Recently, I responded to an article, “How to Stay Mormon when You Are Tired of Mormons,” in an article of my own, “Some Thoughts on Discipleship and “Staying Mormon.” In response to my response, Rational Faiths has posted an article, “Of Pride and Prophets.”
First of all, I think this is the way conversations should happen in the LDS blogging world — blog “cross talk”, where we can productively respond to each other in thought out articles. It’s much better, I think, than long, contentious comment threads. I’m making my response on my own turf, and thus not “trolling” their site, and they’re making their response on their turf, and thus not “trolling” our site. We welcome comments that disagree, and so do they — but when people get into drawn-out contentious comment threads (as I do on a regular basis), civil discussion often breaks down and those dissenting in the comments sometimes overstay their welcome and become trespassers (metaphorically speaking). Anyways, sorry for the tangent.
Anyways, Jeff Swift praises me for aptly summarizing the article I critique. But then he presents me as saying things that I never say, nor will ever say. In short, he gets me wrong, and in ways that are plainly obvious to those who read my article in great detail.
Basically, he presents me as believing that if we don’t agree with prophets 100% of the time, we are prideful people. Basically, he presents a dichotomy: the 100% crowd who believe in prophetic infallibility, and the rest, who believe that prophets are mortal and fallible, and that we ought to use personal revelation to navigate the vast shades of grey. And, according to Swift, I’m in the 100% crowd.
For example, here’s what he says: “The statement seems to be ‘if you ever disagree with counsel from prophets and apostles (in the wrong way), you are prideful.'” He also says, “The author blames ‘real discord’ on people who don’t agree with the prophet 100% of time.”
But do I? Do I say anything of the sort?
The worst example, however: “Even ldsphilosopher’s dreaded ‘individualist’ focuses on God, albeit at the expense of focusing exclusively on Church leaders.” However, what did I actually say? “The disciple will acknowledge that counsel from the Lord sometimes does conflict with our own understanding, will seek guidance from God through all venues (prayer, scriptures, the Holy Spirit, modern prophet, temple worship), and strive to be teachable.” Does that sound anything close to “focusing exclusively on Church leaders”?
First of all, I don’t believe in prophetic infallibilty. Most certainly not, in any way. I believe prophets are mortal and can make mistakes. Even the man at the top, the prophet himself. So I don’t believe at all what he claims I believe. I’ve disagreed with prophets and apostles in the past, and I don’t think I did so for reasons of pride.
Here’s what I said: “I don’t count myself as [someone who disbelieves what prophets teach] — at least on issues where apostles and prophets have spoken unanimously and repeatedly.” That last key phrase — unanimously and repeatedly — is not the only metric for consideration (unlike what Jeff Swift thinks I believe), but it’s a big one. This Church is led not by one man, but by quorums. The doctrine of the Church is not found in the isolated statements and teachings of individual men, but in those teachings that are taught unanimously and repeatedly. We’ve been told this again and again. So while it’s not the only consideration, it is a vitally important consideration.
The author highlights this phrase, and criticizes me for using it as the “only consideration” (which I don’t, but oh well). But then he goes on an imagines that I’m really saying that we must agree with prophets 100% of the time on everything they say, as if I didn’t say “unanimously and repeatedly.” So even if I did believe in prophetic fallibility in that narrow subset of teachings that are “unanimous and repeated,” the author goes on to pretend that I believe in prophetic infallibility in everything else too.
But I don’t believe in prophetic infallibility even then. But here’s what I do believe: the Lord will hold us accountable for how we treat prophetic counsel. Even if that counsel turns out to be wrong. If we are dismissive of prophetic counsel — even if it turns out to be wrong — God is disappointed. Note, this doesn’t mean that we blindly follow prophets — it simply means that we treat their words with weight, as inspired leaders. We start from the position that prophets may be right, and we seek to be teachable — even if, in the end, we end up concluding that they are wrong. If we start from the position that they are wrong, then we are not treating their words with weight, and yes, we will be held accountable for that.
Is that the same thing as believing in prophetic infallibility? Far from it. It’s a false and slanderous accusation that is leveled almost any time someone reiterates the importance of treating prophetic counsel with the weight it deserves. Jeff Swift is tired of being accused of pride, and wants us to stop. Well, we are tired of being accused of believing in prophetic infallibility, and we want them to stop. We don’t, never have, never will. But we still strive to follow prophets — mortal, imperfect people they are — because we believe they have the stewardship to lead this kingdom.
I do believe that on matters that they speak unanimously and repeatedly about, we ought to take especial care to ensure that we are giving them the benefit of a doubt, and we ought to be especially sure before we discard that counsel as the “teachings of men.” Prophets are fallible. 15 prophets and apostles acting in absolute unison on a doctrinal issue over time are also fallible. But the weight we ought to give those teachings is certainly different, and it’s not a profession of prophetic infallibility to point that out.
Are there things that prophets have been wrong about, when teaching unanimously and repeatedly? Perhaps blacks and the priesthood is one (but there’s not much evidence that the policy was ever supported unanimously or without reservation by all members of the highest quorums of the Church), but I’m not prepared to say for sure either way, since the Church hasn’t even been willing to say either way. (Isolated statements by individuals have been repudiated, but not the policy itself.) But even if so, is this paradigmatic of how we should treat the unanimous, repeated teachings of Church leaders? At best, it is an exception. And there are limits to what we can do with the idea of prophetic fallibility without calling into question prophethood and seership itself.
Yes, 15 inspired men acting in unison across time can still be wrong. And I think that individual members can receive personal revelation of that. But that is personal revelation, and going to the internet and proclaiming loudly that God has told them that prophets are wrong is moving outside of their revelatory stewardship. There is not just one question we must ask (“are they right or wrong?”), but at least two: (“what are the limits of my revelatory stewardship?”). Jeff seems to treat the first as the only consideration. Let’s imagine that the priesthood ban was wrong all along. I think it was still wrong for those at the time to stir up dissent against the prophets on the matter. What I believe is not prophetic infallibility, but in the boundaries of stewardship.
In short, the lesson from the story of the man who steadied the ark is not, “Moses is always right,” but rather, “It is Moses, not you, that I have entrusted to steer the children of Israel.” A man may baptize correctly, but without authorization, he may as well baptize a bag of sand. And if he knowingly does so without authorization, and in defiance of instructions of those who are so authorized, he is still damned even if he performs the ordinance “more correctly.” The same goes for doctrinal teaching as well.
There are many things Jeff Swift and I probably disagree on, such as the relative weight we should give the unanimous teachings of prophets, what specific issues they are right or wrong about, the boundaries of our individual stewardship, and what we should or shouldn’t do when we disagree with the prophets. But what we don’t disagree on is that prophets and apostles are fallible. I even unambiguously said so in the post he responded to. Jeff Swift needs to stop misrepresenting those he disagrees with.
I see a recurring pattern in these sorts of discussions: Person A says, “The prophets are wrong on X, and we need to change this.” Person B says, “I think that we should give prophetic teaching more weight than you do — it needs to pass more stringent tests than you’ve put it through before dismissing it. I also think we need to take stewardship into consideration.” Person A says, “You believe in prophetic infallibility! Don’t you know how wrong that position is?” Prophetic infallibility becomes the smear with which those who think that the prophet is wrong can slander those who think the prophet is right, despite the fact that neither party believes in it. I think that needs to stop.
New Post: On Being Accused of Asserting Prophetic Infallibility: Recently, I responded to an arti… http://t.co/yo5TOUNUP9 #LDS #Mormon
TheMillennialStar: On Being Accused of Asserting Prophetic Infallibility http://t.co/8jf0o40nRl #lds #mormon
It can’t stop because the concept of fallibility is what allows a dissenter to smugly sleep at night.
