Tempest in a China Shop

[the Ogre]

There has been a bit of holobaloo locally about some folks that left the church to avoid church disciple for disagreeing with church [CES policy to be more accurate] policy. Personally, I think it is essentially a tempest in a teapot, but these things normally are.

I read the following in the Trib:

Kirby: My formula: I cope to get what I want

Robert Kirby

Tribune columnist

Article Last Updated: 02/29/2008 07:34:04 PM MST

I remember the first time I publicly disagreed with a policy or doctrine (guideline, rule, mandate, notion, whatever) of the LDS Church.

Actually, it wasn't very public. It was during a lesson in Elders Quorum years ago. There were maybe a dozen of us in the room, only half of whom were awake.

A lesson on some important gospel point had, as they sometimes do, wandered off the road and into a ditch. In the middle of wherever we were headed, someone brought up blacks and the priesthood.

Truthfully, I don't recall much of what was being said other than the instructor pointing at me and saying, "Brother Kirby, what do you think?"

Let me first say this is almost never a good idea. Either I'll make up something on the spot, or, worse, I'll give you a straight answer. The rule here is simple: Don't ask unless you really want to know or have a sense of humor.

Once, in response to a Sunday school instructor's query about my favorite Old Testament story, I said it was the one about the Ark of the Covenant being stolen by a bunch of Nazis, who took it on a submarine to an island where God melted their faces.

My answer was not well-received by the more literal-minded members of the class, most of whom had not seen "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (and probably still haven't).

Still, the response was better than it was to my more serious answer regarding blacks and the priesthood, namely that I didn't think God had ever intended any such thing.

It probably would have been OK had I left it at that. But I also said that I believed in a fair God who wouldn't deny someone the right to officiate in his name simply because he was black while at the same time letting everyone else do it, including those who were clearly idiots.

Not only did this turn out to be the wrong answer, I hastened to make it worse.

When someone countered by invoking a general authority's name regarding blacks and the premortal existence, I replied, "So what?"

This earned me a polite invitation to talk with the bishop. Fortunately, he was a good one. He cautioned me against scaring people by openly challenging church authorities and doctrine.

For my part, I said that I was OK with church leaders setting church policy. However, I was in charge of my own brain (such as it was), and when asked what was going on in there, it was my decision whether to lie about it.

There are other church issues I don't particularly agree with or like. I've written about them over the years. In all that time, I have never felt even remotely threatened by church leaders. It could be that I'm not paying enough attention. Maybe I'm on double secret probation and don't know it.

What I do know is that I certainly don't plan on bailing out of all that I love about my church simply because some things (and plenty of people) in it drive me nuts. I find a way to cope with what I don't like in order to get what I want.

It might not work for everyone. It's enough that it works for me. It's the exact same formula I use to stay married, employed, a U.S. citizen, and out of jail.

[email protected]

I really like Kirby. I totally agree with the assertion: "What I do know is that I certainly don't plan on bailing out of all that I love about my church simply because some things (and plenty of people) in it drive me nuts. I find a way to cope with what I don't like in order to get what I want."

The church is true as is the gospel. I hate it when pride gets in the way.

Aaron the Ogre

[tree]

i am very new to the church, but i think any one who truly repents and wants to officiate should have the right to it. just because the lamanites were cursed by their color for disobedience , i don't think blacks just for their color should be penalized from serving god to the best of their ability and bringing in the sheep or feeding the sheep. just like with Adam we suffer physical and spiritual death because of their sin , black people suffer a darker skin for their fathers or ancestors rebelliousness but are responsible for their own personal sin in their life as far as salvation goes. so if they are righteous in their walk ,why not be any more or less worthy than a white, Mexican or Oriental to serve heavenly father and his children? they are his children too!!!! and if you have one rebellious child and one obedient child why punish both for what the rebellious child did ? for that matter there will always be prejudice in this world against every kind of people,race,religion and gender ET. but there is a few that have really had a bad rap. (Jews, Blacks and Indians) the Jews did what they did to CHRIST but i dont see them when they finaly except JESUS saying they cant be apart of the preisthood or any one else for that matter. we all sin and fall short of the glory of god. we all were changed at the tower of bable in that day any way . so who knows ? only God knows what end is up anyway.God loves us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!! tree

[tree]

P.S. my husband has your same since of humor. some love it , few just don't get it! when he is not aggravating me with it ,,,its funny!!!!!

