"Protestant Mormons"

[LDSGator]

57 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

 

but I believe Luther's motives were relatively innocent.

They were. Luther was sort of like a “conservative revolutionary.” He wanted to get back to what he thought was the truth. He thought the church was the one that was off track. 
 

Hence why he flipped out over other reformers going too far and denying the real presence, etc. He also hated having “Lutherans” be called after his own name.

Edited October 24, 2023 by LDSGator

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Except that Martin Luther was right. Indulgences should not have been sold. There was apparent corruption. Further, there may be more qualified historians than me on this, but I am not so certain that nailing objections was a faith-destroying move. We don't know what was going on in Luther's mind, but it is a mostly accepted consensus that he truly was not seeking schism. He hoped the church would embrace reforms and become stronger. He hoped his friends would be strengthened because the church was strenghened. Indeed, I understand that there was something of a Catholic Reformation. Apologists argue it was coming and Luther should have been patient. Luther-supporters argue that the Protestant Reformation drove Catholic hierarchy to those reforms.

We have the advantage of over 500 years of history, but I believe Luther's motives were relatively innocent. Whether he was so right that he was wrong (the benefits did not outweigh the cost of schism) is an open question to this day. 

I though I would clarify to you the importance of Martin Luther to LDS theology.  We believe that the entire “Reformation” movement was both a fulfillment of prophesy and the laying of the groundwork for what we understand as the “Restoration”.  As difficult as it was for the prophet Joseph Smith in America where the law (constitution) granted the Freedom of Religion as a bulwark of freedom of speech – the LDS Church could not have survived the difficulties that would have been without the Reformation.

It is the tenant of LDS theology that many men wore inspired of G-d to move the pillars of Traditional Christianity to allow followers of a movement to live that would have otherwise been put to death for heresy.  As a side note Isaiah defined heresy (turning from G-d) as: 1. Transgressing the Law, changing the Ordinances and breaking the Everlasting Covenant.  Not as a problem of doctrine.

There are some that believe that the ancient reference in scripture to righteousness is not so much concerning those that do not sin (we all sin) but that the righteousness are those that make and keep covenants with G-d.  Likewise the ancient concept of wicked are not those that are evil but rather those that refuse covenants with G-d or break their covenants with G-d.

However, it is interesting to me what Isaiah said to Ahaz about true doctrine.  In essence, he said that the reason that Ahaz did not believe was because he was not loyal (to his covenant) – implying that we was loyal to what he wanted to be doctrine.

Some other thoughts.  Moses was the appointed prophet for the house of Israel, but it was the inspired father-in-law of Moses that taught him to delegate governing (judgments) among the house of Israel.  I believe the point here is that though the law is given through the prophet that it is possible for others that are inspired to inspire those in authority.  In LDS theology this is referenced to as gifts of the spirit – See Book of Mormon – Moroni chapter 10.

The problem is when someone believe it necessary to criticize those in authority rather than inspire them.

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

10 hours ago, mirkwood said:

 

This is the cancer infecting the Church.

This reminds me so much of the parable of the wheat and the tares, that grow so closely on the same patch of ground that they almost become intertwined. And this situation is not immediately resolved, it is permitted to continue for quite some time. 

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the ^aharvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together ^bfirst the tares, and bind them in bundles to ^cburn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

[MrShorty]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

I believe I understand and, to an extent, sympathize with this point of view. But I think it distorts the reality. Insofar as the "LDS Protestants" or "progmos" or whatever label you want to give them are simply Saints wrestling with the flesh and the doubts that arise from the flesh, I suspect the body of Saints would be nearly unanimous in embracing them and encouraging them to continue their fellowship. If we encourage those with doubts to leave, then we all are lost.

The problem is not with those who doubt or whose revelatory testimonies are sometimes weak. Rather, it is with those who, doubting the veracity of the Church's claims about itself and the inspiration of its leaders, try to lead the Saints down another path, one more to their societal and political liking.

