Censorship - is it appropriate

[Free_Born_John]

So I know I am new on here, and I will openly confess to holding liberal views on many issues - but hopefully that will not disqualify me from asking questions or seeking views in an appropriate manner.

I noted a sticky that states to the effect of 'No discussion on certain matters of litigation'. I'm trying to be careful on my wording here.

Does this mean you can't discuss the case at all, or does it mean that you simply can't post links to non LDS sources?

I'm not much interested in the anti or excessively pro LDS views, I find both bias in equal measure. But as a person committed to the idea of democracy and freedom of speech - someone who supports the idea's established in 1649 by the trial of Charles the 1st, and in 1776 by the declaration of independence (and the later constitution of the USA), I do find some potential restrictions challenging.

I'm certainly not saying its a free for all where all kinds of things are posted, and I recognise the need to prevent the destruction of a good forum by allowing trolling etc. But is legitimate historical, doctrinal, or legal examination of evidences allowed? Do we as latter-day saints risk doing ourselves a disservice if we are not aware of a well rounded argument.

The case in point for me would be the recent Race and Priesthood essays on LDS.org.

The essay points out that all prior statements about why Black people couldn't get the priesthood relating to the valience in the pre-existence are disavowed by the church and are false even if stated by prophets and apostles.

To me, whilst I'm actually really happy with that outcome, am then caught in the complex implications of the same statement. What if as a Latter-Day saint living 100 years ago I objected to that teaching and said it was false, I could be excommunicated - but would that be fair? Would God look upon that and deem it acceptable, right, or valid to excommunicate someone for standing against a teaching the church now recognises and has confirmed were always false?

What is the appropriate behaviour under such circumstances? Do we simply accept false teachings and allow them to continue (assuming we're even capable of detecting them)?

Do we take a stand based on personal revelation?

Is it ok to ask challenging questions when you are genuinely absolutely confused over these matters?

[Suzie]

So I know I am new on here, and I will openly confess to holding liberal views on many issues - but hopefully that will not disqualify me from asking questions or seeking views in an appropriate manner.

I noted a sticky that states to the effect of 'No discussion on certain matters of litigation'. I'm trying to be careful on my wording here.

Does this mean you can't discuss the case at all, or does it mean that you simply can't post links to non LDS sources?

I'm not much interested in the anti or excessively pro LDS views, I find both bias in equal measure. But as a person committed to the idea of democracy and freedom of speech - someone who supports the idea's established in 1649 by the trial of Charles the 1st, and in 1776 by the declaration of independence (and the later constitution of the USA), I do find some potential restrictions challenging.

I'm certainly not saying its a free for all where all kinds of things are posted, and I recognise the need to prevent the destruction of a good forum by allowing trolling etc. But is legitimate historical, doctrinal, or legal examination of evidences allowed? Do we as latter-day saints risk doing ourselves a disservice if we are not aware of a well rounded argument.

The case in point for me would be the recent Race and Priesthood essays on LDS.org.

The essay points out that all prior statements about why Black people couldn't get the priesthood relating to the valience in the pre-existence are disavowed by the church and are false even if stated by prophets and apostles.

To me, whilst I'm actually really happy with that outcome, am then caught in the complex implications of the same statement. What if as a Latter-Day saint living 100 years ago I objected to that teaching and said it was false, I could be excommunicated - but would that be fair? Would God look upon that and deem it acceptable, right, or valid to excommunicate someone for standing against a teaching the church now recognises and has confirmed were always false?

What is the appropriate behaviour under such circumstances? Do we simply accept false teachings and allow them to continue (assuming we're even capable of detecting them)?

Do we take a stand based on personal revelation?

Is it ok to ask challenging questions when you are genuinely absolutely confused over these matters?

First of all, there are quite a few "liberal" Mormons here. :) Some people say I am one of them. Although I just consider myself "Suzie" and yes many times, heck often times I see things very differently from mainstream Mormonism.

Having said that, it never stopped me from posting here. Yes, you would get the occasional poster who feels attacked or feels the Church is being attacked and they will reply accordingly and at the same time, you will find great people that can debate issues without becoming personal or too emotional. In any case, it is not about the questions really but how the questions are formulated. I don't think there is anything wrong with asking challenging questions even if you are not confused over those matters. What exactly would you like to discuss with regards to the Blacks and the Priesthood statement? Or was it just an example?

[Free_Born_John]

Hi Suzie,

Apologies, it was a poorly structured question. Probably two points I muddled together:

1. I was actually noting what 'I think' was an instruction not to discuss, or not to post links to the court case happening in the UK at the moment and just wanted clarification. Can we discuss this case or not, is it simply that we don't post links to opposing arguments (not interested in these links anyway).

For me it is important to be impartial. To evaluate the arguments from all sides and try to work out is it black and white or is it nuanced. Can it be perceived my way or do other peoples views have merit?

