"Protestant Mormons"

[Vort]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

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.

Excepr the Church doesn't say that. The Church says (through the aforementioned essays) that those explanations are not accepted AS DOCTRINE, not that they are not accepted in principle or unacceptable to LDS belief or something of the sort.

Let's pretend that God his six feet seven inches tall. I mean, he must be some height, right? So let's just pretend it's 6'7". Now, does the Church accept AS DOCTRINE that God is 6'7" tall? No, of course not. Does this mean that God is not in fact 6'7" tall? No, of course not. God is whatever size he is, no matter than such a trivium is no part of our doctrine. In the same sense, God did what he did for his own purposes. The fact that those purposes form no part of our current teachings (aka doctrine) doesn't mean God didn't say or do what he actually said or did. It just means that's not a part of our doctrine.

Honestly, this is not a hard concept. Why so many pull against it and insist on obfuscating what should be a clear issue confuses me. The only answer I can arrive at is that such people seek to obfuscate because they don't like the teachings and they want to supplant them with their own ideas.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

17 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. 

Agreed. And here's what we could do: Tell them that they are misrepresenting Church teachings and preaching falsehoods when they say what they say. For any honest and humble seekers, that will suffice. For those who are not honest or humble, nothing will suffice.

[MrShorty]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

Moreover, as my original point was, the Priesthood ban itself, apart from any explanations for it, has never been said by Church leaders (or faithful members) to be uninspired by God or to have arisen from the racial bias of men.

I recommend caution against making this a definitive characteristic of what true Scotsmen faithful LDS believe or don't believe. Part of the reason I mention Patrick Mason, Paul Reeve (the author of Let's Talk About Race and the Priesthood published by Deseret Book), Scott Woodward, and other faithful LDS in this discussion is because I would classify them as faithful LDS who don't believe the priesthood and temple ban is of divine origin. Back to @mikbone's comment about core vs. other doctrines, let's not make this particular piece of difficult history a part of the core doctrines that we believe all faithful Scotsmen LDS will believe.

[MrShorty]

17 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Bottom line is I see no way of saying the Church is true and lead by God, without placing the blame for the Priesthood Ban directly on him.. either through direct action or just allowing it to happen.

One of the most interesting insights that I got from Reeves' book (I mentioned in my book review/summary thread) was the parallel between the "problem of prophetic fallibility" and the "problem of evil." In the book, Reeves focuses on human agency, as so many of LDS discussions of the problem of evil do. I'm not convinced that human agency alone sufficiently answers the problem of evil, though it certainly belongs in the discussion. This is another thing that this issue and the problem of evil have in common -- whether through direct causation, or idly standing by while stuff happens, an omnipotent God bears some responsibility on some level when bad things (including race based teachings and policies) happen in the church. I don't have all of the answers, but somehow these issues need some way for us to understand God's role in allowing, implementing, tolerating, etc. beliefs and practices that do not live up to the ideals of eternal truth and morality and righteousness.

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

19 hours ago, Vort said:

Moreover, as my original point was, the Priesthood ban itself, apart from any explanations for it, has never been said by Church leaders (or faithful members) to be uninspired by God or to have arisen from the racial bias of men.

I recommend caution against making this a definitive characteristic of what true Scotsmen faithful LDS believe or don't believe.

Can a faithful, believing Latter-day Saint maintain that the so-called Priesthood ban was not inspired by God, but solely by racial bias of Church leaders? I could be wrong. More importantly, I have an opinion, but am not in any position to judge another's standing in faithfulness (aside from some obvious cases).

Let me amend my statement above by excluding the parenthetical addendum. I will stand by the modified statement, with the understanding that "Church leaders" refers to apostles, not to any old leader in the Church (e.g. bishops, stake presidents, Primary presidents, RS/EQ presidents, SS class presidents, Area Authorities, etc.), and "said" means preached to the world, not merely voiced a personal opinion at some stake conference or family get-together somewhere.

[zil2]

 

 

Meanwhile, Klaw has become quite the skilled fly-hunter.  He seems to think they're quite a tasty treat.  I'm just gonna take his word for it without testing that claim.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

 

 

Meanwhile, Klaw has become quite the skilled fly-hunter.  He seems to think they're quite a tasty treat.  I'm just gonna take his word for it without testing that claim.

We need an "Ewwwww!" icon.

[zil2]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

We need an "Ewwwww!" icon.

Excellent reading comprehension!

[zil2]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

We need an "Ewwwww!" icon.

