I wish mormonism would be the dominant religion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I fail to see how Scott even attempted to defend the policy. He said he believed it to be a mistake.

I know you addressed this to Scott and not to me, but I can't help but wonder what you think either he or I could possibly do to make up for the pain and heartache caused by a policy we would never have implemented in the first place. I'd also like to know how you think either of us (or any Latter-day Saint, for that matter) should go about changing the LDS leadership or "the system." It's easy enough for a non-Mormon to tell us that we need to be pro-active, but from a practical standpoint, there really is nothing we can do to change a system that is not based on the democratic process. When I believe our leaders have made mistakes in the past, I've always been willing to say so, and it sounds to me as if Scott is willing to, too. I'm just saying that it's really pretty pointless for someone who doesn't know how the system works to be saying that the lay membership of the Church ought to do something to fix it. All we can do as individual Mormons is be honest about these issues (which I believe we have been) and try our best to live the gospel of Jesus Christ as we believe it should be lived. We can't force the Church's leadership to change. Period.

You might not be able to force the LDS leadership to change, but you are able to decide how and whether you participate with the LDS Church. Nobody has put a gun to your head. Your membership in the Church and your acknowledgement of the authority of the Church's leadership is a choice of you and you alone.

You and Scott say that you disapproved of this policy... but you stayed. What I take from this is that neither of you felt that the policy was bad enough to make you leave.

Also, I question how powerless individuals Mormons really are to change Church policy. The LDS Church has reacted to threats to its strength and power before; if it was willing to get rid of polygamy in response to government seizure of Church assets, maybe enough members refusing to tithe would have changed their minds about this racist policy (or other objectionable policies) much sooner.

 

[Katzpur]

You might not be able to force the LDS leadership to change, but you are able to decide how and whether you participate with the LDS Church. Nobody has put a gun to your head. Your membership in the Church and your acknowledgement of the authority of the Church's leadership is a choice of you and you alone.

You and Scott say that you disapproved of this policy... but you stayed. What I take from this is that neither of you felt that the policy was bad enough to make you leave.

Well, I can't speak for Scott, but you are absolutely right that I didn't feel the policy was bad enough to make me leave. The bottom line for me is that for every reason I can think of to leave Mormonism (and, instead, either embrace something else or nothing else), I can think of a dozen reasons to stay. Mormonism has made me a better person than I would be otherwise, and has given my more meaning and clarity to my life than any other belief system I could have chosen. The Church isn't perfect, but then I don't expect it to be.

Also, I question how powerless individuals Mormons really are to change Church policy. The LDS Church has reacted to threats to its strength and power before; if it was willing to get rid of polygamy in response to government seizure of Church assets, maybe enough members refusing to tithe would have changed their minds about this racist policy (or other objectionable policies) much sooner.

Well, you go right ahead and question it, if it makes you feel good. Something tells me I have a better grasp of the situation than you do, but hey, that's just me and my ego talking.

 

[Scott C.]

You might not be able to force the LDS leadership to change, but you are able to decide how and whether you participate with the LDS Church. Nobody has put a gun to your head. Your membership in the Church and your acknowledgement of the authority of the Church's leadership is a choice of you and you alone.

As I mentioned earlier, at the time of the ban I believed it was from God. The fact that I now see the mistake does not change my acceptance of the restoration of the Church of Christ on earth. I believe God restored the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith. I believe Christ is at the head of the church. I don't consider leaving. I will say that I have come to realize that while Christ is at the head of the church, he does allow the leaders whom he selects to make mistakes, more so than I previously believed. While in retrospect, the racial views of many past leaders are so incorrect and biased, I still generally hold those men in high esteem. They did great things with their lives and in their church service. They were not haters.

