change the truth.

 

The priesthood offices are held by men. If that hurts a woman's feelings and causes them to not join/leave the church, it's sad, but id doesn't change the truth.

 

Etc., etc.

 

The point being, truth is truth is truth whether it's hurtful or not. I'm not making an argument by this that anything related to the priesthood ban reasonings is true, but simply to point out that a claim that something is hurtful and keeping people from the church is entirely a non-argument.

[The Folk Prophet]

I just read this today in the comments section of one of my favorite blogs on facebook. (https://www.facebook.com/jmaxwilsonblog, http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/lds-apostle-d-todd-christofferson-did-not-say-that-it-is-okay-for-lds-members-to-support-same-sex-marriage/)

 

I thought it was an interesting idea, particularly in regards to the Lord actually leading the church/correcting error.

 

Note that his comments aren't directly related to our discussion, but I think the thinking applies.

 

--begin quote:

 

If the restriction was an error, the Lord could have corrected his prophets at any time. For whatever reason, he kept it in place until 1978 and he did so for his own reasons. There is a well known account about Brigham Young when he preached a fire and brimstone sermon to the saints in the morning concerning the approach of Johnston's Army, and then came back in the afternoon and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. And he reversed much of what President Young had said in the morning. (See Elder Christofferson's 2012 Talk:https://www.lds.org/genera.../2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ )

Do you really think that the Lord could correct Brigham Young on his errors regarding the saints' response to Johnston's Army within hours, but that He could not correct him or any of the other prophets regarding the priesthood restriction for 100 years? Our belief in prophets is a belief that God can and does direct His church through authorized representatives. As I argued in my essays, God is capable of making His will known to his own authorized representatives, even if the reasons why are beyond our ken, and even if they occasionally speculate incorrectly about what the reasons are.

 

--end quote

 

What I find interesting is that he applies this reasoning to the priesthood ban but not to the teachings behind it. I have to ask the same though: Do we really think the Lord could/would correct Brigham Young on his errors regarding the saints' response to Johnston's Army within hours, but that He could/would not correct him and other prophets regarding their teachings behind the ban for 100 years?

 

It's worth a good thinkin' about at least.

[Timpman]

Well, I guess I'm not done here. 

 

"You are black because you were not valiant in the pre-existence. You must have been a fence-sitter."

"Your black skin is a sign that you are cursed by God."

"Being black means you are a descendant of Cain, the first murderer, the son of perdition."

 

 

I can't believe you even have to ask how statements like those can be hurtful to black people. I can't quantify how Church growth has been harmed, but it should be obvious that the perpetuation of such statements is a stumbling block to missionary work. 

 

I agree that truth is truth regardless of how people feel about it. In this case, I see no good reason to perpetuate the disavowed statements for which the Church offers no support.

 

It's pretty simple really. The prophets were led by God through inspiration to do what they did and say what they said. Anything short of this is a BIG deal. The idea that our prophets and apostles are just standing up there babbling on about their personal opinions opens up a MAJOR can of worms as to actually following them by way of heeding their counsel.It allows for anyone, at any time, to simply say, "meh...that's just his opinion" as it relates to them. And I reject this as plain foolishness.

 

It seems you don't believe the prophets when they say:

 

“I make no claim of infallibility.” 
Spencer W. Kimball, Improvement Era, June 1970, p. 93

“We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators.” 
James E. Faust, Ensign, November 1989, p. 11

 

“Even the President of the Church has not always spoken under the direction of the Holy Ghost.”

Elder J. Reuben Clark, quoted in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, p. 82

 

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation…Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” 

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 14:205

 

 

[Vort]

Timpman, you will not discuss the issue. You have openly refused even to consider a possibility you don't like. So why should anyone take your opinion seriously, when you are so obviously biased and closed-minded?

 

Now you are telling us that, since the prophets freely admit they are fallible men, therefore your interpretation of things must be correct -- because, after all, you're accusing the prophets of being fallible. Ergo, you're obviously correct.

 

I mean, really, we aren't stupid.

 

You are wrong. You can run from any challenge to your statements as much as you want, as you have been doing, but it doesn't make you any righter.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Vort

[Timpman]

Okay, Vort  :)

[The Folk Prophet]

I can't believe you even have to ask how statements like those can be hurtful to black people. I can't quantify how Church growth has been harmed, but it should be obvious that the perpetuation of such statements is a stumbling block to missionary work. 

