- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I understand the Church leaders didn’t come out and say, explicitly, right now, that the ban wasn’t the will of God (and I think I understand why, at least partly) – but anyone who reads this explanation and still believes it was the will of God (or that the current leaders think it was the will of God) . . . probably wouldn’t accept an explicit statement either. It says quite clearly that Joseph didn’t practice a ban and that Brigham didn’t do so as a result of revelation. It says every reason / justification given for the ban was wrong – and Elder Holland once said “spectacularly wrong”. Finally, the paragraph you quoted includes the following: Quote:“Church leaders today unequivocally condemn
allracism, past and present, in any form.” I
bolded“all” and “in any form” because “any form” includes, by definition, a ban – especially when preceded by “past and present”. That sentence is the capstone summation of the explanation, and, in that position, condemns the ban as racist – even if some members won’t think enough to see it. I see this explanation as a necessary step toward a more explicit disavowal of the ban, but I absolutely see it, as worded, as a disavowal of the ban.
If you want more context for other things leaders have said since 1978, read the following compilation post on my personal blog. I might have linked it already in this thread (too lazy right now to check), but I think it’s important enough to link again.
“Repudiating Racist Justifications Once and for All”( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/04/repudiating-racist-justifications-once.html Frankly, if this is important to you, I would copy the quotes and have them in your scriptures or some other place so they are handy if someone says something stupid.
cwald wrote:This recent statement about the priesthood ban, really, is validating my position…the position that cost me my standing within my family and church. Sure, TBM’s are not going to see it that way…but it’s there and eventually it will start to seep in. There is going to be some pain and more bleeding. It took the church 180 years of “obedience and prophet worship” doctrines to dig themselves into this mess. They can’t and will not be able to dig themselves out of this hole overnight.
Richard Bushman came to pretty much the same conclusion
Quote:
“It is written as a historian might tell the story,” Bushman says from his home in New York, “not as a theological piece, trying to justify the practice.”By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote “Rough Stone Rolling,” a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, “it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated.”
But accepting that, Bushman says, “requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking.”
Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, “it brings into question all of the prophet’s inspiration.”
I agree, Sheldon – and I think that is a wonderful thing. I support and sustain our leaders, but I loathe the way we have granted them a cloak of infallibility. Our current leaders have shed that cloak – quite openly, with a very few who seem to be struggling to let it go. If this shatters that cloak for members who are holding onto it, great. It might cause more faith crises, but if that’s the price of letting go of such an apostate idea, so be it. I am glad we are having this conversation. I love Bushman’s commentary about the paradigm shift MOrmons will have to make. This was the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread. I also respect the new generation of leaders who are “coming out” with their infallibility. That makes me respect them a lot more as part of my faith crises is a lack of respect for some of the leadership I have seen, which is egocentric to the church — this admission of fallibility on key doctrinal points shows a degree of humility I haven’t seen before. At the risk of being over-optimistic, this is a glimmer of the kind of church I can find a place within again — notice how I said glimmer. But there is hope — think of all the changes — elevating Ward Council over PEC to give women a stronger voice, some talks that tell leaders NOT to treat members as “units” to staff the church…and a key statement — that the church is not a moving service!!! (It was BKP who said that, of all people).
Sheldon wrote:Richard Bushman came to pretty much the same conclusion
Quote:
“It is written as a historian might tell the story,” Bushman says from his home in New York, “not as a theological piece, trying to justify the practice.”By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote “Rough Stone Rolling,” a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, “it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated.”
But accepting that, Bushman says, “requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking.”
Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, “it brings into question all of the prophet’s inspiration.”
Just curious, where is this quote from? Thanks for including it.
Ann wrote:Sheldon wrote:Richard Bushman came to pretty much the same conclusion
Quote:
“It is written as a historian might tell the story,” Bushman says from his home in New York, “not as a theological piece, trying to justify the practice.”By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote “Rough Stone Rolling,” a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, “it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated.”
But accepting that, Bushman says, “requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking.”
Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, “it brings into question all of the prophet’s inspiration.”
Just curious, where is this quote from? Thanks for including it.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57241071-78/church-lds-says-mormon.html.csp Now, this article is really getting there. Thanks GBSmith. NOt only does the article reiterate Bushman’s statement that Mormons will have to adjust their thinking about prophetic infallibility, it goes further by desribing pleas from LDS people for apologies for the priesthood ban, and most of all, calls for greater awareness — such as placement of the disavowal in the curriculum etcetera. They also quote Uchdorft’s previous statement that leaders have made mistakes that are not in harmony with our values and even doctrine. There is yet another statement that indicates Mormons need to start acknowledging that God works through imperfect men, and implies this will be a change for the population at large.
As we have seen in the past, we can’t expect that overnight, the overconfidence that average Mormons have in every statement a prophet makes over the pulpit will vanish into the halls of personal judgment and healthy skepticism — but we at least have another statement that shores up the idea that there are some significant flaws in our culture and the beliefs of the members.