I see God and his gospel as perfect. God's church, to the extent that we mean the humans who make up and run the church, are imperfect. I will continue to support and pray for those who lead me. I will continue to have faith that God is doing wondrous things through his church, in spite of the member's weaknesses.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I can't speak for Scott, but you are absolutely right that I didn't feel the policy was bad enough to make me leave. The bottom line for me is that for every reason I can think of to leave Mormonism (and, instead, either embrace something else or nothing else), I can think of a dozen reasons to stay. Mormonism has made me a better person than I would be otherwise, and has given my more meaning and clarity to my life than any other belief system I could have chosen. The Church isn't perfect, but then I don't expect it to be.

Well, that would have been one way to speak out. This issue was coming to a head during and after the eradication of segregation. You could have stolen a few ideas from their playbook: letter writing, boycotts, sit-ins, etc. The discriminatory businesses that were targeted for these sorts of actions weren't democracies either, but these actions did often effect change.

Denying African-American people sandwiches was enough to get thousands of white people to boycott their local lunch counters. Apparently, denying African-American people priestly offices - denying them their supposed calling in the supposed one true church - was not as important.

Well, you go right ahead and question it, if it makes you feel good. Something tells me I have a better grasp of the situation than you do, but hey, that's just me and my ego talking.

A church's strength is derived from its membership. Even if it's unwilling to budge on issues of doctrine or policy, if enough people leave, then the church becomes irrelevant and can be replaced with something better.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I mentioned earlier, at the time of the ban I believed it was from God. The fact that I now see the mistake does not change my acceptance of the restoration of the Church of Christ on earth. I believe God restored the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith. I believe Christ is at the head of the church. I don't consider leaving. I will say that I have come to realize that while Christ is at the head of the church, he does allow the leaders whom he selects to make mistakes, more so than I previously believed. While in retrospect, the racial views of many past leaders are so incorrect and biased, I still generally hold those men in high esteem. They did great things with their lives and in their church service. They were not haters.

I see God and his gospel as perfect. God's church, to the extent that we mean the humans who make up and run the church, are imperfect. I will continue to support and pray for those who lead me. I will continue to have faith that God is doing wondrous things through his church, in spite of the member's weaknesses.

What do you think the next mistake is going to turn out to be? Opposition to same-sex marriage? The ban on female priests?

I assume that you think that the current LDS Church leadership is made up of good men who are sincerely doing their best to follow God, but it sounds like you think this describes the LDS Church leadership throughout its history, and these supposedly good and well-meaning men managed to institute this racist policy and support it for more than a century.

Knowing that these people make mistakes despite their good intentions, does this make you doubt any other policies or decisions they've made that are still in effect?

 

[Scott C.]

I believe that "Sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is a sin" is here to stay. I believe that "God ordained that men only hold the priesthood" is here to stay. Unlike the prior priesthood ban, these are well established in scripture and as doctrine.
On the other hand, the Church's approach or attitude towards gay marriage could change IMO.

Part of being prophets in our changing society is to be in tune with "what does God want the church to do now to accomplish it's central mission?" The central mission may not change, but the inspiration on "how" to get it done changes based on culture and changing times. This does not mean that we got it wrong at first, nor does it mean that God changed his mind.

 

[Norman]

I don't think there's any faith in the global market place of ideas that can't be made to look ridiculous. ;-)

Hello Brother Scott, This is brother Norman just saying hello. I have been a member of the church for thirty years now. I joined the church when I was twenty years old. It has brought me a lot of happiness and joy in my life. I get a bit frustrated when non-members try to define what we believe. I know this has bothered Elder Ballard for a long time. With everything that I have read the church is using media a lot to respond to questions and to spread the message of the restoration. I read all your post's and I see a very humble and patient man. God Bless You.

 

[Scott C.]

Hello Brother Scott

Hi Norman, it's nice to meet you! There was a time when seeing somebody post a picture of garments would have freaked me out and ticked me off. Now, I figure, hey, this stuff is all over the internet and some people are not going to respect things that I think should be respected. So, I choose to chill. I consider the Church's response to the musical "The Book of Mormon". Rather than freak out about it, they simply run ads in the program "You've seen the play, now read the book." Genius!!