 

I didn't say I don't understand how some black people can find hurt in those statements. And, I don't doubt the perpetuation of such might be a stumbling block to missionary work. And I re-iterate, no one is perpetuating them. Something you can't seem to grasp.

 

"Might be" is not a perpetuation. It's merely intellectual honesty.

 

But let's break down these statements for the sake of clarity, particularly pointing out how these are mere scare tactics and appeals to emotion rather than logically sound points.

 

"You are black because you were not valiant in the pre-existence. You must have been a fence-sitter."

 

The principle at play here is that our stations in life can be a result of our pre-existent valiance -- a principle which has not been disavowed. How then would it be applicable to a current day well-off, educated, priesthood holding black person? Their station in life is blessed. Hence, if the principle is in play, they were valiant in the pre-existence. If, on the other hand, anyone was born into a situation where they suffered to some degree or another, there is a possibility that part of the reason for that might be due to their pre-earth choices. This applies, universally, to black, white, Israelite, gentile, etc. There is no, nor has there ever been a "must have" about it. That is you putting it into misleading terms and playing games with the debate that are not useful.

 

"Your black skin is a sign that you are cursed by God."

 

Once again, we know, plainly, from the Book of Mormon that if darkened skin was related to a curse that it was a sign of the curse, and had no bearing on the cursed state upon repentance. This is true even if the above statement held any validity. God is no repector of persons. And no one who is applying even the smallest amount of logical reasoning to the matter could possibly translate the mark of a cursing upon a race to the equivalency of the statement your are making above.

 

"Being black means you are a descendant of Cain, the first murderer, the son of perdition."

 

This has been addressed several times. Who we descend from, be it sinner or saint, has no bearing on anything, nor should it be offensive to anyone that their 6000 years ago great---grandpa was a devil worshiper or not.

 

Once again, none of the points I'm drawing here are meant to support these theories as true, but since you persist on pointing out the "obvious" nature of their offence, I thought addressing them specifically was in order.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just_A_Guy, sorting people into houses is not the same as dividing by race. Regarding Lamanites and Nephites, anyone could leave one group and join the other at any time so that situation was not race-based.

 

I would challenge you to really dig into the implications of what you're saying.  Why isn't it the same, from God's perspective?  I can't renounce my Ephraimite lineage and claim the blessings of Levi or Judah, any more than I can renounce my race and claim affiliation with another (then again--thanks to Rachel Dolezal, maybe I can?).  Via patriarchal blessings, Mormonism continues to assert that God discriminates on the basis of one's genetic heritage.  Using your definition of "racism", the only way you can keep that from being "racist" is if you start distinguishing between "race" and "genetic heritage"--distinctions that, from God's perspective, really don't mean much since He made all of us as spirit (presumably without any race at all) and He then subsequently decided which race/genetic lineage each of us would be born into.

 

 In applying Elder McConkie’s quote to this conversation, “a living, modern prophet” refers to Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyring, Dieter F. Uchtford, and all the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I say that because they approve of the Race and the Priesthood article.

 

The trouble is that while the essay disavows the theories, it does not go so far as to say that they are objectively false--it just says "that's not Church doctrine".  I agree with TFP's analysis of the term.  "Disavow" is not a commonly used term--"condemn" or "denounce" or even "deny" are much stronger, much less ambiguous, and significantly more commonplace.  The essay could have easily come out and said that the theories are objectively false, if the LDS leadership wanted it to.  But it didn't.  

 

The essay certainly includes a condemnation of "racism"--but what does that mean, exactly; and to what does it apply?  Am I supposed to use the essay's condemnation of "racism" in conjunction with your overbroad, politically-loaded definition of the term, to conclude that the Church is admitting that the priesthood ban was in error?  If so, then why didn't the Church make that point more clearly?

 

I am sorry if you feel it’s important to defend the notion that black people descended from Cain. Telling anyone they are a descendant of Master Mahan is not productive and we don't even know if there's any merit to it. I am sorry if you are planting your flag on that hill. . . . 

 

[and from another post]  Just_A_Guy said “Speaking for myself:  I do not defend the first two theories as you have stated them…B ut t hat which I do defend, I defend because it has not been expunged from LDS teaching.” I took that to mean he does defend the third statement. Please forgive me and correct me if am wrong.

 

Oh, it's definitely not the hill I want to die on.   :)

 

I don't know that it's true.  On the other hand--and here's my sticking point, which may well be straining at a gnat, but--we don't know that it's false.  I *strongly* object to making positive pronouncements about a notion's truth and error based on nothing more than whether the notion under consideration causes me emotional discomfort. 