I want to recap statements that speak to the concerns we see popping up here:
1. Uchdorfts assurance we are welcome.
2. Uchdorft’s comment about mistakes from past leaders.
3. Wirthlin’s statement that there should be respect for people who are tired in the church [Holland kind of alluded to his last conference as well, about slowing down lest we heap depression on ourselves]
4. The disavowal of the priesthood ban.
5. BKP’s statement that leaders should not view members are mere resources to staff the church (which you could argue counters some of his statements in the Unwritten Order of Things about serving where placed until released).
6. Elevation of Ward Council to at least the same level or higher than PEC.
7. Uchdorft’s statement that people in the church have the rigth to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience.
It’s easy to reflect on the things that bother us, but when I read this list, I feel a bit of a lift and hope that eventually, we might have the kind o church I can engage with again….
Thanks GBSmith!!! You made my day!
One additional hopeful thought. It’s 4 pages long, but some additional good thoughts are tucked in it. The only way I can deal with this is as water under the bridge. GBSmith wrote:Quote:
“It is written as a historian might tell the story,” Bushman says from his home in New York, “not as a theological piece, trying to justify the practice.”By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote “Rough Stone Rolling,” a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, “it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated.”
But accepting that, Bushman says, “requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking.”
Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, “it brings into question all of the prophet’s inspiration.”
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57241071-78/church-lds-says-mormon.html.csp If the priesthood ban is drained of revelatory significance because racism was common practice, I hope polygamy won’t be reinvested with revelatory significance because it wasn’t common practice. I am not optimistic about the upcoming installment(s?) on the subject, but I hope I’m wrong.
mom3 wrote:One additional hopeful thought. It’s 4 pages long, but some additional good thoughts are tucked in it.
It’s good that his is getting promoted. I really hope this becomes common knowledge.
I still have some issues with the way lots of this is being “spun.”
For example:
Quote:Church members are cheering the enhanced pages, especially the one on race and the priesthood, which plainly “disavows”
theories some critics have claimed were church doctrine and the basis for a ban on blacks holding the priesthood, a ban lifted by revelation in 1978.
If the “theories” are in a signed letter by the first presidency, why the need for the slur suggesting it’s only ideas from critics.
I think this is the way its going to go down in the minds of TBM ‘s — Brigham young had a theory (like he had “Adam-God” theory) that was accepted as policy without necessarily revelatory confirmation. The church reversed the policy in 1978 by revelation. Then, in 2013, the Church disavowed the theories that led to BY’s original policy. This conveniently avoids the implication that revelations of prophets can be wrong, because the ban was never revelation, TBM’s keep their inner peace, the cognitive dissonance disappears.
I’m also a bit ticked they didn’t make this a formal announcement as well. Nonetheless, I think there’s enough for a person like me to hang their hat on. Prophets make BIG mistakes sometimes. There is no clear way of determining what is revelation and what isn’t as the prophets rarely come out with things they say ARE in fact direct revelation in modern times. And claims that the Lord will never allow individuals to lead the people astray are mistaken statements — even when they come from a prophet.
That’s enough for me personally, even if the TBM ‘s don’t see it, I’ve been unorthodox for three years now — the trend can continue.
SilentDawning wrote:I think this is the way its going to go down in the minds of TBM ‘s — Brigham young had a theory (like he had “Adam-God” theory) that was accepted as policy without necessarily revelatory confirmation. The church reversed the policy in 1978 by revelation. Then, in 2013, the Church disavowed the theories that led to BY’s original policy.
This conveniently avoids the implication that revelations of prophets can be wrong, because the ban was never revelation, TBM’s keep their inner peace, the cognitive dissonance disappears.
I’m also a bit ticked they didn’t make this a formal announcement as well. Nonetheless, I think there’s enough for a person like me to hang their hat on. Prophets make BIG mistakes sometimes. There is no clear way of determining what is revelation and what isn’t as the prophets rarely come out with things they say ARE in fact direct revelation in modern times. And claims that the Lord will never allow individuals to lead the people astray are mistaken statements — even when they come from a prophet.
That’s enough for me personally, even if the TBM ‘s don’t see it, I’ve been unorthodox for three years now — the trend can continue.
I’ll just keep the 1947 letters to hand if needed. They show me that I’m better off working out my own view of God’s will for me than to listen to a man who no longer asks questions and assumes that the prejudices of the past are the commandments and doctrines of today.
Old-Timer wrote:Alex, it is referred to as “policy” and not “doctrine” because David O. McKay said it was policy and not doctrine in 1954 – after the 1947 statement – after
(can’t believe I’m drawing a blank on the name of the brother)a historian compiled evidence that it didn’t start with Joseph Smith or a revelation. That statement by Pres. McKay was one of the necessary steps, I think, to the process of beginning to clear up the former misconceptions and lead to OD2 in 1978 – and it’s the genesis for why the current leaders speak of “theories” and “policy” rather than “doctrine”. I believe you’re referring to Lester Bush.
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/ Does anyone have the book “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism”? I am going crazy trying to find a source to a quote in that book. It’s the quote by Richard Jackon on page 104: 
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7s3zzKpkUSk/UrJv8DbYQSI/AAAAAAAAAjI/LBnpYQMefuY/s1600/Untitled.jpg [/img] On Google Books, it won’t let me see note 188 for chapter 4. What is that reference?!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.