I seem to get one fly per day sneaking in during this season when it's not cold enough to kill them all, but cold enough that they find their way in...  Anyway, my back (south-facing) door has a full-height (basically) glass pane and so the flies go there ("Go to the light, little fly!").  When the flies hang out at the top, I know it because I can hear Klaw scratching at the glass.  So I go hold Klaw up with a hand under his hind feet and one on his belly for support and help him hunt.  Less messy than a fly swatter.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

I seem to get one fly per day sneaking in during this season when it's not cold enough to kill them all, but cold enough that they find their way in...  Anyway, my back (south-facing) door has a full-height (basically) glass pane and so the flies go there ("Go to the light, little fly!").  When the flies hang out at the top, I know it because I can hear Klaw scratching at the glass.  So I go hold Klaw up with a hand under his hind feet and one on his belly for support and help him hunt.  Less messy than a fly swatter.

Ewwwww!

[askandanswer]

I think that using the words and actions of a prophet as a means of determining whether or not a person is a prophet is at best a secondary means of coming to know something. The best illustration of the fallacy of this approach is 1 King 13.

I think the primary means of knowing something, which I feel is far more reliable means, is a spiritual conviction that something is either X or not X. President Nelson can say on Tuesday that the moon is yellow and I look at my window and see a blue moon. On Wednesday he can say the moon is not, and never was, yellow, but is actually purple and I look out the window and see an orange moon. Neither event should have the least impact on my testimony of whether or not President Nelson is a prophet. No doubt President Nelson has good reason for saying such things and its not for me to question. But if I am living worthily and doing all that is required to receive spiritual guidance, and the Spirit says that President Nelson is not the Prophet, then I would begin to be a little wary and to start asking a few questions. I might be inclined to adjust the weighting of my priorities away from President Nelson and more towards the Quorum of the Twelve. But before doing anything serious or making any serious decisions I would give prayerful consideration to Elder Uchtdorf’s talk about doubting your doubts.

I’m in favour of the idea that a spiritual conviction can/should only be overcome by another spiritual conviction and that such convictions should therefore be impervious to, and uninfluenced by, the words or actions, or the logical arguments of men. I can't see any situation at all, ever, where logic would be sufficient to overcome the promptings of the Spirit. If President Young said the Priesthood ban is doctrine and divinely inspired, (which he didn't) and President Monson, through the essays, says that the ban was never doctrine and not divinely inspired, and that President Young was wrong to say so, (and President Monson or the essays don't say that) and then someone says look, two prophets have taught the opposite teaching, both of them can't be true, therefore one of them is not a prophet, that would look very much like a logical argument. 

And I would hope that even a spiritual conviction that President Nelson is not the Prophet would not be enough to turn me away from the church. That particular testimony that he is the Prophet would probably be considerably damaged, more likely destroyed, but I have always been wary of what I call the connected testimony, or the single pillar testimony, whereby our several testimonies of the truthfulness of the gospel, the plan of salvation, Jesus Christ, the reality of temple work, Joseph Smith, and all the other truths of which we have a testimony are all dependent on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. As stated in Doctrine and Covenants 93:30 "all truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it" and one truth should not be dependent on, or used to prop up, another truth. There is no reason why the destruction of a testimony that President Nelson is God's prophet should cause any damage to any other testimony of the truth. One truth does not depend on another truth. 

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by askandanswer

[Carborendum]

18 hours ago, Vort said:

The Church says (through the aforementioned essays) that those explanations are not accepted AS DOCTRINE...

More than that.  "as doctrine TODAY."

Quote

Doctrine:

a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government:

(I can't remember the source for what I'm about to say.  So if someone knows it, I'd appreciate a link.  But...)

I understood that Brigham Young had said that this is not to be a permanent practice.  There would come a time when the ban would be lifted.  So, obviously, there was some condition of the world, society, peoples, or whatever that was extant, but is no longer.  Unfortunately, such conditions was never disseminated.

So, it wasn't something inherent in the race itself.  It was some condition surrounding blacks of that era.  And apparently, it continued until the 1970s.

While we still don't know what the condition was, the data at least point to this understanding.  For this reason, I lean away from the curse of Cain thing.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Carborendum

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I understood that Brigham Young had said that this is not to be a permanent practice.

Yes, that is mentioned up thread and in the essay.

 

[prisonchaplain]

I am beyond not qualified to discuss the details of this thread. Instead, consider what has happened to the larger Christian movement. It has formed into three branches.

The modernists/liberals interpret the Bible in light of modern cultural mores. Some even argue that the reader's perspective is primary.