2. On the blacks and priesthood thing was more about how we deal with challenging information as members and how openly we discuss the contradictions of doing what is morally right vs obedient at the time - would we stand up and be counted against earlier church leaders since they got it wrong, or would we sit quietly and let our black brothers and sisters be denied the chance to be sealed in this life and feel that somehow they did something in the pre-existence that made them lesser citizens in God's eyes?

[skippy740]

It's not about censorship. It's about community focus.

This is a privately owned discussion forum - owned by The More Good Foundation. We are ALL guests of The More Good Foundation to post and discuss various issues and things within the LDS faith. We have been asked not to discuss "certain litigation", so any thread that brings it up will be closed and deleted.

However, we can and do encourage great discussions as long as they are within the community forum rules and appropriate for the community focus.

[Free_Born_John]

Hi Skippy,

Without wishing to sound disagreeable, how is being asked not to discuss a topic, any topic even from a defensive standpoint, and closing or deleting threads not censorship?

I'd be happier if you just said we are censoring those topics. As a member I can read about it in other forums, there's one on LDSFreedom right now discussing it, so I guess I can discuss it there.

But it's not actually about that case, its about the scope to discuss that issue of comparable issues as members. I'm not afraid of these issues, I'm actually more concerned that we appear concerned when we try to control them out of our media.

When Jesus stood trial before Pilot, he refused to prove he was the Son of God despite being able to do so. I'm positive that he could simply have shown Pilot something that would have instantly converted Pilot, but the Saviour accepted that he would or could not prove something to a man like pilot for whatever reason and accepted his fate as part of the plan.

Just like the polygamy trials, the outcome of cases against the church have no bearing on truth. It's simply the national law asking the church to abide by arbitrary rules its societies comes up with. I'd be more interested in discussing how we would adapt if such cases ruled against us.

anyhow, I've asked the question, and you've indicated no discussion on that case here, so i'll join the discussion over on LDSFreedom.

Kind regards.

[skippy740]

2. On the blacks and priesthood thing was more about how we deal with challenging information as members and how openly we discuss the contradictions of doing what is morally right vs obedient at the time - would we stand up and be counted against earlier church leaders since they got it wrong, or would we sit quietly and let our black brothers and sisters be denied the chance to be sealed in this life and feel that somehow they did something in the pre-existence that made them lesser citizens in God's eyes?

Let me share with you my personal experience on this issue.

I am a part of the AAOP - the African American Outreach Program organized by brother Marvin Perkins - co-author of the Blacks in the Scriptures DVD series. As part of the AAOP, we share the message that we are all God's children and we are all equal in His eyes. The message is shared using the scriptures and helping others to search the scriptures and footnotes more deeply to get the understanding that we need.

For more information, you can read this thread here: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/45876-scriptures-church-history-racism-blacks-scriptures.html

However, in my area, this effort has largely completely stopped. There is an erroneous idea that the "AAOP" is all about "selling DVDs" and making this a "commercial venture". This has never been the case to those we personally reach out to... but the impression is there. If you go to the Blacks in the Scriptures DVD website, you can purchase your own set of DVDs for $24.95... just like you can order other author's work from Deseret Book and pay for those materials from them too.

I personally handed my Area Authority Seventy (after a ward conference) a copy of everything we've been doing... and I got wind that he was quite upset about it. (Maybe I should've asked him for a check so he can confirm his suspicions?)

So, on one hand, I have the scriptural truths and tools that can help others join and stay in the Church. On the other hand, I've been restricted from distributing these materials on church property within my stake.

What do I do?

1. I support and sustain my leaders by being in compliance with their request, even though I can't stand it. I tried talking to my stake leaders, but I didn't get very far at all.

2. Leaders are only called for a short period of time. All I have to do is wait until the next one(s) is/are called.

3. Any missed opportunities to share the message... well, the sin is on my leaders for whom I could've affected, but restricted. It is NOT my sin. I 'wash my hands' of it because I am in compliance with my leaders. I may not like it, but it's not by my choice.

That's what I've chosen to do when I disagree with my leaders in an area where I know I can be of much good, within the gospel and doctrinal teachings, yet for some reason, unable to fulfill the good I can do.

[Free_Born_John]

Hi Skippy,

Very interesting response on the race and Priesthood. I've thought a lot about this of late as I too have pondered why such a doctrine existed when it was clear from the record the JS ordained Elijah Abel to the Priesthood. I did infact wonder if the teaching against black people from BY onwards was legitimate, so was greatly relived by the new essays.

To your point on compliance, I understand your views. I've found this challenging too. To deny our Black brothers and sisters the right to be sealed together in the Temple and the joy of just having that ceremony as a family is infact (IMO) a great evil. How awful must those people have felt knowing that they could not be sealed and that they were viewed and possibly viewed themselves as second class citizens.

I read the letters that were written to BY by black members begging to be sealed and wer rejected, as well as comment by some of the early brethren that seemed exceptionally harsh or derisory. I accept these were just men, but there is an issue that says do we tolerate this even from our own?