I agree that all of these different people exist. I find myself disliking what is said by the strident, "Russell Nelson is no prophet of any God I care to follow" types, because I don't feel like they help me find a foothold on this slippery slope. I find that I like people like Patrick Mason who (for example) publicly says that he doesn't believe that the priesthood and temple ban is of divine origin, but still wants to support the church and its leaders. I think it would be unfair to him and others like him to lump him in with those who stridently claim that Pres. Nelson is not a prophet, but I know there are some who would try to push Mason and others like him into the same end of the continuum. I don't know how the orthodox members of the church ought to manage discerning who is a sincere doubter from the strident unbelievers, but it seems like an important endeavor. I think I've said before that this journey feels like the proverbial slippery slope. My own discernment around who is a "sincere doubter" vs. the "strident disbeliever" is usually based on who is helping me find footholds, which is probably not a good vantage point for telling everyone else how to discern who fits where on the spectrum.

That said, I really appreciate you and anyone who is willing to embrace and encourage a fellow Saint wrestling with doubts and questions and concerns. I think the absolute worst feeling on this journey is the feeling that your fellow co-religionists are thinking (or even say) something like, "don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out."

20 hours ago, Vort said:

Of course prophets, being mortal men, are fallible. That is neither the question nor the point.

Might just have to agree to disagree, but I find this is at the heart of most of my own doubts and concerns and questions (yes, and even the things I reject). In a church led by prophets and apostles built on the rock of revelation, when prophets make mistakes, it can call into question other claims that prophets and apostles have made. A statement like Goff shared that implies a kind of "de facto infallibility" status on the prophets feels like it misses so many of the issues.

[Vort]

56 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I find that I like people like Patrick Mason who (for example) publicly says that he doesn't believe that the priesthood and temple ban is of divine origin, but still wants to support the church and its leaders.

This is an interesting topic. 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.

If such people feel so free to proclaim that Brigham Young and the other prophets and apostles were uninspired with respect to Priesthood and race issues, how dare they raise argument and contention against those who maintain that the prophets were indeed prophets, and that the origin of the Priesthood ban was indeed divine? To me, that seems an awful lot like saying, "You must be tolerant and respectful of my opinions, even when I proclaim that Church doctrine was uninspired and wicked. But I owe you no such courtesy."

Edited October 25, 2023 by Vort

[prisonchaplain]

I suppose that prophets may speak privately, and those words should not be weighed as inspired by God. Some words may be spoken to individuals or small groups, by prophets, and those utterances may only apply to them. However, when a prophet speaks publicly, or officially, is he not supposed to be infallible? Is it not the same as when the Pope speaks to Catholics ex cathedra (from the chair--authoritatively)?

Edited October 25, 2023 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

To me, that seems an awful lot like saying, "You must be tolerant and respectful of my opinions, even when I proclaim that Church doctrine was uninspired and wicked. But I owe you no such courtesy."

You're probably right about everything. I promise to consider your words once I'm done laughing at (not with) the adolescent environmentalist wacko that you inserted. This may be a case where said insert distracts from rather than underlines your point. 😉 

Edited October 25, 2023 by prisonchaplain

[zil2]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

In a church led by prophets and apostles built on the rock of revelation, when prophets make mistakes, it can call into question other claims that prophets and apostles have made.

Here is my take:

If you do not believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's restored church, led by Jesus Christ himself, then disregard everything else I have to say as it's irrelevant without that belief.

 

If you do believe that, then you only need to trust in Jesus Christ.  Because if he's in charge then:

1. He called the President of the Church and the apostles.

2. If they lead us astray in some way, then trust that Christ will stop them.  (D&C 43:3-4, for example.)  (You don't need to trust the prophet, you need to trust Jesus Christ.)

3. 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, just as scriptures say the sins will be on the parents' heads if they fail to teach their children (or on Laman & Lemuel's heads for generations of their descendants - there's a staggering thing).  (And just as the sins will be on the heads of priesthood holders if they fail to do their duty - think temple....)  (Again, you don't need to trust the prophet, you need to trust Jesus Christ.)

In other words, you can't go wrong following the prophet - if this is Christ's church.  That does not mean you have to follow him blindly.  You can compare his teachings to the whole of scripture from Genesis 1 to Article of Faith 13.  You can ponder and pray about it for a testimony of its truthfulness.  You can ask questions and work through difficult things (e.g. Nephi's working through the command to kill Laban).  There's nothing wrong with any of that.  The wrong comes when you start trying to lead others away from the prophet or publicly declare him not a prophet or some such thing.