IDIAT, it shouldn’t — because it’s true, and yet we should still give weight to their teachings (more weight, I think, than some give).
I also tackled use of the charge of “prophetic infallibility” (specifically in Todd Compton’s use of it in his history) in this post here:
https://www.millennialstar.org/why-we-fight/
I think the issue is that once someone becomes convinced that they know “what the prophets got wrong” there is no where else to go in a rational discussion other than to charge all who agree with the Brethren as believing in infallibility of the Brethren. After all, they wouldn’t be publicly going against the Brethren unless they were pretty dang sure they were right and the Brethren wrong.
Perhaps they make the reverse argument in return. If the Brethren’s counsel is to be heavily weighted, then is there some procedure where by it can be personally discounted at some point? If you agree with the Brethren and are in alignment with their teachings, perhaps one is not likely going to believe that someone that dissents really got an answer from God when they made their own personal attempt to find answers via personal revelation. (And why would they believe that? Do we really expect TBMs [The Brethren Aligned-Mormons] to say to someone that disagrees with the Brethren, “well, I disagree, but who knows, maybe you’re right..”)
In the end, personal revelation is just that, personal. It can’t really be used as a basis for rational discussion, especially across cultures like this.
I suspect the real issue here is that we’re really debating what is the appropriate way to dissent from the Brethren in the first place: i.e. are you required to not publicly dissent or is it okay to come out and write articles against the Brethren’s unanimous and repeated teachings? I’m not sure there is an easy answer to this question. But given the lack of rational material to discuss, perhaps its inevitable that TBMs will always feel liberals are putting their own feelings before the Lord’s and it is also inevitable that liberals must of necessity assume all TBMs that disagree with them (and agree with the Brethren) somehow are really believing in prophetic infallibility.
I was in a discussion about Helmuth Hubener, and I posited that he would have been fine spiritually if he had just submitted to Nazi-sympathizers in his ward. My friend asserted the opposite, that Helmuth was responsible to the greater light he had. As I pondered this frightening idea, that we will have to stand on our own, that no excuse about following a mistaken leader will work when we really stand to be judged of God, I was humbled and felt to take my stewardships more seriously.
I think a good way to determine if someone is being helpful in bringing about light is examining where they think accountability lands. So if those who continue to talk about prophetic fallibility conclude with the idea that individuals stand before God to account for their sins, so one must be cautious, there is value in that. But when the conclusion is that the prophets will stand to account for the sins of others, and there is avoidance of addressing personal accountability, I would be wary. Certainly many prophets have publicly proclaimed that they wish to wash their garments of the blood of others, but it is a different thing for a follower to claim that the leader is accountable for their sins. I think Christoffersen did a great job with this topic in his talk, bringing up the discussion among the soldiers when the king was there in disguise, King Henry says, “Every subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s soul is his own.”
So when we hear about prophetic fallibility, do we think, “How dare the prophets not lead me aright in every way?! They will pay!” or do we think “I’d better consider things carefully, pray, and do right! For I will have to answer for my choices.”
Bruce, I’m not sure being accused of believing in infallibility is inevitable. I could just as well be accused of having wrong beliefs about what to do when the prophets are wrong, or of having wrong beliefs about which issues they are wrong about, etc. — which could be real disagreements, not fabricated disagreements.
Who here who believes that the prophets can make mistakes would be willing to say exactly what mistakes they are currently making?
So, maybe Jeff Swift substantially edited his post. But in reading through it now, there is no hint that he accuses you of believing in infallibility. The word never comes up in the OP. So while I read you recommending that others not argue against straw-men of your claims, the way things stand, it really looks like you are arguing against a straw-man yourself.
He does seem to miss some of the nuance associated with the individualist vs traditionalist vs disciple discussion you described in your original response. You clearly state that you are not making any assumption about the ultimate answers to the questions, just observing the attitude that one takes into the discussion. I think that is a helpful distinction.
It would be nice when discussing somebody else’s post to quote what they actually write rather than to invent things they didn’t write based on your own preconceived notions. Is that too much to ask for?
There’s this delightful play titled Kiss me Kate and it’s antecedant that I think does a great job of addressing the humility and delight that comes when one follows, even when one supposedly follows “error.”
Trust is a great thing. Trust does not imply that the one trusting believes the trusted entity or individual is infallible. Trust merely implies that the one trusting believes that the trusted entity or individual will ultimately do the required thing to fulfill the trust.
Of course, Geoff, as Kevin has pointed out, I may have done the same thing — the word “infallible” isn’t even mentioned in the original article. It may be that the point of disagreement is what to do when we think they are wrong (follow anyways vs. do our own thing, or stay silent vs. blog about it, etc.), and he thinks I’m in the 100% follow anyways camp.
But he did accuse me of believing that anyone who doesn’t agree with the prophets 100% of the time is prideful — which sounds an awfully lot like accusing me of believing in prophetic infallibility. But who knows?
I think the previous comment of ldsphilosopher asked the important question (adding to it just a tad): What does one do when one is *convinced* (from whatever witness/means) that the apostles and prophets are wrong on some major point of “doctrine” – yet (implicitly) when one *also believes* that the LDS Church is what it claims to be, e.g., the restored Church (i.e., recognized by God as being efficacious)?
One option is to assume that following the counsel anyway is safe, as the fault will be laid at the feet of the apostles and prophets, but such a course flies in the face of the very purpose of individual revelation and eternal growth. And what to do if the teachings remain false over an extended period of time? (Like the Blacks and the Priesthood did.)
I think one has an obligation to constructively work for change. However, given the nature of the LDS Church’s organizational structure that is very very difficult to do effectively. Basically if your stake president doesn’t think your point has any merit there is literally *nothing* you can do within the approved Church channels. I think this is possibly the situation and mindset of the people like Jeff Swift, it was certainly the situation I was in prior to the 1978 revelation on the Blacks and the Priesthood. It is a difficult and discouraging place to be.
I think the crux of what LDSP is saying is that the divine authority of the prophets invites us take their words seriously with due consideration and humility, even if we know that they might not always get it perfect. It is their authority we must respect above all.
“Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same.” This scripture does not imply infallibility. Rather, God authorises or adopts their teachings as His own, even when imperfect. The imperfection of the brethren is a deliberate attribute: “I call the weak things of the world, the unlearned and despised.”
Though one may doubt that some teaching of the brethren is 100% correct, one should still keep in mind that perhaps God has authorised that teaching, perhaps God wants or allows it to be said, even if you personally feel called to something a bit different within your own stewardship or understanding. God could easily step in and correct mistakes of the brethren if He wanted to. They are humble men in a constant state of humble prayer and supplication. If they err, it is because God allows them to err, maybe WANTS them to err, maybe has a higher purpose in allowing them to try to come to a truth of things without Him spelling it all out for them.
John, it must be very tough to simultaneously believe that the prophets are quite literally not leading the church by revelation on some point over a long period of time (i.e. blacks and the priesthood issue) and also believe the church is what it claims to be.
I think its likely that people like you are ‘rare’ (though probably more numerous than many assume.) I would have assumed (or even still do assume) most would see that situation as a sort of contradiction — i.e. what is the point in believing in revelation if it can be so firmly incorrect over a long period of time? How is that different from not believing in revelation? — and would go one way or the other on it. That is to say, either accept it was driven by revelation in some sense or come to believe the church isn’t what it claims to be.