Fundamentalists try to preserve and defend what was. They sometimes insist on the King James Version of the Bible, the singing of hymns, extensive holiness codes, and lock-step doctrinal adherence. From the second group I offer the following example: I went to see my aunt baptized in this type of church. The minister's sermon was aimed at criticizing my church's beliefs. After the service he came up, shook my hand, and told me directly that the sermon was aimed at me.

Then there are those, and I probably fit in this camp, who take the scriptures as mostly historical, mostly literal, and absolutely inspired of God. We try to engage the culture rather than condemn it. Our hope is to focus on Jesus and the Good News and not get sidetracked by secondary stuff. Sadly, we often fail.

 I'm wondering as I read this thread if much of the LDS world is also split into modernists, traditionalists, and the messy middle? 

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm wondering as I read this thread if much of the LDS world is also split into modernists, traditionalists, and the messy middle? 

Do you think it has anything to do with age? Yes, I know it’s a generalization but it’s not always wrong. When I was active I noticed that (again, generally speaking) older people were more traditional, Gen X (my age) were more “nuanced” and young people either didn’t show up or were hanging on by a thread. 

[prisonchaplain]

30 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Do you think it has anything to do with age? Yes, I know it’s a generalization but it’s not always wrong. When I was active I noticed that (again, generally speaking) older people were more traditional, Gen X (my age) were more “nuanced” and young people either didn’t show up or were hanging on by a thread. 

There is a Presbyterian minister I've heard who says that Christians should treat LGBT neighbors kindly. He does not endorse their behavior and has traditional views about marriage, but believes Christians are commanded to show love to everyone.

In the 1970s he was considered a liberal.

In the 1990s he was considered moderate.

Today he is viewed as an extremist, right-wing, MAGA conservative. 

His views never changed. 

[LDSGator]

15 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

There is a Presbyterian minister I've heard who says that Christians should treat LGBT neighbors kindly. He does not endorse their behavior and has traditional views about marriage, but believes Christians are commanded to show love to everyone.

In the 1970s he was considered a liberal.

In the 1990s he was considered moderate.

Today he is viewed as an extremist, right-wing, MAGA conservative. 

His views never changed. 

No disagreement there, but it doesn’t address what I said. 
 

I go back to the Southern Baptists and Catholics. Both are plowing through members like you and I go through disposal razors. The SBC are focusing on getting liberals out of the church, the Catholics are focusing on getting conservatives out. Google “Synod on Synodality”.
 

In the meantime, your average SBC pastor and Catholic priest are doing their best to keep what parishioners they have to keep coning to church.  LDS bishops and SP’s are probably doing the same thing. They don’t care about “Protestant Mormons”. They just want LDS to show up in church. The labels are meaningless if the pews are empty. 

Edited October 29, 2023 by LDSGator

[prisonchaplain]

59 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

No disagreement there, but it doesn’t address what I said. ...

In the meantime, your average SBC pastor and Catholic priest are doing their best to keep what parishioners they have to keep coning to church.  LDS bishops and SP’s are probably doing the same thing. They don’t care about “Protestant Mormons”. They just want LDS to show up in church. The labels are meaningless if the pews are empty. 

My suggestion was that sometimes it's not our age that makes us liberal/moderate/conservative so much as the age of the person who labels us. I've problably gone from conservative/fundamentalists to moderate/conservative over the decades. However, the younger a person is the more likely they are to pigeon-hole me as a rabid, right-wing extremist. 

Most religious leaders care more about people than politics or ideological purity. However, even trying to keep people in the pews can be a futile effort. We had those who insisted on masking and those who opposed masks during COVID. Our approach was to obey the law but to treat people like adults. Some of the mask-insisters left and more of the mask opponents left. Some said we didn't care about the health of our community and others said that we compromised with the Antichrist. 

All we can do is keep focused on the Good News and trust the Holy Spirit to do the convicting and bringing in. 

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Most religious leaders care more about people than politics or ideological purity.

I totally agree with you. 

 

5 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

However, even trying to keep people in the pews can be a futile effor

That’s a big fear of mine. Generally speaking I think religion is a good thing and people should at least try to keep a marginal/nominal faith. My fear is that arguments like this are 1) pointless and 2) might keep people from joining or exploring the faith.
 

Also, with the rise of “nones” I fear we’ve passed the point of no return. 

[prisonchaplain]

19 hours ago, LDSGator said:

That’s a big fear of mine. Generally speaking I think religion is a good thing and people should at least try to keep a marginal/nominal faith. My fear is that arguments like this are 1) pointless and 2) might keep people from joining or exploring the faith.
 

Also, with the rise of “nones” I fear we’ve passed the point of no return. 