My testimony is that Jesus Christ lives.  He is the Son of God.  He loves us.  This is his church restored to the earth.  It comes with his priesthood, complete with its keys, ordinances, and covenants.  Ergo, the prophet is led by him and if the prophet goes astray, Christ will deal with it and I don't have to worry about it because I trust Christ.

FWIW.

[Grunt]

14 hours ago, zil2 said:

Here is my take:

If you do not believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's restored church, led by Jesus Christ himself, then disregard everything else I have to say as it's irrelevant without that belief.

 

If you do believe that, then you only need to trust in Jesus Christ.  Because if he's in charge then:

1. He called the President of the Church and the apostles.

2. If they lead us astray in some way, then trust that Christ will stop them.  (D&C 43:3-4, for example.)  (You don't need to trust the prophet, you need to trust Jesus Christ.)

3. 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, just as scriptures say the sins will be on the parents' heads if they fail to teach their children (or on Laman & Lemuel's heads for generations of their descendants - there's a staggering thing).  (And just as the sins will be on the heads of priesthood holders if they fail to do their duty - think temple....)  (Again, you don't need to trust the prophet, you need to trust Jesus Christ.)

In other words, you can't go wrong following the prophet - if this is Christ's church.  That does not mean you have to follow him blindly.  You can compare his teachings to the whole of scripture from Genesis 1 to Article of Faith 13.  You can ponder and pray about it for a testimony of its truthfulness.  You can ask questions and work through difficult things (e.g. Nephi's working through the command to kill Laban).  There's nothing wrong with any of that.  The wrong comes when you start trying to lead others away from the prophet or publicly declare him not a prophet or some such thing.

My testimony is that Jesus Christ lives.  He is the Son of God.  He loves us.  This is his church restored to the earth.  It comes with his priesthood, complete with its keys, ordinances, and covenants.  Ergo, the prophet is led by him and if the prophet goes astray, Christ will deal with it and I don't have to worry about it because I trust Christ.

FWIW.

This has always been my response as well.   I can't believe "I followed the Prophet" won't be a positive defense on judgement day.

[MrShorty]

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).

[MrShorty]

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.

[Backroads]

In a lot of ways I'm all about that "relationship with God first" but I think there comes a point where it's like, what's the point of a church, then? And that's not the best place to be. I'll go out on a limb and say that many members of their churches have their pet focuses and quirks, but when I truly think of "Protestant Mormons", the ones I've interacted with have the gospel watered down so much that the resulting church isn't anything special or remarkable.

I've certainly heard my share of people going off the rails with their own personal interpretation of everything, but if not more so it seems their personal revelation is that much of our doctrine is simply a story or tradition. Book of Mormon isn't real, temples are just a fun little thing, etc. 

 

[zil2]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I guess I'm just not as convinced that God's court universally accepts a "Nuremburg" defense.

I don't think I'd call it that, but the general principle is well-documented:

• 2 Nephi 4:6
• Doctrine and Covenants 68:25
• Ezekiel 33:2–9
• Jacob 1:19
• Doctrine and Covenants 88:81–82

 

I won't go dig them up unless someone needs me to, but there are also plenty of scriptures which indicate that those who died without knowing the law will not be held accountable to it.  So if the prophet says X is a commandment from God (but it's not) and we trust him because he is God's prophet and do X, how is that any different from those who don't have the law?  We didn't have the law.  As for "against my judgement" - well, isn't that the reason we have prophets, to keep us from turning "every one to his own way"?

Edited October 26, 2023 by zil2

[prisonchaplain]

The idea of following the prophets (or, in my case, church leadership) and of giving them the benefit of the doubt goes a long way with me. I don't see God punishing Protestants who don't allow female clergy, even though my church does. I doubt that churches that allow moderate drinking will be downgraded, though mine doesn't. I cringe at churches that discourage the moving of the Holy Spirit, claiming that the Bible is enough, but guess that what they are missing out on is more in this life than the one to come. So, I mostly agree that if there is certainty about a prophet's authority than that person should be followed and given every benefit of the doubt. The bar for disobeying a prophet would have to be quite high. 

