- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ann wrote:
I just listened to clips from Oaks’ talk. I’m amazed. He flat out said the ban was God’s command. What the heck?!?
Mormonism has this weird conundrum… officially we follow the current president’s counsel over the previous ones, but we still can’t admit some of previous ones might have been wrong.
It seems like a way to try to express faith amid uncertainty. Things like…” We don’t know why God does what he does, his ways are higher than our ways. But it is always for a purpose.”
“We don’t know why God told President Hinckley the Hoffman forgeries were real, but it was all part of the plan.”
“We don’t know why Joseph was commanded to setup a failure bank in Kirtland, but it was necessary.”
“We don’t know why Joseph thought the mummy scrolls would reveal ancient writings of Abraham and Moses, but they somehow were conduits to revelation and we now have the Pearl of Great Price…literal scripture lost to the world.”
“We don’t know why Nephi had to chop off a drunk guy’s head to get some books, but it is all part of a plan.”
God works in mysterious ways. So we tell ourselves, when we don’t understand why past prophets said what they said. Or we don’t want to just accept prophets and church policies were wrong.
I wonder how many things we will learn when we get to the other side were not of God but we were taught to have faith in it?
I expect God will say…
Quote:hey…I didn’t do that…you all thought that up on your own.
I just couldn’t believe you didn’t ask me about it until 1978! What took so long?
Ann wrote:
I know this thread wasn’t in active topics, so I don’t expect more conversation. I just had to add my disbelief. Awhile ago I read (or heard, I can’t remember) Oaks recounting his joy and emotion upon getting the call that the ban was lifted. I loved the picture of it in my own mind. He said he and his sons we working on something at their cabin when the call came. He said he sat down on a pile of dirt and wept for joy.
That was a tough quote for me. It shows how our culture is more subservient to what a prophet says than to what we feel god is telling us. We’re not “allowed” to express our righteous desires until the prophet gives the tribe permission to have them. I know that’s a reductive way of looking at the issue but at times it’s hard. We push back so hard and enact doctrines and policies that are exclusionary and I find myself wondering how many interpretations there are for, “that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us:”
I wonder if Oaks’ approach (recognizing that there’s probably something wrong but deciding to be obedient to authority and remaining hopeful/patient) will work for rising generations? I suppose it has to, what other alternative is there? Or maybe that’s the expectation of the members but rather than do that, members opt to leave?
Heber13 wrote:
I wonder how many things we will learn when we get to the other side were not of God but we were taught to have faith in it?I expect God will say…
Quote:
hey…I didn’t do that…you all thought that up on your own.I just couldn’t believe you didn’t ask me about it until 1978! What took so long?
Finger pointing, all the way down.
I don’t think the Lord would have to question his actions…he is perfect. He just allows prophets to be people and they will make mistakes and make stuff up and get it wrong as part of the learning process. The Lord won’t point fingers to make excuses, but to point out things as they really are.
Like…you wanted me to touch those stones to light the barges…that isn’t the only way to approach that situation…but that is what you chose.
Prophets will also be judged for policies they enacted under their authority. Including Joseph as a rough stone rolling.
Heber13 wrote:
I don’t think the Lord would have to question his actions…he is perfect.
Sounds sketchy. Did a prophet tell you that?
😈 SamBee wrote:
Ann wrote:
I just listened to clips from Oaks’ talk. I’m amazed. He flat out said the ban was God’s command. What the heck?!?
Mormonism has this weird conundrum… officially we follow the current president’s counsel over the previous ones, but we still can’t admit some of previous ones might have been wrong.
The strongly worded priesthood essay didn’t give cover for him to say the ban was man-made? I don’t get it. Like you say, weird. And discouraging.
Heber13 wrote:God works in mysterious ways. So we tell ourselves, when we don’t understand why past prophets said what they said. Or we don’t want to just accept prophets and church policies were wrong.
Again, I would have thought, given what he said about his time in the midwest and east struggling with the ban and rejecting all the folklore about it…I would have thought he would welcome the new stance in the essay. I am sad and surprised to hear him doubling down. I saw at least one black Mormon blogger in tears.nibbler wrote:
I wonder if Oaks’ approach (recognizing that there’s probably something wrong but deciding to be obedient to authority and remaining hopeful/patient) will work for rising generations? I suppose it has to, what other alternative is there? Or maybe that’s the expectation of the members but rather than do that, members opt to leave?
I’m tempted to say that it certainly isn’t going to work, but I’d be extrapolating from my own children to the whole generation.Ann wrote:
SamBee wrote:
Ann wrote:
I just listened to clips from Oaks’ talk. I’m amazed. He flat out said the ban was God’s command. What the heck?!?
Mormonism has this weird conundrum… officially we follow the current president’s counsel over the previous ones, but we still can’t admit some of previous ones might have been wrong.
The strongly worded priesthood essay didn’t give cover for him to say the ban was man-made? I don’t get it. Like you say, weird. And discouraging.
I have been considering this for a while now. I am of the opinion that President Oaks is responding to his legal training to develop a legally, logically, and spiritually defensible position that will serve the church for generations to come.
Lawyers are not especially constrained by the truth. Legal cases in some ways are a battle of competing alternate realities.
If the church officially says, “The priesthood ban was man made – even though at the time we thought it came from God.” that then begins the ball rolling on a host of unintended consequences that lead pretty quickly to “how do we know that current policies are from God?”
I imagine that President Oaks would wish to avoid that. Therefore he puts forward a reality where
whythe church does what it does is open to constant speculation and error, However whatthe church does is unassailable and divine. The leaders of the church implementing the policy might misunderstand and even teach errors about why the policy exists but the policy itself must be God’s will because this is God’s church and God is in charge. He would not permit HIS church to enact something that is against His will and purpose. To put it another way … What happened was destined to happen. We know this because it happened.