I think that if I’m right that you represent a minority of human beings (i.e. capable of accepting both positions at the same time) that this creates yet another wrinkle worth mentioning: how do you fulfill your need to “constructively work for change” that doesn’t directly push people out of the church?
Put another way, if my assumptions are correct (and they may or may not be) then it seems to me that the need to teach that the church is wrong on some substantial long time doctrine and that it didn’t come via revelation would be functionally equivalent to encouraging people to leave the church *except* for within a certain minority of human beings that can accept both positions at once.
Not trying to make an argument to you, just bouncing around ideas.
I feel I’m NOT in that minority (if it even is an minority, as I’m assuming) of human beings that can simultaneously accept both positions. Which probably explains why despite many liberal leanings on paper I’m decidedly un-liberal in practice. A person that goes around teaching that the church has “teachings [that] remain false over an extended period of time” might as well be just telling me the church isn’t led by revelation in the first place, i.e. that the church isn’t what it claims to be.
There is undoubtedly more nuance to it that that (can’t really explain my full view in a few short paragraphs) but I think that is a decent summary of what I see as the defining problem of liberal vs. TBM views, etc. I have my doubts it is even in principle resolvable. We may just both have entirely mutually exclusive needs from the Church on many issues.
“And what to do if the teachings remain false over an extended period of time? (Like the Blacks and the Priesthood did.)”
Do you believe the apostles who were alive in 1978, on up through the apostles that are alive today, would agree that it was a false teaching? If they have another explanation, would you accept it? That is where I see the problem. Some would say “I knew the church’s policy/doctrine/practice was false the whole time.” A TBM, on the other hand, would be more inclined to forego the cynicism and accept the explanation given by leaders.
In my experience God uses everything, including the errors of mortals up to and including our Prophets, to accomplish his purpose. I believe we will be held accountable for our personal behavior but not institutional behavior. As an example, as a citizen of a city, state, and a country I disagree with many of the policies of various governing bodies, but have found it very difficult to effect change. I am generally far more satisfied with institutional policies of the Church, however there are a few minor issues that I hope will change, as in the recent discussion about the BSA/LDS connection. I liked Meg’s comment about trust. While I don’t hold our leaders to be infallible, I believe they are wise and reliable. To put it more strongly, I believe the Prophet and the apostles are the most reliable humans on the planet.
“One option is to assume that following the counsel anyway is safe, as the fault will be laid at the feet of the apostles and prophets”
One more question/point here.
I hear about this all the time, those Mormons that feel safe because they laid all responsibility at the prophet’s feet. I have yet to actually meet one. Are we even sure such people exist? Doesn’t it seem far more likely that this is a made up stereotype (or maybe some people do think this way, but just very few)? And isn’t it more likely that those that follow the prophets, even in priesthood ban policies in the past, actually do agree with them and their understanding (as IDIAT suggests)?
Bruce,
I really like your point about the difficulty of accepting both positions at once, and effectively pushing most people out by expecting them to do that. But this most recent comment questioning whether people exist who want to feel safe from culpability I have to disagree with. I don’t know many people who would be willing to take full responsibility for finding truth and completely lay aside all defense available by showing backing by the prophets, and this includes me. I could wish that I knew more by the spirit than I do and that I could boldly testify that I knew various particular truths directly from the Spirit, but mostly I just rely on hearing others speak truth and having its truth confirmed by the Spirit. And I am often tempted to feel entitled to have truth spoken to me by mortal beings so I can do this spiritual confirmation type of learning, as opposed to pure knowledge received from heaven type of learning. But I’m convinced this is a wrong attitude I tend to indulge in. Anyway, I’m just saying, I struggle against being that kind of mormon who would just as soon have an authority figure be responsible for my salvation.
Thanks for your post LDS Philosopher. I agree with most of what you’ve written and thank you for your well thought out and intelligent post. I do wonder about this statement:
“Yes, 15 inspired men acting in unison across time can still be wrong. And I think that individual members can receive personal revelation of that.”
My first inclination is: Really? Where and when would the Lord allow every single one of the First Presidency and Q of 12 to be wrong…together. And that individual members can actually receive personal revelation contrary to the First Presidency and Q of 12? Everything I’ve ever studied, pondered and researched from them and the Doctrine & Covenants says otherwise.
I just wanted to be clear that because the absolute KEY element to our restored gospel is that we have prophets, seers and revelators acting for God here on this earth. They will not lead us astray. My next question is: When have the entire First Presidency and Twelve collectively made a decision that is wrong?? When? Show me. When have they ever been collectively wrong? And if it is deemed “wrong”, then my next question would be “wrong according to who?” To us? We think they are wrong? Who made us the ones who decide whether the prophet and apostles are all wrong on an issue? Whose prophetic judgement, then, should we trust in matters of leading the affairs of the Church? It should also be a massive red flag if someone receives personal revelation that the entire leadership of the church is wrong. I’m just asking a lot of questions that these types of conversations require on both sides and hope that they can be considered in this conversation 🙂
p.s. I don’t want to derail this conversation, but I do want to make a note that regarding the blacks and the priesthood in this context (because it is always mentioned as an example), it is critical to remember that it was policy, and not a *doctrinal* issue. SO perhaps the question could be: Have the Brethren ever said they have been wrong about a doctrinal issue? We also do not have to assume that church leaders were wrong about the blacks/priesthood issue.
(con’t) because the Lord obviously allowed for it to pan out as it did, otherwise a prophet prior to Pres. Kimball would have felt inspired to pray and fast about the issue. Just a thought to consider (Hopefully this comment doesn’t get misconstrued…)
(Disclaimer to clarify my beliefs outlined below: I think that dissenters who agitate for change in the church because of some currently socially popular things like gay marriage or feminism are misguided.)
Regarding whether there are things currently in the church where I feel ‘progress’ could be made (or maybe correction is a better word), there are such things, but I feel like God respects our agency. I also believe that we could best ‘progress’, or get things correct by following the prophet. I believe Joseph Smith when he said that he was not perfect, but that there was no error in the revelations that he taught. I think it’s mainly the body of the church, and the world at large, (myself included in that, of course), that needs the correction more than those who are selected as God’s prophets and apostles. Of course they are not infallible, but to me one real miracle is that there are things that are sure- that God reveals through them.
I believe that revelation is dependent not only on God’s will to give it, but on the person receiving revelation’s will to receive it. I think a similar case could be made for the church, or the world in aggregate. God wants to reveal A to the prophet, but He knows that the world (or the church and the world, or just the church? I’m not sure) is only ready for B, even though what they are currently doing is C (which is not as good as either A or B).
So, A in this example could be consecration, the B could be tithing, and then C would be ignoring our financial responsibility to God.
Prophets in the scriptures do at at times say: there is so much more to know, but we are forbidden to share it because God will try the faith of His people.
JSH wrote: “What does one do when one is *convinced* (from whatever witness/means) that the apostles and prophets are wrong on some major point of “doctrine” – yet (implicitly) when one *also believes* that the LDS Church is what it claims to be, e.g., the restored Church.”
It seems to me this is a very easy question to answer. We have examples from the scriptures and from the history of the restored Church. Am I *convinced* that it is wrong for a father to put his son on the altar and take up a knife to kill him? Yes, I am absolutely convinced of this. Am I also convinced that Abraham did the right thing in taking his son to Mt. Moriah? Yes, I am. The two ideas are not contradictory. Am I *convinced* that is seems immoral for Joseph Smith to ask to marry some of his followers’ wives? Yes, I am absolutely convinced of this. But I am also convinced that Joseph Smith did the right thing in following the Lord’s commandments when it came to polygamy.