Edited October 25, 2023 by prisonchaplain

[MrShorty]

@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.

[Carborendum]

On 10/24/2023 at 9:05 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I suppose that prophets may speak privately, and those words should not be weighed as inspired by God. Some words may be spoken to individuals or small groups, by prophets, and those utterances may only apply to them. However, when a prophet speaks publicly, or officially, is he not supposed to be infallible? Is it not the same as when the Pope speaks to Catholics ex cathedra (from the chair--authoritatively)?

Almost.  I believe you may be referring to the oft repeated phrase that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such.

As has been said, we don't believe our prophets to be infallible - even when speaking in an official capacity.  So, why do we follow them?  Because they are prophets.

As an orthodox Saint, I believe that if the prophets and apostles are ever wrong about something, it won't be something so bad that it will affect my personal salvation.  And in the end, that is the only thing that matters.

Some people complain about things that will negatively affect them or a family member.  But every episode that I've been on the listening end of it is because "Hey! That's not fair because that means I get the short end of the stick!"  Or "Hey!  Don't you talk about my kids that way!"

I believe a recent thread talked about how some bratty kid is causing trouble for all the kids in the class. But the parents always want to believe that their child was the saint.  And all the other kids (as well as the teacher) just didn't do enough to accommodate him.  Well, I'm afraid things like that happen with LGBTQ issues and Church doctrines and practices, as well as a bevy of other things.

There is also another principle that I personally invoke as far as checking the Prophet.  There are in my mind some principles and doctrines that are so central and so basic that if you took that away, it would completely destroy everything we believe in.  Nothing would make sense.

Imagine if the Prophet were to say that there really was no Atonement of Christ.  That would be fundamentally flawed.  If we take that away, we're left without a religion.

Similarly (but not quite as fundamental) the eternal nature of families is also so deeply embedded in our beliefs that it cannot be casually discarded.  If we allow gay marriages and transexual marriages in the temple, this would completely destroy the idea of eternal marriage and eternal families.  Without that, we just become another Christian church without any divine power.  And yet, this is one of the things that "Protestant Mormons" use to say that the prophet is flawed?

I know that each person has to draw the line somewhere.  But some people place that line on things that make no sense to me. It is either so frivolous, or so selfish, or so prideful that I can't believe they use that logic to think they can second guess God or His Prophet.

/rant off.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Carborendum

[zil2]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@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.

I think we're beating a dead horse.  Obviously reason comes into play (if the prophet tells us to go out and do something that's always been a sin, of course one isn't going to do that).  Obviously consistency with established teachings (in scripture and from other prophets and apostles) comes into play.  But if one is doing the best they know - if no one ever taught them that X was a sin - no one, ever - and they had no reason (scripture, prophets, the Holy Ghost) to believe something a sin, then why do we think they'll be held to count for it?

But frankly, these examples seem far-fetched to me.  What potential sin is President Nelon asking us to commit?  What righteous deed is he asking us not to do?  How is he potentially putting our salvation at risk if we follow him?

[zil2]

13 hours ago, zil2 said:

I think we're beating a dead horse.

As I was praying last night and thinking about this discussion, the impression came to me that I should suggest that anyone who is struggling would be blessed by forming a habit of daily study from the Book of Mormon.  Choose for yourself how long to spend or how to approach it, but form a habit of being in the Book of Mormon every day with a sincere intent to come unto Jesus Christ.  It may not make sense, but my own experience is that doing this consistently and persistently brings blessings.  So I encourage everyone (actually, everyone, whether struggling or not) to give it a try and see whether, in a year or two, things aren't better than they were before you started.

[JohnsonJones]

On 10/24/2023 at 8:01 PM, Vort said:

If such people feel so free to proclaim that Brigham Young and the other prophets and apostles were uninspired with respect to Priesthood and race issues, how dare they raise argument and contention against those who maintain that the prophets were indeed prophets, and that the origin of the Priesthood ban was indeed divine? To me, that seems an awful lot like saying, "You must be tolerant and respectful of my opinions, even when I proclaim that Church doctrine was uninspired and wicked. But I owe you no such courtesy."