I live in the anti-Bible belt (Pacific Northwest) --an area where 67% have no religious preference. It's been like this at least since my childhood (1960s-80s). Nationwide 70% still claim to be Christian. Of course, that's not true--but it's a lot higher than what we feel.

There's is much to frustrate us. However, when the Spirit of God moves it's amazing how many respond. I believe Christianity's best days are yet to come. I'm expecting revival prior to Christ's return. If I'm wrong, come Lord Jesus, come. The harvest really is ripe. I suspect we are much like the prophet's servant. He could only see the approaching enemies. He could not see that angels surrounded and protected him. Likewise, the prophet who told God he was the only faithful one left. God said, no there were still thousands of faithful. We can't give up. We can't give in. We must dig in. 

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

We can't give up. We can't give in. We must dig in. 

couldn't agree more. Ironically that’s why I think arguments about “protestant mormons” are so damaging. Someone looking at the faith with fresh eyes is going to see discussions like this and say “Nah, I can get drama and arguments at work, home, etc. I don’t need this in my religious life.” And move on. You might think it doesn’t happen, but I’m assuring you it does. 

[LDSGator]

The part I’m not sure you are getting @prisonchaplain is two fold. One, I want Christianity to grow. Two, I’m not advocating a change in teaching.
 

What I’m saying, and what I’m 100% correct about, is that religious belief is (sadly) in a free fall now and we’re still focused on creating more division in the ranks. It’s actually incredibly sad to me. I feel like this house is on fire and instead of calling the fire department Mom and Dad are sitting on the couch arguing about which cousins they are going invite to Thanksgiving. 

[estradling75]

On 10/28/2023 at 1:54 PM, MrShorty said:

 I don't have all of the answers, but somehow these issues need some way for us to understand God's role in allowing, implementing, tolerating, etc. beliefs and practices that do not live up to the ideals of eternal truth and morality and righteousness.

For the prophet is human and can make mistakes vs the Lord will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray I heard the following story that helped me with it.  (That being said I am not a historian so I do not know if this story is a some what true story or a complete Mormon Myth)

Brigham Young was speaking in the morning session of Conference.  It was a fiery speech full of instruction and direction for the Saints.   Then in the afternoon he spoke again,  He began,  by saying "This morning you heard from Brother Brigham. This afternoon you are going to hear from the Lord."  And the rest of his speech completely reversed instruction he had given in the morning speech.

That to me is an example how those two ideas work together.  The willingness to do the Lord's will over there own is one of those characteristic that seem to exist in all our prophets.  So if someone wants to say that the Priesthood Ban was "Brigham speaking in the morning" and the Lifting of the Ban was the "Lord speaking in the afternoon" I have no problem with that.

The problem comes with the idea Brigham some how bound God and God could not correct the  course until Kimball that i do not accept.  Trying to protect an image of God by rendering him powerless seems foolhardy to me.   That being said.. . Trying to understand what God is accomplishing with the Ban... what greater purpose it served...  That can be a brain twister.  The church has not told us this. So we are left to our own logic an reasons.  I found mine but it is worth exactly nothing to anyone else.

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

The part I’m not sure you are getting @prisonchaplain is twofold. One, I want Christianity to grow. Two, I’m not advocating a change in teaching. ...  I feel like this house is on fire and instead of calling the fire department Mom and Dad are sitting on the couch arguing about which cousins they are going invite to Thanksgiving. 

Thank you. Contention is worse than worthless. However, young people do want authenticity. Sometimes the arguments are about preserving what is true. The difficulty is discerning what is central and what is dross. I believe Jesus struggled leaders who had the same difficulties. 

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Thank you. Contention is worse than worthless. However, young people do want authenticity. Sometimes the arguments are about preserving what is true. The difficulty is discerning what is central and what is dross. I believe Jesus struggled leaders who had the same difficulties. 

Welcome. I think we want the same thing (Christianity and religious faith in general to grow) but differ on how to achieve it.
 

People of all stripes seek peace in the church. I’m guaranteeing you that they’ll say or think “If they look for reasons to exclude protestant mormons or liberal christians, they’ll look for reasons to exclude me too, even if I agree with them. So I’ll go play golf on Sunday instead of dealing with it. I get enough drama at work.” 
 

Heartbreaking 

[mirkwood]

Ben Shapiro posted this on social media.  I think it is 100% accurate.

 

I think it has application to this as well:

 

Quote

Someone looking at the faith with fresh eyes is going to see discussions like this and say “Nah, I can get drama and arguments at work, home, etc. I don’t need this in my religious life.” And move on. You might think it doesn’t happen, but I’m assuring you it does. 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by mirkwood