JSH, you may want to consider the fact that the whole issue of blacks and the priesthood was a test for you and people like you. This might help you become more comfortable with the whole situation. You also may want to consider that sometime in the afterlife — or even in the coming years of your life — you will understand better why it happened the way it did.
So, to back up LDSP’s point, we can concentrate on how wrong the leaders of the Church are, or we can concentrate on knowing that the Church is true and having the humility to recognize we may not understand the reason for certain decisions by Church leadership. I guarantee that the latter route will bring more peace than the former.
First let me thank Bruce and many others that have commented on my contribution to this thread in a thoughtful manner.
Second, yes I do think I am in that (likely tiny) minority which does believe the apostles and prophets can get in wrong yet still be God’s authorized servants on earth. (I think, and often testify, that they are the authorized servants – i.e., that the priesthood is/was real, and the transition from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young was recognized and accepted by God). I have had many experiences and witnesses in my life which have been sufficient to prove to me that the priesthood is real and that by extension the Restoration actually happened.. I am in position of Peter who responded when the Lord asked the apostles if they too would go away, when he answered: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” John 6:68 Warts and all the Church is what it claims to be.
I think the main thing where the church leaders were wrong for a long time (1844-1978) was the priesthood ban (although the actual implementation of plural marriage might be a possibility as well – Meg’s research raises very interesting questions about the post Joseph Smith practices). But with respect to the Ban, if who can be ordained to, and act in the offices of, the priesthood is not doctrinal then I don’t think anything we teach is doctrinal – the necessity of getting the priesthood “right” is the whole justification for the Restoration in the first place.
The original Restoration (by God through Joseph Smith) got it correct (no surprise). Black men were ordained as elders, at least one branch president, and one traveling elder (somewhat akin to an area seventy today – it’s not “just” a regular missionary). Interestingly the children of the traveling elder were ordained as well (in Utah under President Young’s direction), but the temple blessings were withheld. The grandchildren were not allowed to be ordained. At least once in response to the traveling elder’s widow’s request to be allowed to be sealed to her spouse (who died during his fourth [I think it was the fourth] mission for the church) the First Presidency directed the Quorum of the 12 to research the issue and find out why the Ban was instituted. The report was that they could find no record of any revelation ever being received to put the Ban in place. During the early years of the Ban the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 researched the history, they received *false* testimony from Elder Zebedee Coltrin (who was a general authority at the time)- who claimed Joseph Smith had “admitted’ to him that the ordination of black men (which had occurred) had been wrong. In actuality Joseph Smith had insisted that Zebedee Coltrin be the actual person who ordained the traveling elder – his name is on the ordination certificate. (I’m assuming in an attempt by Joseph Smith to help erase this Coltrin’s obvious racism – but that’s conjecture.)
The early church leaders were by and large products of their times. Most were virulently racist and the result was that within a very few short years of Joseph Smith’s murder the correct policy of the Restoration had been overturned. As a result the racism was not done away with, rather it intensified. If you want to be amazed and appalled just read some of the conference talks from the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s regarding the Ban, inter-racial marriage, *and* the reasons these leaders give to justify it all.
As a young child in the 1960s when I first heard about the Ban I “knew” it was wrong, when I heard some of the talks in General Conference related to the Ban it cause me to seriously consider leaving the Church. The announcement in June of 1978 by President Kimball that the ban had been lifted was one of the happiest experiences related to the Church I’ve ever had. But that doesn’t change the previous 130 years of history. It took the Church from 1978 until just a few years ago to officially admit the Ban had no basis in revelation (or at least there is no record of any basis). Elder McConkie right away said everything which had been said of the reasons for the Ban prior to 1978 had been wrong and to ignore what he and others had said and written. But the Church as an institution wasn’t willing to go that far (and still hasn’t). I think (just my opinion) that they recognize what some here have said, that it is a pretty tiny minority of folks who are willing to hold the view that the Ban was not inspired but the Church is still what it claims to be. I suspect they are correct in that assessment, and therefore I suspect they will dance around the issue all they can for basically forever. My neighbors down the street about six houses just left the Church over this history (and the polygamy issues). She was serving as the primary president recently and he was a counselor in the elders quorum presidency. They are wonderful people, I’m sad to see the go. I’ve met with them in an attempt to help bring about a reconciliation, but so far they seem to NOT be in the “tiny minority” that can hold the completing views. Hence they have left.
I don’t know of any real way to deal with this, the history is what it is. Short of time travel there really isn’t any “elegant” solution.
Geoff, I had not seen your reply when I was writing the above “tome”. I think a critical difference between my situation and the scriptural examples you cite is that those men were specifically commandment by direct spoken revelation to do the things they did. In my mind at least that puts a different spin on it. Obviously that’s not how everyone would look at it though.
JS Harvey said.
“It took the Church from 1978 until just a few years ago to officially admit the Ban had no basis in revelation (or at least there is no record of any basis). Elder McConkie right away said everything which had been said of the reasons for the Ban prior to 1978 had been wrong and to ignore what he and others had said and written.”
If you read Elder McConkie’s talk to the CES employees given shortly after the revelation he strongly implies that the ban’s genesis was from revelation. Furthermore he did not limit his previously erroneous statements to simply the “reasons for the ban” but to anything that he had previously said about the ban. His CES talk can be found on lds.org. A recent article in the Interpreter on Following the Brethren by a Brother Boyce (I believe) provides valuable insight on the subject of the Priesthood ban.
I am surprised that you “knew” that ban was wrong the first time you heard of it in general conference. President Hinckley in one of his famous interviews was asked if the ban was a mistake and he said I do not think is was. As you may recall Elder Oaks has stated there is no need to apologize for the ban (see the Fairlds website).
JS Harvey said, “I am in that (likely tiny) minority which does believe the apostles and prophets can get in wrong yet still be God’s authorized servants on earth.” I join with JS Harvey in believing the apostles and prophets can get in wrong yet still be God’s authorized servants on earth. Of course they can be wrong. And they have been wrong they are not perfect. Joseph wasn’t perfect and neither are the other latter day prophets. They would be the first to say so. Your assertion that you are in a tiny minority doesn’t ring true with my experience. I choose to follow them because of the keys they hold and the goodness and spirit i feel from them not because they are perfect.
I have found that JS frequently comments on lds blogs. I agree with a lot of what JS frequently says, but just wanted to provide a little context to his recent comments.
I just want to say that I don’t thing it is a “tiny minority” who believe the brethren are divinely authorised yet prone to err. Maybe a minority, but not a tiny one. I don’t think it is difficult, as Bruce suggests, to hold these two seemingly contradictory positions, because they don’t really contradict. It doesn’t contradict because in the real world, both religious and secular, authority is never synonymous with absolute truth, nor do the scriptures imply that this is the case. Prophets and kings make mistakes in the Bible, yet their authority stands.
The principle of honouring imperfection is articulated in the commandment “honour thy father and they mother.” Father and mother have a divine, authorised stewardship over their children, and they are commanded to be united in all things though they may disagree. All children recognise the imperfection of their parents, but honour them by virtue of their divine authority. It is no different in the church. We have been given a church to shepherd us through life, though it is not perfect. But it is authorised. There are hundreds of millions of Catholics that hold this position without any angst, even though their doctrine specifically teaches infallibility.
When we say that God will not allow our leaders to lead us astray, I think some believe God makes the leaders keep us on a strait and narrow ridge, with damnation threatening on either side.