 

edit: Upon re-reading my own post, I see it may not be as clear as I intend.  I apologize for any weakness of my own trying to convey what I mean. 

This is a tough one in my opinion.  The Church itself on it's own website is claiming this already in the Gospel Essays.  I find it has confused a great many.  I've seen youth use these gospel Essays as the PRIMARY reasoning for their having opinions contrary to the Church and even proclaiming ideas that the prophet today is not the prophet.  That if a prophet can retroactively proclaim what another said was divinely inspired as just an opinion, than neither is divinely inspired nor a prophet.

That actually troubles me.  It has left a wide rift among many and I have no answers on this.

My only thought is that the prophets of the past are inspired and divinely led as well as those today.  The differences are how those doctrines are understood.  I'll elaborate in a PS below as how this works isn't really pertinent to what I want to say.

The problem today is that people see two things as facts that they should not see. 

1.  When they declare the Church is true, what they mean is that the Church is perfect in every way.  When they find out that the Church can have problems or even difficulties it deals a powerful blow to their testimony.  If their testimony was based on the idea that the Church was perfect and they find out that it is not...then they have a conflict where facts don't support their belief.  It can cause a crisis which some do not survive.

2.  When they say they believe in the Prophet they mean that they believe the Prophet is infallible.  They believe he is just as perfect as a Deity.  When they find he may have faults or is just a man, this can cause a Crisis.  Facts do not support what they believe, and as such can cause them to lose their entire testimony because their testimony was based on a falsehood.

This is where the core thing comes in.  We SHOULD recognize that our Church leaders are MEN.  They are HUMAN.  They are NOT deities and are NOT who we worship.  We should follow what they teach and do what they say (for example, if the prophet says that we should all get rebaptized, we get rebaptized.  If the prophet says we all should wear masks and get vaccinated, we should all wear masks and get vaccinated).  However it does not mean we necessarily see him as anything greater than any other member.  HE IS the mouthpiece of the Lord, but he is ALSO a person and a member just like you, or me, or others.  Trying to hold him to inhuman measurements when he is just a human is bound to cause problems eventually.  (edit:  This is where I do not know if I am being clear enough.  HE IS holy and he IS the mouthpiece of the Lord, but to expect him to be perfect or be greater than a man is unrealistic expectations.  Our prophet is chosen by the Lord for certain things which we may or may not know or understand.  This is not necessarily because he is the most righteous or the greatest among us, but because he is the RIGHT individual for that position at THAT time [just like any other calling hopefully].  To expect him to be the most perfect or righteous individual of the church, or even greater, a perfect being, is only setting our faith in false expectations that probably could never be fulfilled.  I see far too many setting up this expectation of the prophet in their lives though.  He COULD  be the most righteous and the greatest, but it is not necessarily true either.  What we HAVE to understand though is that HE IS a man, just like us, and AS a man he is Not yet perfect as only the Lord is perfect).

I think one problem today is we've raised many of our children to think of things in a higher status than they should.  Rather than see the Church as the vehicle for ordinances and covenants, they see it THE thing of worship.  Instead of seeing that the Church is made for man, they see that man is made for the Church and it's perfection.  Rather than see that the Prophet is merely the mouthpiece of the Lord and his representative to use, they see him as the Lord's avatar in the Flesh.  This is bound to cause problems and I think it is causing problems.

 

 

PS: In reference to the above, a prime example is the Adam/God theory.  As people from Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith explain, the way Brigham Young said it and meant it actually perfectly supports the same way we believe today.  The PROBLEM is that shortly after Brigham Young, his words were misunderstood and as such got reinterpreted to mean something entirely different than what he meant.  If you understand Brigham's method of talking, you can understand perfectly what he said, but if you do not understand that method, you take it to mean something that does NOT represent what we believe.

The problem came then that there were many who started to believe this theory meant something entirely different than what Brigham Young stated or intended it to be.  They felt that it meant that Adam (or Michael) was the Father who is the Father of our Lord in spirit and flesh.  This was incorrect, and as this idea became the meaning of what was meant when people mentioned this theory, that theory as it was understood in that way, had to be disavowed.  We DID NOT throw away Brigham Young's speeches of it in the JoD, nor did we try to erase Brigham Young's teachings.  We only disavowed the changed understanding that utilized the label and as that was the label used, disavowed it.