 

For example, as discussed earlier in this thread, Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory from the pulpit when speaking as the prophet and those teachings have been explicitly repudiated.

 

It's interesting you should bring that up, because Spencer W. Kimball has shown us that the Church leadership knows how to proclaim something false when they have a mind to do so:

 

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations.  Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory.  We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.  "Our Own Liahona", Oct 1976 Conference, emphasis added.

 

I do not rejoice in this and I am not “paving the way for arguing that a whole slough of modern Church teachings, policies, and practices are also subject to revision and, in the interim, not worthy of our conformance or deference” (Just_A_Guy). 

 

Okay, then; let's cut to the chase:

 

The 1848-1978 priesthood ban:  Divine injunction, or mortal usurpation?  

[Timpman]

Proclaiming it's possible that the disavowed theories might be true gives life to them, however faint and unintentional it may be, and the theories are perpetuated. That is all.

[Finrock]

I don't have a problem with the idea that our pre-existence influenced our mortal condition in some way. However, I don't think mortals are in a position to judge that of others. Certainly the way to determine how valiant someone was or was not is not based on some worldly measure of status or goodness.

 

For instance, The Folk Prophet stated:

 

 

 

 How then would it be applicable to a current day well-off, educated, priesthood holding black person? Their station in life is blessed. Hence, if the principle is in play, they were valiant in the pre-existence. If, on the other hand, anyone was born into a situation where they suffered to some degree or another, there is a possibility that part of the reason for that might be due to their pre-earth choices.

 

It is one thing to say that our pre-existence influences our mortal life. But it is another thing to say that because of wealth and education, one must have been valiant in the pre-existence. The implication is that if one was born poor and uneducated they were not valiant in the pre-existence. This type of judging and reasoning is false.

 

We don't know. Each person must find out for themselves why God placed them in whatever situation he placed them. We can learn a lot about this in Jacob 5. These are things that are best left for the Spirit to discern.

 

-Finrock

 

EDIT: Not sure why I wrote Ether but I meant Jacob 5

Edited July 23, 2015 by Finrock

[sxfritz]

The Folk Prophet, and everyone, my objective here is to urge others to disavow past teachings and move forward with the Church. Past teachings regarding black people have been immeasurably harmful to the Church.

 

I think we have moved on. You appear to be the one stuck.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't have a problem with the idea that our pre-existence influenced our mortal condition in some way. However, I don't think mortals are in a position to judge that of others. Certainly the way to determine how valiant someone was or was not is not based on some worldly measure of status or goodness.

 

For instance, The Folk Prophet stated:

 

 

 

 

It is one thing to say that our pre-existence influences our mortal life. But it is another thing to say that because of wealth and education, one must have been valiant in the pre-existence. The implication is that if one was born poor and uneducated they were not valiant in the pre-existence. This type of judging and reasoning is false.

 

We don't know. Each person must find out for themselves why God placed them in whatever situation he placed them. We can learn a lot about this in Ether 5. These are things that are best left for the Spirit to discern.

 

-Finrock

 

Finrock-I agree. Note the "hence the possibility" wording included in my thought. As a doctrinal theory I think it has some validity. But we should never look at someone's station and judge them, and I don't think it's, by any means, a one-to-one, your rich you were good, you're poor you were bad, you're a king you were good, you're a slave you were bad, thing.

 

The broad theory vs. personal judgment idea has always been true as well methinks. The now disavowed teachings on this matter were the same...broad doctrinal theories behind the ban...never meant to be used for judgement.

Edited July 23, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

Proclaiming it's possible that the disavowed theories might be true gives life to them, however faint and unintentional it may be, and the theories are perpetuated. That is all.

 

Point taken (just as pointing out that it's possible the priesthood ban was an error gives life to theories that other current Church policies are also errors).  But surely it's problematic to dismiss something as "impossible" when, in fact, it isn't; merely for the sake of making sure that other people don't start adopting beliefs that we personally find objectionable?

[askandanswer]

I have'nt read the whole discussion. But it seems to me that any account of racism and religion would need to take into account the situation of the ancient Israelites, and there behaviour that appeared to be racist and xenophobic and their vehement rejection of any kind of association with any other racial group and their firm religious belief, probably inspired by what they believed they had been told by God, that they were a superior, chosen race race.  