I tend to think of the Church as a great collection of individuals on a broad plain. There is great latitude for individual motion within the body of the group, without leaving the group. And the group as a whole may migrate from location to location along the path with significant variation without fundamentally losing their way towards the goal.
The fundamentals are priesthood authority to effect the saving ordinances and the primacy of the New and Everlasting Covenant. As much as the prieshood ban serves as an embarrassing hair shirt in our day, it never threatened the fundamentals, given the doctrine of proxy ordinance work.
I’ve written about the ban and its antecedents multiple times. A post about the Norfolk 17 indicates a possible reason the ban wasn’t able to be discarded earlier. The post reviewing the second volume of the Persistence of Polygamy goes into which actions of black men in the early Church lent passion to the anti-inclusive teachings of the day.
The history could have unfolded differently and left us still on the path towards our eventual goal. But it isn’t certain that the alternate path would be the universally “better” path that is often presumed.
I personally think the most dangerous turn in the road was John Taylor’s request that God relieve the people of the requirement to enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant. This request was clearly based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the New and Everlasting Covenant was. And in this junction, God ensured John didn;t take the Church over an unrecoverable precipice.
JSH, I still think you are missing the point. The details of the ban are not as important as how you choose to respond to them. The “fact” that you consider the ban a mistake is not as important as how you choose to respond to those facts. We have a church with priesthood authority and the restoration of the fulness of the Gospel on the Earth. There are many, many marvelous things — from temple ordinances to simple charity work carried out in the wards — that we can choose to concentrate on. But critics and questioners concentrate on the wrong things. THAT is the test. Concentrate on the positives rather than what you perceive to be the negatives of the Church, and gradually the negatives will seem less important. It seems like you have done that to a certain extent, but you still come on M* regularly to complain about the Church. It seems to me you are missing the point of the test.
I think it’s important to remember that something can be God’s will in one sense, and not in another. The Fall of Adam is an excellent example of this, but even before that, the rebellion, and Satan leaving with his followers is another example. God gave man agency, it is certainly His will that His children have the opportunity to choose. But I wouldn’t say it is His will to CAUSE some of his children to rebel, and yet this principle of agency means that some will (in fact, a surprisingly large number.) I think this is a problem that often trips up philosophers and some handle it better than others. The death and atonement of Jesus Christ certainly is an example where if you say, “It was God’s will that Jesus be executed,” in one way you would be wrong, and in another you would be right. But it’s no small matter deciding which is which. Incorrect navigation here leads to complete injustices such as Divine Right of Kings.
However small the group may be who can hold the ‘dual’ position (that God wills his chosen prophets to be wrong, in some ways and in some sense,) the number of such people should be expanded. Otherwise the risk is making the problematic claim that truth is divided against itself.
I appreciated Geoff B’s comments about being convinced things are wrong, like Abraham sacrificing Isaac, and Joseph’s polygamy, but still being convinced of the authority of these men of God. But I also appreciate John Swenson Harvey’s perspective. My personal trial is along John’s lines, wondering why God allows the prophets to compromise at times. I feel the priesthood ban was a compromise with the lie of racism, just as I feel some current policies are a compromise with the lie of feminism (which I believe to be the great evil of our time because it is such a huge threat to families.)
But as John quoted, “to whom should we go?” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is THE authorized church of God on the earth. And I think the principle about milk being necessary before meat is a big deal (ie. not tossing people off the boat just because they can’t handle the full truth). But the goal should be eventually meat for everyone. I’m willing to hold open the possibility that this life is a sort of infancy for us, and that maybe not everyone needs to get past being sustained on milk before they die. But it also doesn’t make sense that milk should be considered on par with meat. It is well said in the scriptures when great individuals question their worthiness to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc. if they are not willing to accept truth, however inconvenient and costly. (But this is an individual matter.)
Reading Geoff’s most recent comment I hope I do not detract. I agree with him mostly. I do not think getting a positive perspective is THE test, but it certainly helps us prepare ourselves to choose God and embrace His love, particularly in recognizing the “marvelous work and a wonder” we have the opportunity to participate in.
JSH, thank you for the further explanation of your position and reasoning. And I can truly appreciate someone that can admit that they are in a minority like this. I think the real troubles begin (as in my Mormon Matters days) when people start to think “We can change the whole church to think like me.” (i.e. John Dehlin) when in reality we probably can’t. I believe your approach (even if I can’t at this time agree with it) does at least get to the true heart of the issue — which is fantastically refreshing precisely because it is so dang rare.
Lucinda,
I’ll definitely accept your testimony about yourself. But I would like to clarify that you don’t really fit the bill either.
I’m obviously taking the JSH comment in a very black and white fashion (probably not as he intended it): that there could really be people out there that say “well, I think this is wrong, but since the prophet says it, its his problem, so I am not afraid I’m doing wrong or will be judged as wrong.”
I suspect the closest people will get to that position will be someone like yourself — i.e. who *doesn’t* accept that position, but is tempted by it. It just isn’t how the human brain works.
Having said that, I can easily believe that once someone crosses over to the position that the church is wrong, its probably pretty easy to then say “well, I have no responsibility for my past actions then, its all the church’s fault.” Because that IS how the human brain works in a situation like that.
Bruce,
I definitely agree with you there and I appreciate the clarification.
Just wanted to chime in and say “Thank you.” to all of those who responded to my comment(s). While it is readily apparent that I tend think about (and experience) the Church and it’s history a bit differently than most of you (OK, maybe almost all of you), reading your thoughts (usually) helps to remind me of the importance of the Gospel. Meaning the exchanges here on M* help me to focus on, and sort out, which things in life are important. So even though they might be frustrating at any given time I appreciate the interactions.
jman wrote: “Who here who believes that the prophets can make mistakes would be willing to say exactly what mistakes they are currently making?”
Could LDSP address this comment? I think it is fair. Do you think faithful latter-day saints are allowed to disagree with a policy? Do you think they are allowed to express themselves?
My understanding of M*, is that the admins believe faithful people are not allowed to disagree with anything (even policy), and censor comments, and ban people who do so. So, even if a theoretical admin purports to claim to not believe in infallibility, functionally, by censoring and deleting comments that do admit mistakes, they act as if they do believe in infallibility.
Having said that, I think that faithful latter-day saints can both recognize that their disagreement with policy is fine. But doctrine is different. I agree that that disagreements should not be made the focus, but sometimes church leaders choose to focus on the less important things, (say, sandals in sacrament meeting). The only way I keep calm is remembering that they are the ones accountable to God for what they say, not me. It is my responsibility only to determine if what they are teaching is true, if it applies to my life or my family, and not much else.
“So, even if a theoretical admin purports to claim to not believe in infallibility, functionally, by censoring and deleting comments that do admit mistakes, they act as if they do believe in infallibility.”
I already addressed this:
“I suspect the real issue here is that we’re really debating what is the appropriate way to dissent from the Brethren in the first place: i.e. are you required to not publicly dissent or is it okay to come out and write articles against the Brethren’s unanimous and repeated teachings? I’m not sure there is an easy answer to this question.”
I believe you are confusing concern over public dissent with believe in infallibility even though these clearly are not one and the same.
laserguy: “My understanding of M*, is that the admins believe faithful people are not allowed to disagree with anything (even policy), and censor comments, and ban people who do so.”
This is utterly false.
(1) Individual post authors have the sole discretion to moderate comments on their posts.
(2) We do sometimes ban trolls, who repeatedly come in and stir up trouble.