I think the same could be said of some of the other teachings these days and how some people are understanding them.  They understand it with a modern lens without actually understanding what was said.  It is their current understanding of the thing which is being disavowed, not the teachings and doctrine that Brigham Young taught himself, and that applies to other prophets and such as well. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[zil2]

14 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The Church itself on it's own website is claiming this already in the Gospel Essays.

Please state what you mean by "this".  It seems like you mean "the priesthood ban for men of black African descent was not inspired".  If that's what you mean, the "Race and the Priesthood" essay says no such thing.  If you mean something else, I can't figure out what.

[JohnsonJones]

23 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Please state what you mean by "this".  It seems like you mean "the priesthood ban for men of black African descent was not inspired".  If that's what you mean, the "Race and the Priesthood" essay says no such thing.  If you mean something else, I can't figure out what.

That is one of several items.  If we are addressing the Preisthood ban it specifically states

Quote

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

 

Quote

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.¹⁰

This goes contrary to what was originally stated and believed.  This was not the justification given.  If we want to say it, this is actually very close to gaslighting what actually happened in my lifetime. 

The explanation for this was that it was revelation (which, as the essay states, is not accepted as an explanation today). It was also official doctrine.  It was stated to be DOCTRINE when I joined the church.  It was being fulfilled during my lifetime (and we saw it being fulfilled in many ways with Spencer W. Kimball). 

 The Church prior to that had this doctrine reinforced in several ways.  One of the more famous today is a Statement from George Albert Smith from 1949 which states

Quote

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

This is why the revelation to the Prophet and the Twelve was such an astounding and marvelous revelation when it came.  It was prophecy being fulfilled (a prophecy that had also been made by Brigham Young and later others such as Wilford Woodruff). 

Bruce R. McConkie had said to the effect that the African American would not get the Priesthood and then, after the revelation, had to stand and bear his testimony and retract that to reassure us that this was indeed revelation.  He had been wrong with how soon it would be fulfilled.  It was being fulfilled in our DAY!!!

Part of the reason WHY some saw there was a restriction also applied to others who did NOT have a genealogy tied to Africa as well.  We STILL have this restriction in place TO THIS DAY.  (this does NOT mean this WAS the reason, only that some SAW it as the reason...it was NOT because they necessarily saw those with genealogy from Africa as Inferior or any other nonsense, at least where I was at).

The restriction boiled down to choices in the pre-existence.  We made choices in the pre-existence that affect where we are and what opportunities we have in this life.  This is why there are those today that may not have the opportunies others have.  In some instances it constrains what we can obtain or not obtain in this life.  We may not understand things (for example).  It is this reason why we at times do not cause those who are severely handicapped in certain manners to be baptized or to receive the priesthood.

That many would use these very essays against the Church and what it is teaching is NOT surprising.  To ACT surprised at how it is being interpreted by others is to ignore what is happening to some who read and interpret these essays.  It is to ignore many who use them as a primary method to instill doubt in young members today online.  These Essays have turned into POWERFUL anti-LDS tools that are used on a regular basis along with other items (which I won't bring up here, because frankly they aren't Church supported items and have no purpose in being here).

So, we may not necessarily see it in this manner (which you point out), but it is absolutely seen in this manner by some out there and it has affected them in the way I have described.  It's not just this essay either, there are other essays that they utilize as well. 

Edited October 28, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That is one of several items.  If we are addressing the Preisthood ban it specifically states

Quote

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

 

Quote

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.¹⁰

This goes contrary to what was originally stated and believed.  This was not the justification given.  If we want to say it, this is actually very close to gaslighting what actually happened in my lifetime. 

"None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church" is completely different from saying "None of these explanations is true". The latter has never been said by apostles or prophets. 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.

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

So, we may not necessarily see it in this manner (which you point out), but it is absolutely seen in this manner by some out there and it has affected them in the way I have described.  It's not just this essay either, there are other essays that they utilize as well. 

They can see it however they choose. They can call a gold ring a plastic Crackerjack prize. That doesn't make it so.