[askandanswer]

It might not be irrelevant to note that in the days of ancient Israel, the only criterion for being able to hold the Priesthood was being a descendant of Levi. All other tribes and races were denied the opportunity to hold the Priesthood solely because they were of a different race, and of a different descent from that tiny group to whom this blessing was made available. To deny a blessing solely on the basis of race and descent may look and sound like a form of racism, as the world, today, understands the term, but that is not a call that I would be prepared to make.

 

And if it is indeed a form of racism, then I would ask so what? God is free to do as He wishes and it is not for us to condemn His actions and decisions. I don't think God is racist, but if He is or was, it should make no difference to us. The fundamental and eternal principles of the gospel hold true, and it is adherence to those principles, and living in accordance with them, that will save us. Whether or not God, or His church, or His servants were or are racist, in the way the world currently uses that term, should have no bearing on our pursuit of salvation. That is a matter for the church and His servants and not something that we need to be distracted by. If we are tempted to be distracted by it, then that is the time to rely a little more on our faith. 

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I don't have time to delve into the main discussion here, but I do want to address one aspect of it---- The Adam/God Theory.

 

First, it should be pointed out that in President Kimball’s conference talk he used the word "alleged" when referring to the Adam/God theory having been taught by some General Authorities.

 

Second, let's get a couple of things straight about the J of D from where the Brigham quote was lifted.

The Journal of Discourses is NOT a source for official Church teachings and most Latter-day Saints don't study it for doctrinal understanding. It is NOT considered part of the Church curriculum and it is NOT used in Sunday School classes or any other LDS instructional venues.

 

Third, quotes from the Journal of Discourses and other journals from that time period are simply NOT reliable (which is why we don't rely on it for instruction). There were no recording devises back then. The talks given in the J of D are nothing more than what the recorder claimed was said. Some of those doing the recording had training in shorthand, others did not, and in many instances they got things wrong. Many of the entries were even based on second hand reports. Brigham Young corrected numerous entries when they were brought to his attention, but it would have been impossible for him to correct them all since many were never brought to his attention, and many more weren't published until after his death.

Also, almost everyone has had the experience of saying something that was misunderstood by those who heard it. The words "that's not what I meant" have most likely been said by every adult in the entire world at one time or another.

It's deceptive at best when someone takes an isolated quote by Brigham Young and then ignores a hundred quotes that contradict the first. Considering the number, isn't it a reasonable possibility that the one isolated quote was either misquoted or misunderstood?

 

Point of fact:

Here are a several other quotes by Brigham Young in the J of D regarding Adam.

 

"So I [brigham Young] disagree with you, Mr. B., in the first point we have noticed, for you believe that God is without body and parts, while the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam."

 

"Suppose you were rolling in wealth, and perfectly at your ease, with an abundance around you; you might have remained in that condition until Doomsday, and never could have advanced in the school of intelligence, any more than Adam could have known about the works of God, in the great design of the creation, without first being made acquainted with the opposite?”

 

"The first revelation given to Adam was of a temporal nature. Most of the revelations he received pertained to his life here."

 

"The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of."

 

So, from above quotations, we learn several important things regarding Brigham Young's views on Adam.

First, God created Adam.

Second, since Adam did not understand the works of God and received revelation from him, then God has superior knowledge to him.

Finally, Adam was one of God's children

 

It should be obvious that Brigham Young believed Adam and God are not only separate and distinct personages, but that Adam has a lower station than his Father in Heaven.

 

I could quote a great many more statements just like these by Brigham Young regarding Adam, while there is only one quote by him referencing Adam and God as the same being. In a ministry lasting over forty years, he only talks that way once (possibly twice, but that quote was third hand); so isn't it entirely possible that:

A. He was misquoted

Or

B. We just don't understand what he was trying to say?

 

It seems obvious to me that weighed against scores of other quotes similar to the ones I mentioned, the isolated Adam/God statement falls into one of the above categories.

[Timpman]

“In a 1988 interview on the tenth anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, [Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] explained [his] attitude toward attempts to supply mortal reasons for divine revelation:

 

“‘...It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that. … I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.’

 

“When asked if [he] was even referring to reasons given by General Authorities, [he] replied:

 

“‘I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon … by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking. … Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies’."

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-7/lesson-157-official-declaration-2?lang=eng

 

 

Interviewed for a PBS special on the Church, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said:

 

“One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong.”

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Understanding_pre-1978_statements

Edited July 28, 2015 by Timpman