(3) I sometimes remove comments from my posts that disparage Church teachings, engage in personal attacks, etc. For example, “I think that the Church’s position on SSM is bigotry promoted by old men who feel threatened and therefore feel they must impose their narrow-minded, pathetic worldview on the rest of us” will likely get removed. But “I disagree with the Church’s position on SSM, because ____ (a reasoned argument)” will probably not get removed. However, if the person derails the discussion in ways that are not productive to civil conversation, their comments will be curtailed. The problem is that many people cannot see the difference between a reasoned, civil statement of disagreement with a Church teaching or policy, and a statement disparaging or attacking the Church for its teachings and policies.
(4) People frequently disagree in the comments here at M*, both with us and with the Church.
(5) Occasionally someone gets burned by an individual author’s moderating style, but never merely because they disagreed.
(6) This claim is slander promoted by enemies of M* who found themselves unable to troll here any longer.
laserguy: “Who here who believes that the prophets can make mistakes would be willing to say exactly what mistakes they are currently making?”
I have a small list, but I’m not really interested in sharing it. I don’t think it’s my stewardship to engage in public criticism of Church practices and teachings. If you were a member of my family or a close friend, you’d probably hear about it though.
Nate: “I just want to say that I don’t thing it is a ‘tiny minority’ who believe the brethren are divinely authorised, yet prone to err.”
If that’s what you think Bruce is arguing, then you need to re-read his comments carefully; that’s a very inaccurate statement of his position (but I’ll let Bruce clarify, rather than try to put words in his mouth by clarifying for him).
laserguy: “So, even if a theoretical admin purports to claim to not believe in infallibility, functionally, by censoring and deleting comments that do admit mistakes, they act as if they do believe in infallibility.”
So… you didn’t read the post. At all. “It’s not our stewardship to publicly criticize the church ≠ We believe church leaders are infallible.” That was the whole point of the post, which you neatly sidestepped and ignored in your comment.
The question at hand is not whether they are always right or sometimes wrong, but what to do when we think they are wrong. Modern thought tells us that we must cry it out from the housetops. We disagree. And that doesn’t mean we think they are always right.
It’s this very attitude that I was addressing/critiquing in the blog post. Your claim is simply untrue. We do not believe in prophetic infallibility. Even if what you claim about M*’s moderation policies is true (it is not), we still aren’t even acting like we believe in prophetic infallibility. Rather, at worst, we are enacting a belief that, whether they are right or wrong, we have a limited revelatory stewardship. That is all.
Basically, in your worldview, the only way to prove that (or act like) we don’t believe in prophetic infallibility is to shout what we perceive to be their mistakes in public forums. Otherwise, you are saying that the accusation will (and should) stick. This is an idea that we profoundly disagree with — a damaging, corrosive idea. It implies that the only two options are public dissent or prophet worship — nothing in between, where we neither worship the prophets as infallible nor publicly and visibly criticize their actions. It is a false and dangerous idea, and we really, really want people to stop thinking in that binary way.
I’m rather tired of the standard line/lie that the more liberal blogs like BCC (and others) spread that M* is a place that regularly bans anyone who disagrees.
Considering I’ve seen permas at BCC delete and ban people merely for daring to disagree on some issue they feel so strongly about that all dissent is bigotry, and I’ve seen flat out lies aimed at us (one perma from another blog accused the entire blog of supporting slavery based on a misreading of a commentator, not even a permablogger), I’ve just decided most of those accusations are the result of cognitive bias due to tribalism. When they ban, it’s deserved. When we ban, it’s due to our intolerance, or something.
Absolute and utter rubbish, but it’s received wisdom in several spaces, so there’s not much we can do about it except deny it.
I know that a handful of times someone told me their thoughtful reasoned comment at M* was deleted by Geoff (or whoever), and so I would go check the trash folder at M* – and find, instead, some rather nasty personal attacks questioning the worthiness of the “TBMs” at M*. Perhaps they know their comments will get banned, and then since the comment is never seen, they can then play the martyr for extra social cred in the liberal areas of the LDS blogosphere – or perhaps their cognitive bias is so strong that they can’t see just how bad their comments really are.
Nate, Ivan is right. You paraphrased me wrongly. JSH understood what I was saying and responded accordingly.
The mistake you are making is that you’re conflating “err” with “not leading the church by revelation on some point over a long period of time” on what JSH correctly points out was one of the single most basic doctrines.
From talking to you in the past, I believe those two are synonymous to you (making you part of that ‘tiny minority’) but in fact they are not to most people. To collapse those to be one and the same, as you are doing, is to stop believing in revelation for most people — or at least that is what I believe and what am I suggesting. I obviously don’t know it to be true for sure. It’s a hypothesis.
Also, the fact that you immediately collapsed them and didn’t even realize that you had sort of proves my point to some degree. You are quite literally talking past the majority of members I suspect.
Hi –
This is sort of embarrassing, but maybe ironic given the current discussion about moderating comments. But I accidentally posted a comment under my husband, Jared’s, name earlier. It’s the one that begins “I think it’s important to remember that something can be God’s will in one sense, and not in another.” Is it possible to fix that? I’m fine with just deleting it too.
Thanks.
Fixed.
Best way to put it is that when a prophet speaks there’s a burden of proof argument being made. It doesn’t mean they’re right, but it does mean the standard of evidence for disagreeing is much higher.
Infallibility means that when a prophet speaks it’s right. End of discussion.
The real issue is over inquiry. I don’t think any of the prophets want their words to be an end to inquiry. Indeed most ask us to seek.
What I think the disagreement is over, and why so many raise the “de facto infallibility flag” (a little too readily) is because I think some don’t even want to deal with the burden of proof nor the demand for inquiry. If someone has a position that disagrees with the prophet they think the prophet is wrong. End of story. (Not pointing at anyone in particular) That’s as bad as a de facto infallibility. Perhaps worse.
I just don’t think the vast majority of members fall into either camp. I think most people realize the prophets are human and can make mistakes. But they treat their words very seriously.
“I know that a handful of times someone told me their thoughtful reasoned comment at M* was deleted by Geoff (or whoever), and so I would go check the trash folder at M* – and find, instead, some rather nasty personal attacks questioning the worthiness of the “TBMs” at M*. Perhaps they know their comments will get banned, and then since the comment is never seen, they can then play the martyr for extra social cred in the liberal areas of the LDS blogosphere – or perhaps their cognitive bias is so strong that they can’t see just how bad their comments really are.”
I think the real problem here is that the dialogue on some blogs is so nasty and negative as part of normal discourse, that some people come on M* and comment with their usual snarkiness, and their comments get deleted and they cannot understand why. So, they may be correct that M* has different standards than other blogs. On the other hand, I can still remember reading a group of permabloggers on one liberal blog saying that they would ban forever anybody ever using the phrase “gay lifestyle” in a comment. So, claiming that only M* deletes comments, or deletes comments more than other blog, simply is not true. Different standards, yes. More moderation than other blogs, not really.
lDSP,
I read the post, but I believed that I was reading the personal opinion of LDSP, rather than a doctrinal exposition of LDS doctrines by someone in authority to teach LDS doctrine.
I would like to challenge you to provide chapter and verse within the canonized scripture, or within an official declaration signed by all 15 revelatory leaders that says: “You are an unfaithful saint if publicly disagree with any policy of our leaders.” I know M* admins are fond to quote single statements by non-Prophets, who lack the ability to bring forth binding scripture on the Saints. In fact, these same M* admins have set themselves up to tell people they are “publicly airing dirty laundry” and “going behind someone’s back to the saloon”. etc. The scriptures do not say this, and so I would challenge you to quit going further than the canonized scriptures.