[zil2]

51 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That is one of several items.  If we are addressing the Preisthood ban it specifically states

I know what it says.  I can go read it myself (and re-did that before posting).  I asked what you meant.  It shouldn't take paragraphs of quoting to answer what you meant.

52 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The explanation for this was that it was revelation (which, as the essay states, is not accepted as an explanation today).

Nowhere does the essay say that the priesthood ban was revealed by God.  Nowhere does it say that the priesthood ban was not revealed by God.  The essay is silent on whether the ban was by revelation from God or was of man.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is lacking in reading comprehension.

The essay comments on the facts of the ban (who did what when).  The essay comments on after-the-fact explanations and justifications which various parties used to explain the ban.  Only these after-the-fact explanations are rejected.

57 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Statement from George Albert Smith from 1949 which states

Nothing in the essay negates that statement.

Other parties can twist and distort and believe what they will.  That was not my question and cannot be my concern.  My only concern is to reiterate and ensure there is no confusion on your part (nor on the part of others who will read this) that the essay is silent on the question of whether the ban was instituted by God.  Therefore, no one can use the essay to say "it wasn't revealed by God" (nor to say similar things such as, "it was instituted by Brigham Young because he was racist") - you cannot use the essay to support such an assertions, because it doesn't.

[estradling75]

The problem I have with all attempts to make Brigham solely responsible... is who are they trying to protect... their image of God?!?  Smash that idol please.  God gets blamed for a lot of things and he is a big boy he can take it, deserved or not.  But I can only image the mental paradoxes one has to setup to Claim the Church true and is Lead by prophets except....  when its not...  And funny enough that "when its not" all most always involves personal gospel hobby horse.

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. 

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, zil2 said:

I know what it says.  I can go read it myself (and re-did that before posting).  I asked what you meant.  It shouldn't take paragraphs of quoting to answer what you meant.

Nowhere does the essay say that the priesthood ban was revealed by God.  Nowhere does it say that the priesthood ban was not revealed by God.  The essay is silent on whether the ban was by revelation from God or was of man.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is lacking in reading comprehension.

The essay comments on the facts of the ban (who did what when).  The essay comments on after-the-fact explanations and justifications which various parties used to explain the ban.  Only these after-the-fact explanations are rejected.

Nothing in the essay negates that statement.

Other parties can twist and distort and believe what they will.  That was not my question and cannot be my concern.  My only concern is to reiterate and ensure there is no confusion on your part (nor on the part of others who will read this) that the essay is silent on the question of whether the ban was instituted by God.  Therefore, no one can use the essay to say "it wasn't revealed by God" (nor to say similar things such as, "it was instituted by Brigham Young because he was racist") - you cannot use the essay to support such an assertions, because it doesn't.

It doesn't MATTER what you may feel or think, just as it doesn't matter what I may feel or think.

The question posted is WHY people are acting as they are and what are some reasoning behind it.

I understand what some of them are.  It is as I said.  They read these essays.  When the Church says they don't accept the explanations of why the ban was put into place...

Well...that means they don't accept the explanations.  How much more clear can that be?  The explanation was that it was revelation and doctrine.  The Church doesn't accept that explanation (as per the essay).  [The Church says they don't accept any of the explanations...how can it be more clear than that?]

That's how it is understood.  Doesn't matter if you and I say it means something different.  This is a major problem for many people.  They've referenced ME to these essays with the exact reasoning that I've given to you.  This is what they use to try to discourage people (I know, they've tried to target me with this reasoning that I've relayed in this thread).

If they WANT it to be understood other than how some people understand it, they need to revise how it is written. 

13 hours ago, Vort said:

"None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church" is completely different from saying "None of these explanations is true". The latter has never been said by apostles or prophets. 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 actually agree.  It does seem at times that those who are in charge of the Essays and the things stated by the Apostles are on different pages at times on certain subjects though. 

The Essays are NOT Church doctrine.  They shouldn't be accepted as such. I see that they are being used by some to try to claim it though.  HOWEVER, I do completely agree with your take.

13 hours ago, Vort said:

They can see it however they choose. They can call a gold ring a plastic Crackerjack prize. That doesn't make it so.

But if that's the reason they are having problems with the Church and leaving it, I think there could be things that could be done on our part to change that.