[a-train]

So, what are the circumstances? Someone is leaving the Church over this?

Gordon B. Hinckley, while serving as President of the Church said on national television why blacks were denied the Priesthood: 'Because the leaders of the Church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way.'

Now, I am not going to argue with him. He did NOT say that Church leadership had any revelation to ban blacks from the priesthood. He said simple and plain that it had been the interpretation of Church leadership.

Get over it people! They did NOT have the understanding of revelation on the matter, only their own personal interpretation. The revelation came in 1978 and interpretation was blown away by the light of revelation.

It just isn't complicated, is it?

-a-train

[the Ogre]

So, what are the circumstances? Someone is leaving the Church over this?

Gordon B. Hinckley, while serving as President of the Church said on national television why blacks were denied the Priesthood: 'Because the leaders of the Church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way.'

Now, I am not going to argue with him. He did NOT say that Church leadership had any revelation to ban blacks from the priesthood. He said simple and plain that it had been the interpretation of Church leadership.

Get over it people! They did NOT have the understanding of revelation on the matter, only their own personal interpretation. The revelation came in 1978 and interpretation was blown away by the light of revelation.

It just isn't complicated, is it?

-a-train

Not blacks and the PH, A, Kirby just uses it as an example. He is discussing some folks here in Utah who left the church because they were worried they were up for church discipline for publicly denouncing the church for BYU firing an adjunct prof who thought the church's position regarding homosexuals was wrong.

Kirby was being sideways, but then he has had to face a church court (I think I heard twice) because of some of the silly things he prints in the Trib.

[mightynancy]

I so agree with Kirby!

The thing that drives me more nuts than anything else at church is our collective ignorance. I go batty if I contemplate for more than a few minutes how there is no line between LDS cultural traditions and LDS doctrine.

That said, I keep going, mostly so I can take the sacrament and get my temple pass.

[crytsprospect]

"That said, I keep going, mostly so I can take the sacrament and get my temple pass."

How very sad for you. In spite of all I don't understand I have faith that in the right time I will. Yes I don't always agree with some things. I am an individual and can have questions and different opinions. No matter what the issue nothing would make me turn my back on the church people maybe but the church is pure and what we don't understand we will.

[WANDERER]

Validation for this...why? Can't see the point. It was and is wrong: plain and simple.

Perhaps energy should be put into injustices that continue: the lack of fair trade for example and many others.

[Moksha]

Kirby was being sideways, but then he has had to face a church court (I think I heard twice) because of some of the silly things he prints in the Trib.

Is this known as a fact? It is newsworthy if it is true. Many have pointed to the Church as being non-reactionary because of Kirby. This would tend to dispute that.

[sixpacktr]

An interesting article. It seems that Kirby, whoever he is (I don't live in the intermountain West region) likes to stir up controversy simply as a way of entertaining himself. He seems to have a testimony, but doesn't like the culture he is in. I noticed that MightyNancy mentioned the blur or absence of a line between LDS culture and LDS doctrine. Having never lived in Utah except for my short time at BYU, I have never had to experience that. The culture that is part of the church here in the Midwest and East is reassuring and comfortable, but never overbearing (at least as I've experienced it). The culture I know is 3rd Sunday Linger Longers (with at least 2 or 3 pans of Funeral Potatoes and some green jello with carrots and pineapple in it); using such 'words' as BYC, PPI, EQP, etc.; having a testimony meeting where the 'parade of primary kids' wanders up on stage and says what their parents told them to say.