And, FWIW, I’ve never heard anyone claim it is within their “stewardship” to criticize the church. However, I have heard people tell me that I only have to believe things, in this Church, with are true. I think somewhere, I was told to defend truth… in fact, it may have been in last conference.
It’s also not within my stewardship when my children’s friends come over to do homework to correct them if they think that the Pythagorean theorem is a^3+b^4=c^5. It is within my stewardship to correct my child. But I still think would I do them a serious disservice if I weren’t to correct them, by stewardship and boundary notwithstanding. Similarly, when in Sunday School, the teacher reads a quote insisting the Priest and Levite didn’t help the injured man on the road, because he was a samaritan and didn’t love his fellow men, I would find it a serious disservice to not correct this, not from a position of power, authority, or stewardship, but from reason logic, and right.
It’s not just modern thought that tells us we should correct error when we see it. The writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are full about teachings or truth. Look, gotta say, I agree with you admins 99% of the time that these alternate voices are not right. The pro-gay marriage folks, the insisting on women’s ordination folks, those claiming the church was in error wrt the priesthood ban. I think the situation is far more complex than those critics realize, and in the face of complexity, meditative pondering and thought is far more appropriate than strident complaint. Yet if they are met with censoring and bullying, most open-minded folks are going to be convinced you-all have something to hide. I know you don’t, because I see where you’re coming from, but I still have a negative reaction to the way you try to bully people into silence.
LDSP writes: ” We do not believe in prophetic infallibility ” . Laserguy writes: “You claim to not believe in prophetic infallibility, but act as if you do.” Let me expound. In a hypothetical moment, President TSM stands up and bears his testimony that 1+1=9. My son, (hypothetically 3 years old) says, “Dad I thought it was 2!?” “It is son. I don’t know why, but on that, he’s wrong, and that’s OK. He’s human, and it’s OK to be wrong sometimes, even in GC, and even from the pulpit.” My feeling is that you would denounce me for having the gall to do so. Maybe I would do so in the chapel, and maybe someone would hear me. That is believing and acting honestly. Sitting silently, and silencing others for saying that, fits under the mold of mind control, and not “dealing honestly with one’s fellow men. That is how I understand your comments about “whether they are right or wrong, we have a limited revelatory stewardship.”
LDSP writes: “don’t believe in prophetic infallibility is to shout what we perceive to be their mistakes in public forums. ”
Not necessarily, but I also don’t think any member of the church should say members aren’t allowed to, when the church has not canonized any such statement. I even recall an apostle saying that members won’t be excommunicated for supporting gay marriage on facebook. That seems diametrically opposed to your viewpoint. I think that that little tidbit completely dismantles the assumptions you try and foist on others to allow them the title “faithful.”
“Otherwise, you are saying that the accusation will (and should) stick.” Maybe I’m misunderstanding this sentence, but I believe all false statements should be countered. If someone attacking the church says something false, we should challenge it. If someone does their math wrong from the pulpit, we should challenge it.
Ivan Wolfe,
I can understand why you would be tired of that accusation, but hopefully you’ll admit that that is not what I claimed. I have said nothing about BCC, but now I agree with you that it is also a place that regularly bans people with whom they disagree. I recognize that both venues have cognitive bias due to tribalism, that you both ban and censor out of intolerance. No one’s hands are clean here.
laserguy: “I read the post, but I believed that I was reading the personal opinion of LDSP, rather than a doctrinal exposition of LDS doctrines by someone in authority to teach LDS doctrine.”
I never implied otherwise, to my knowledge.
laserguy: “You are an unfaithful saint if publicly disagree with any policy of our leaders.”
I myself would never make such a claim. Again, I state quite clearly that there’s a difference between publicly disagreeing with isolated statements, and publicly disagreeing with unanimous, repeated statements. So all of your examples fall flat, because you’re assuming a position of mine that I never took.
laserguy: “I also don’t think any member of the church should say members aren’t allowed to”
I never said such a thing. Believing that people shouldn’t is not the same thing as believing they will or should be excommunicated for it.
laserguy: “I even recall an apostle saying that members won’t be excommunicated for supporting gay marriage on facebook. That seems diametrically opposed to your viewpoint.”
What viewpoint? I never said a thing to contradict this. There’s a difference between stating that you support marriage on Facebook, and proclaiming that prophets are wrong, that the position is based in bigotry, and that everyone else should get with the times. The former is perfectly acceptable (even if I disagree), the latter is pretty problematic.
laserguy: “If someone does their math wrong from the pulpit, we should challenge it.”
Sure. But when we’re talking about the unanimous, repeated teachings of the Church, I think the issue is a bit different. Again, a distinction I make clearly and boldly in the post, but which you continue to ignore.
Come back when you want to counter what I actually say and believe.
“In a hypothetical moment, President TSM stands up and bears his testimony that 1+1=9. My son, (hypothetically 3 years old) says, “Dad I thought it was 2!?” “It is son. I don’t know why, but on that, he’s wrong, and that’s OK. He’s human, and it’s OK to be wrong sometimes, even in GC, and even from the pulpit.” My feeling is that you would denounce me for having the gall to do so.”
laserguy, I have a sincere question for you. Do you actually believe the prophets have made such an obvious and provable error before? If so, what do you consider equivalent to this? If not, why did you use an obviously bad analogy to make your point? I suspect its more than obvious that LDSP would NOT have an issue with you telling your son this. And LDSP could now easily point out that there has never been such a case and that the types of examples he has in mind are nothing at all like you telling your son this in an equivalently obvious situation.
laserguy, I will make one clarification. I do think that the Parable of the Faithful Husband is a good metaphor for our relationship with the Church. You can read about it here: https://www.millennialstar.org/the-parable-of-the-faithful-husband/
Do we have an obligation to point out falsehood everytime we hear it? I’m not actually convinced of that. If that were the case, I would be a walking, talking arguing machine where I do nothing but rebut people all day. There are considerations of prudence about when and how we correct others, and this is especially the case with regards to those we consider to be priesthood authorities.
laserguy: “My feeling is that you would denounce me for having the gall to do so.”
I would most certainly not. (1) Your son is well within your stewardship, (2) we’re talking about an isolated statement and not the unanimous and repeated teachings of prophets and apostles, and (3) you aren’t using it to devalue the authority of prophets and apostles generally.
The fact that you say, “My feeling is that you would denounce me for having the gall to do so,” shows you have really taken no effort to understand me, or to carefully read what I actually say. You are responding to a straw man — an image of me that does not exist.
Again, come back when you want to converse about what I actually say. I could point out several direct quotes in the original article and in the subsequent comments that directly contradict what you presume to be my position on the matter, and would thoroughly refute the idea that I would condemn you in your hypothetical.
“you both ban and censor out of intolerance. No one’s hands are clean here.”
Well, I can say for certain that I personally, have never banned anyone, and could count on my left hand the number of times I’ve deleted a comment (and still have lots of fingers left over).
Perhaps that’s because my posts tend not to be controversial enough – who knows? However, even if we expand to include the entire blog, this is still false moral equivalence, since we don’t pretend we don’t censor and ban, and don’t attack other blogs for doing it (unless it’s in defense, as here) – whereas comments about M*’s evil, intolerant, bigoted censorship are commonplace elsewhere.
I’ve had the interesting experience of having my comment moderated – when I’m commenting on my own OP. I think it has to do with the default settings (I think the comments included too many links to get passed through).
Other times I’ll find that the uber-admins have taken it upon themselves to moderate certain comments folks are making on my posts. I myself tend not to moderate comments, though I will correct comments if people who made the comments contact me.