During the Nuremburg trials (I know this is an extreme example) Nazis often tried to state that they followed their leaders instructions. But the trials concluded that was not a reasonable defence. I'm inclined to feel that in this sensitive matter it is one area that does get under my skin.

Seeing harm done to an innocent person through such teachings to me is contrary to the mission of the Saviour. I do wonder how Brigham Young et al will be in good standing with the Lord because of this matter. I also wonder why the Lord allowed such a false doctrine to remain in the church causing damage and enabling racism for 140 years when a simple revelation would have resolved the matter instantly.

If we can move from the WOW being a choice to being a Doctrine via revelation, then I'd hope that something as significant as a teaching about a whole race of people would warrant immediate intervention.

But like many, there are things I simply don't understand. I just hope God recognises that I try to follow both the spirit and my conscience in such matters.

Racist behaviour today would be grounds for excommunication. If that is the case and the Lord's judgement is unchanging then perhaps some of our earlier leaders might not quite be in such a good standing - unless the Lord recognises the relative nature of society - but we are supposed to be the light on a hill - I'd really love to have seen that played out in this matter - the Church leading from the front in the 1800's and banning all forms of racism long before the US Civil war. How cool would that have been to be ahead of the civil rights curve rather than behind it!

[Just_A_Guy]

I noted a sticky that states to the effect of 'No discussion on certain matters of litigation'. I'm trying to be careful on my wording here.

Does this mean you can't discuss the case at all, or does it mean that you simply can't post links to non LDS sources?

You've certainly read that announcement, and there isn't much more to the rationale behind it than what has been stated. When the policy was implemented MGF's stated preference was "no discussion of that current event AT ALL". Time will tell if that will be relaxed.

I'm certainly not saying its a free for all where all kinds of things are posted, and I recognise the need to prevent the destruction of a good forum by allowing trolling etc. But is legitimate historical, doctrinal, or legal examination of evidences allowed? Do we as latter-day saints risk doing ourselves a disservice if we are not aware of a well rounded argument.

Discussion is fine. Kvetching is not. Most people can tell the difference--the mods certainly can.

To me, whilst I'm actually really happy with that outcome, am then caught in the complex implications of the same statement. What if as a Latter-Day saint living 100 years ago I objected to that teaching and said it was false, I could be excommunicated - but would that be fair? Would God look upon that and deem it acceptable, right, or valid to excommunicate someone for standing against a teaching the church now recognises and has confirmed were always false?

With Mormonism often it isn't so much what you say, but how you say it. The modern Church, for example, has embraced a lot of what the Godbeites originally advocated--but their teachings included an element of contempt for Young and an inability to abide government of any sort that ultimately led them to a place that the institutional Church could not follow. In light of their later history, the Godbeites' excommunication might be argued as being remarkably prescient.

Do we take a stand based on personal revelation?

Sure; as long as we don't go so far as to suggest that our revelations are better than anyone else's revelations to the contrary.

Is it ok to ask challenging questions when you are genuinely absolutely confused over these matters?

It's more than OK; it's essential.

Incidentally: what do you think about the Church's denying the joy of temple sealings and priesthood ordinations to a specific group of dead people based on nothing more than their race (to wit: Jewish ancestry)?

Edited March 18, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

Some of the events of the "timeline" on this issue:

http://askgramps.org/18620/church-disavowing-racism

[Suzie]

2. On the blacks and priesthood thing was more about how we deal with challenging information as members and how openly we discuss the contradictions of doing what is morally right vs obedient at the time - would we stand up and be counted against earlier church leaders since they got it wrong, or would we sit quietly and let our black brothers and sisters be denied the chance to be sealed in this life and feel that somehow they did something in the pre-existence that made them lesser citizens in God's eyes?

We discussed this issue many times (you can run a search) and I have been very candid towards past teachings and blunt towards Church leaders. Having said that, with this particular issue we seem to want to force our 2014 mindset to 19th century old men (and yes it includes the prophet and leaders) and it just doesn't work out.

A few threads about the issue:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/56776-church-issues-race-priesthood-statement-rejecting-theories-past-ban-blacks-priesthood.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36633-issues-brigham-young-14.html

[Guest]

If you come to my house, and I ask you not to do something, and you do it anyway, I have a right to insist that you leave. It's my home, there's a certain atmosphere I strive for, and I hope that anyone who crosses my threshhold will honor my wishes respectfully. That's not censorship; it's my right as keeper of the hearth.

Now, if we were in a public park or somewhere like that and I tried to make you leave because I didn't like what you were saying, that would be a different issue altogether.

We're talking about privately owned "property", so to speak. We are all guests here. If we don't like the way things are run or we aren't willing to contribute to, rather than take away from, the kind of "home" our host wants to keep, then we are free to express our opinions elsewhere.

[Palerider]

You should check out the web site called....Blacklds.org

[dirtydevil]

"Discussion is fine. Kvetching is not."

"kvetching" is just fine, even honorable, if it is motivated by moral yearnings against stubborn authorities.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Scotch