The doctrine is still there, though, if you want it. That is why I keep going back, and I'm sure why many of you do as well.

MightyNancy, I'm curious as to what 'LDS Traditions' are held as Doctrine, at least as you see it...

[mightynancy]

What bothers me most is the focus on silly things to the neglect of the things that matter.

When a boy is criticized for not wearing a white shirt to pass the sacrament. Tradition, not doctrine. I had members in a meeting freak out when I pointed this out (and I'm good-natured - I wasn't testy, honest!).

Ditto the right hand for the sacrament. A friend's stake president told her, "If you don't take the Sacrament with your right hand, you may as well not take it at all." What? Tradition, not doctrine.

Testimony meetings full of anything but testifying. Tradition in opposition of doctrine.

And we won't even go into politics.

Crytsprospect, it's only sad for me in that I feel out of step with a lot of my fellow ward members. This "crisis of church" (as opposed to a crisis of faith) has actually been good in a way. It has driven me to the temple more. It has shown me that I'm not a social Mormon - I'm going because I believe. Our ward is changing, slowly, for the better.

[crytsprospect]

Crytsprospect," it's only sad for me in that I feel out of step with a lot of my fellow ward members. This "crisis of church" (as opposed to a crisis of faith) has actually been good in a way. It has driven me to the temple more. It has shown me that I'm not a social Mormon - I'm going because I believe. Our ward is changing, slowly, for the better."

Well I misunderstood . I get what your saying now I don't go for the great fellowship either. I try for my kids but don't feel I fit in my ward. I try because we need to learn to be better church families. I try because because I know my Heavenly Father wants me to. Maybe I will never fit in maybe there will never be a church family where we all help each other with our burdens and lift each other up and maybe act Christ-like

There is hope ------------ :hippie:peace and enlightenment to all

[sixpacktr]

MN,

Thanks for clarifying. The white shirt thing: I must admit that I'm an adherent to that. It isn't in the CHI, and I was told such during a training meeting for youth leaders recently. It changed my perspective. However, Elder Packard did give a talk on 'The Unwritten Order of Things' where that was pointed out. My last ward we held the YM to that standard, and they responded. However, in this branch, we don't, and I don't see anything different. The YM are still great and doing what they are supposed to.

Right hand: I'd have to look that one up, but my gut feeling is that it is tradition, and makes no difference.

Testimony meetings: we solved that in our last ward by reading a short blurb before one of the counselors bore his testimony stating that the purpose of testimony meeting was to testify of Christ or aspects of the restored gospel, not a travelogue. It seemed to work very well. We also encouraged families to have testimony meetings at home so that children could learn to bear testimonies there instead of reciting what mommy/daddy said in their ear. This added to the spirit of testimony meeting by keeping testimonies to just that: testimonies, not travelogues or thankimonies, and only those children that could bear their own testimonies.

[crytsprospect]

In our ward we might not always have white shirts but we always have ties :)

[tree]

crytsprospect, you are an awesome person as far as i am concerned, why do you feel that you dont fit in???? i mean , i dont know you out-side of this forum but ive never heard any thing disrespectful out of you, have you talked to any one about this behavior ?? some times it helps to confront in a LOVING WAY your feelings . or go to your bishop for some help. if you did all that and it didnt help ,just come on down to rockport, texas and you will feel right at home in our branch,( cause youll have me, ha ! ha!) our branch is all so close that i would not move anywhere else unless the lord told me to. well my BIG GUT is fighting my little gut over my spine , so i better go eat some thing before my body turns on its self, talk more later ,,tree

[mightynancy]

I suppose the white-shirts-for-deacons rule depends on your perspective. When asked about it, President Hinckley said, "I'm more interested in what's inside the boy."

My son wears a white shirt, only because I don't wish to make waves any more than I already do.