Although I feel sort of like a benchwarmer getting “trash minutes” late into the game when the outcome is already well decided, I still wish to throw in my two cents, recognizing that there has been and are no clear answers to the Ban’s beginning and why it went down when it did. FWIW, here’s how I see it:
1. From our mortal perspective, withholding the priesthood from the Blacks was wrong and unfair! BUT… since its inception, America has ALWAYS been wrong about race. Even the inspired Founding Fathers could not settle the slavery issue and left it to future generations to resolve. We all know how that went down—culminating in the most devastating and costly war in our country’s history. A FULL century passed following the abolition of slavery before American Blacks won civil rights. The issue was (and still is–Ferguson, Baltimore, etc.) too complex, too messy, and too explosive to be reduced to woulda, coulda, shoulda scenarios.
2. Speaking of slavery, the Jews escaped after 400 years of bondage in Egypt, long after Joseph promised his people that God would visit them and bring them to the lands of their inheritance (Gen. 50:24-25). On another tangent, the great Apostasy lasted 1700 years and 1400 years, in the Middle East and the Americas, respectively. Certain events had to take place before further light and knowledge could be revealed. This indicates that the Lord follows his own timetable to provide the most optimal Gospel benefits for His children.
3. But back to the priesthood. Withholding the priesthood from certain groups/races is not without precedent. As an example, Peter needed a revelation to expand missionary work/priesthood blessings to include the Gentiles. After all, the priesthood authority is the Lord’s to give to whom He will, when He will, for what He will.
4. Unlike polygamy, as far as we know, there was no sword-wielding angel approaching any modern prophet to insist overturning the Ban or be faced with destruction. Far away from the bloody conflict on the U.S. eastern front, our pioneers had a short window of time to freely practice polygamy before its revocation. Although no record exists how the Ban under Pres. Young originated, the Lord was in no hurry to have the ban rescinded. Following His edict to take the Gospel to ALL nations (of every color), I submit that He knew that the race issue would inevitably come to a head and an eventual resolution, but only in accordance to His timetable.
5. Our prophets have always been fallible….you know, possessing weaknesses/imperfections, the products of their times, learning line upon line, etc. etc. etc. Prophets did pray/agonize/agitate over the Ban matter and received no confirmation. Pres. Young may have been “wrong” in instituting the Ban, but that in no way impacted the core message of the Gospel, and he, nor any other prophet, was ever removed from his position. I’m not saying, “the Ban, His plan” nor am I minimizing the impact of the Ban, but I am comfortable with saying that in comparison with the centuries of slavery and apostasy (see point #2) there are worse things than not having the being able to hold the priesthood for nearly 140 years, particularly within this country that could not (and cannot) get its racism crap together, and because events needed to occur before 1978.
LDSP… While I did read your initial post, and actually made a strong mental note of your distinction, about “unanimous and repeated”, I’ll admit I got sidetracked and derailed, and moved into the automatic usage the vast majority of Lds use.
However, in real life, a lot of us have encountered the statement sans caveat. And while sometimes the caveat is included, often it is not. Think of the primary song, imagine singing it with your caveat…
Additionally, several of us encounter folks who do literally berate us for examples as blatant and twisted as my example. For instance, once I had the gall to suggest that while being grateful for Elder Holland’s willingness to share his experience with depression, I also recognized that it was not the “best most perfect talk ever given”. I described the talk as a good start, and historic in its own sense, but certainly not the final word. I was denounced as someone not “following the prophet” (lower case).
So while you personally may say this caveat, I would suggest that the vast majority of saints don’t say it. I fear that most of them don’t think it. That’s where a lot of this miscommunication stems from.
So from your caveat, “Is there anything you disagree with doctrinally that has been repeated unanimously and repeatedly” I would answer no. But the question, “Do you have disagreements with how individual leaders have chosen to express their beliefs from time to time” I would answer yes.
Do I understand with what you have written so far, that you believe all Latter-day Saints have the right to express their disagreement with the latter?
The only thing that I want to reiterate is that I had read your caveat, and noted it, but it was easily forgotten when encountered with some of the following rhetoric, which is frequently employed, lacking said caveat. Try including it more, and seeing if it makes a difference in future discussions, however unwieldy it appears.
Follow the prophet – unless that prophet isn’t *the* prophet and he’s telling you to something you know to be wrong.
That’s the message Emma and Joseph made over and over again, rather stridently, during the first half of 1842 when they knew there were highly-placed leaders (e.g., not just Bennett) who were telling women they were supposed to have illicit intercourse (and convincing other men that this was their right and even duty).
Of course, this history convolves with the priesthood ban, since two of the five priesthood-holding men were engaging in gross sexual sin, coercing women to engage in sex with them. A third merely married a white woman. The fourth was the father of the third who had married the white women.
So given a 40% holy freaking heck nasty awful track record, combined with an 80% track record of being involved in offending 1800s sensibilities about not mixing race, it shouldn’t be surprising at all that Brigham made a policy decision, givent that Joseph hadn’t performed a sealing uniting a black individual to a white individual (as had been proposed to Jane Manning and sealing her as a daughter to the Smiths).
Given that the Church had willingly followed Brigham’s racist lead, it served them right to have to live with the accursed ban for long enough to truly, deeply, resent it, and why the prophets would have been forced to plead long and hard before God would let them remove the hair shirt their forebears had landed on them.
I say them, since I am an amalgamated mixed race child from an era when such things were forbidden by Utah law, but permitted by the Church. Being good legal people, that meant my parents traveled to a state where their marriage wouldn’t be void and prohibited and got married there.
“What does one do when one is *convinced* (from whatever witness/means) that the apostles and prophets are wrong on some major point of “doctrine” – yet (implicitly) when one *also believes* that the LDS Church is what it claims to be, e.g., the restored Church (i.e., recognized by God as being efficacious)?”
I can’t honestly say I’ve ever been in this position. I can think of no time that I have been convinced a Church policy was wrong while it was still in effect. For example, while I honestly rejoiced at the end of the ban, I looked on it as the fulfillment of prophecy perfectly in keeping with prior revelation, not as a mistake that had finally been corrected. Likewise, I positively rejoiced when the mission duration was changed to 18 months for young elders, for the not very admirable reason that I was anxious to get home and marry my girlfriend. (Which turned out to be deeply ironic. Long story for another time.)
However, there was a time quite recently when I came to the view that the priesthood ban was a mistake that the Lord chose, for His own purposes, to leave uncorrected for a time. I might then have been in the camp of believing the Church leaders were inspired men called of God, yet capable of mistakenly continuing to teach a flawed doctrine.
However, even more recently, while I was studying the events leading to the revelation ending the ban in preparation for teaching a Sunday School lesson, I found myself a lot less inclined to assume the Brethren made a mistake. The Lord has His own purposes, and while I am certain they will make sense once I fully understand them (otherwise God would not be a Being worthy of worship) that does not mean I will always understand them now. I do not know the reason for the ban. The Church as a body does not know. That does not mean that there was not a reason that made sense to God, which will have us snapping our fingers and saying “Oh, right” once we understand it.
I mentioned the other case where I am tempted to believe the Brethren made a mistake, and that is the 18-month mission duration for young elders. It comes across as an experiment that worked out badly and was promptly ended. But then it was hardly a matter of doctrine.
I am speaking of the united Brethren acting officially. I have had a number of disagreements with individual Brethren writing unofficial encyclopedias. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
So I guess I’ve been back and forth on this, except for holding to the belief that the Brethren do in fact have a stewardship from God with which I have not myself been entrusted.