Prove me wrong. I dare you.
I believe that president Oaks has identified a fallback position that the church can now retreat to on any questionable issue. Polygamy? Priesthood ban? SSM? Restrictive gender roles? Male only priesthood? Some new issue that we have not even begun to think about? They can all at some future point, when the cause is lost and the church has long since changed its stance, be answered by saying “God commanded it – for what purpose we know not.”
Roy wrote:
Lawyers are not especially constrained by the truth. Legal cases in some ways are a battle of competing alternate realities.Very good point. In a large sense, lawyers are trying to prove their case (or at least poke a big enough hole in someone else’s case), not necessarily adhering to Capital T Truth. I would bet that a lot of them believe they’re the proponents of the truth, whether or not that’s objectively provable.
Roy wrote:
I imagine that President Oaks would wish to avoid that. Therefore he puts forward a reality wherewhythe church does what it does is open to constant speculation and error, However whatthe church does is unassailable and divine. The leaders of the church implementing the policy might misunderstand and even teach errors about why the policy exists but the policy itself must be God’s will because this is God’s church and God is in charge. He would not permit HIS church to enact something that is against His will and purpose.
There’s this big conundrum with how we speak about the church: that the organization of the church itself is perfect, ordained by God, and directed by Christ BUT the people running it are imperfect. How we as a people are able to keep the level of cognitive dissonance alive to sustain two paradoxes simultaneously beats me. I think it’s simply a lot to process to realize that your church that you’ve been taught to rely on for certainties in life turns out to be run by completely fallible yet usually well-intentioned humans is a big pill to swallow, therefore a lot of people don’t. Or they take a while to digest it.
Also, it *may* be God’s church, but it’s also staffed with humans so expecting it to be run precisely how God wants at all times for his exact will and purpose sounds eerily similar to Satan’s plan. Just saying.
Even the best project managers know that you can’t control everything and real skill comes into play when things don’t go according to plan. Because they will. I can’t believe in a God that has a finely tuned plan for every detail anymore, it just doesn’t work for me nor does it inspire me. I am intrigued and hopeful for a God that is just as big a player in the experience as we are, is improvising because us other players have choices and abilities to exercise as well, and responds with the flux of life that is constantly in motion. That’s what gives me hope.
DancingCarrot wrote:
There’s this big conundrum with how we speak about the church: that the organization of the church itself is perfect, ordained by God, and directed by Christ BUT the people running it are imperfect. How we as a people are able to keep the level of cognitive dissonance alive to sustain two paradoxes simultaneously beats me. I think it’s simply a lot to process to realize that your church that you’ve been taught to rely on for certainties in life turns out to be run by completely fallible yet usually well-intentioned humans is a big pill to swallow, therefore a lot of people don’t. Or they take a while to digest it.
Well, there are many doctrines beyond the priesthood ban that are openly denounced, yet were at one time taught as scripture.
In Moses’ Time:
-Throw rocks at gays until they die. Same with adulterers, witches, blasphemers, etc.
-But if you rape a virgin, you must marry her, and pay her father 50 pieces of silver. But that’s as far as your punishment goes.
-Kill all of those belonging to other religions, including their children
In Paul’s time:
-Homosexuals don’t go to heaven
-Women should keep quiet in Church, and have long hair
-Slaves should be obedient
In Brigham’s time:
-God is a polygamist
-Polygammy is a requirement for exaltation
-Adam-God Theory
-Dark skin is a curse
-It is God’s will that blacks should be slaves to whites
-Apostates (loosely defined) cannot be forgiven, unless their blood is spilt (blood atonement)
Most everything listed above was once beleived by either the LDS Church, or an earlier religion the LDS Church claims to be their progenitors. And yet, if you preach any of those things, you will most likely be excommunicated. Most of those doctrines are denounced and condemned by Church leaders (or so ludacris, they no longer feel the need to mention them). Most members of the Church are aware of them. But maintaining that sense of security, certainty, and continuity is more powerful than the discomfort of cognitive dessonance. The Church will change, but it still needs to maintain its image to hold onto its power.If you take that away, even in the name of Truth, it’ll hurt a lot of people. Maybe some people are better off beliving that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young treated blacks with love and respect.
I think all of these are really good points. What it tells me is that people (the fallible but well-intentioned that DC described) are striving for nice, neat, clean, sure things so the organization can work.
Roy wrote:
Lawyers are not especially constrained by the truth. Legal cases in some ways are a battle of competing alternate realities.
But as Roy points out…there is no black and white world.
It is all up to our perceptions, and as a society, you build a case for the truth, and that’s what people are trying to do.
We are all on a journey. At some point, you realize it is a never-ending journey. There is no easy out. Just choices for us. And we have to let go of what past leaders said…even prophets. We can learn from them, perhaps (especially if we cherry pick quotes). But we cannot bank on them for eternal situational sure knowledge.
Hence the need for continuing revelation…we need it (personal and church).
My personal revelation is to call past prophets racist according to our views today. It’s too bad we held on to their views for as long as we did. Now we move forward and should learn from that. Oaks will do what Oaks is called to do. He’ll do it well, or he won’t.
Regardless…I don’t need the church leaders to validate anything. I will take what they say as one data point for me to consider while I seek personal revelation. It is not the only data point. It is not a worthless data point. It just is what it is.
Roy wrote:
What happened was destined to happen. We know this because it happened.
Amen.
What will happen will happen. I just want to be a loving passenger helping to bring good things to individuals I come in contact with along the way, while I wait to see what will happen. I am open to many possible outcomes…including there is no God or afterlife. It isn’t what I hope for…but…I accept it may be what happens. I guess we’ll see (or won’t). My practice is to try to stay in the present moment.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.