I enjoy your posts also. Keep it up! We all have a different style. I don't have the patience to write real long and detailed posts. I also don't have the knowledge to write a dissertation on DNA. I'll leave that to other Mormon defenders of the faith. As for me, I'll tell my story of the gospel as I feel so inclined and hope that somebody may learn something or change a negative view about my faith. I also freely describe things as I see them, knowing that others of my faith may disagree.

I enjoy talking to all of you out there. I used to look at ugly avatars and decide that certain people were creeps or angry or down right mean. Hahaha. Now I try to ignore that and assume that everyone is good and we would have a great time together. I try to picture you in my living room in pjs and eating popcorn as I post.

Peace.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe that "Sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is a sin" is here to stay. I believe that "God ordained that men only hold the priesthood" is here to stay. Unlike the prior priesthood ban, these are well established in scripture and as doctrine.
On the other hand, the Church's approach or attitude towards gay marriage could change IMO.

Part of being prophets in our changing society is to be in tune with "what does God want the church to do now to accomplish it's central mission?" The central mission may not change, but the inspiration on "how" to get it done changes based on culture and changing times. This does not mean that we got it wrong at first, nor does it mean that God changed his mind.

This makes it sound like you've almost completely retreated from your position that the church leaders are flawed (albeit good and well-meaning) men who still make mistakes despite their best efforts. The one issue where you did concede that the Church might change (approach to same-sex marriage) is one where a change could have absolutely nothing to do with a change in the Church's values or beliefs.

Does your realization that the LDS leadership has made mistakes in the past inform how you approach the Church today at all? Do you ever stop and say to yourself "I think they're sincere on this issue, but I'd better gather more evidence/read relevant scripture/pray for guidance/etc. to help myself be more confident in what they're saying"?

 

[Scott C.]

This makes it sound like you've almost completely retreated from your position that the church leaders are flawed (albeit good and well-meaning) men who still make mistakes despite their best efforts...

Does your realization that the LDS leadership has made mistakes in the past inform how you approach the Church today at all?

I haven't retreated from what I said elsewhere in this thread, so you may have misunderstood me. Yes, my realization of past mistakes makes me less inclined to accept every policy without more personal reflection and consideration. But by no means, do I consider everything to be questionable that comes from my leaders. There are core doctrines and values which are inherent in the gospel. I do not expect those to change. In fact, if they did change, it would challenge my faith that my church is what it claims to be.

For example, if my church decided that homosexual behavior is not a sin after all, that would seriously cause me to doubt my church. The problem would NOT be that I want homosexuality to be a sin, rather the problem would be that I expect the Church of Jesus Christ and the holy scriptures to be correct on core values.

I belong to my church because I believe that it stands apart in important ways from all other churches. I believe it was literally established by God through many specific heavenly visitations and revelations. I believe that ancient apostles literally gave the priesthood to Joseph Smith. Since I believe those things, my expectations for the integrity of doctrine is much higher than if I belonged to a Christian denomination which was man made with self appointed or elected leaders. That's not a dig on such churches. It's just a very different model.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I haven't retreated from what I said elsewhere in this thread, so you may have misunderstood me. Yes, my realization of past mistakes makes me less inclined to accept every policy without more personal reflection and consideration. But by no means, do I consider everything to be questionable that comes from my leaders. There are core doctrines and values which are inherent in the gospel. I do not expect those to change. In fact, if they did change, it would challenge my faith that my church is what it claims to be.

For example, if my church decided that homosexual behavior is not a sin after all, that would seriously cause me to doubt my church. The problem would NOT be that I want homosexuality to be a sin, rather the problem would be that I expect the Church of Jesus Christ and the holy scriptures to be correct on core values.

So a century of institutional racism is compatible with the core values of the Church of Jesus Christ?

I suppose what you said flows logically from that premise, but it's not a premise I would have assumed. Interesting.

I belong to my church because I believe that it stands apart in important ways from all other churches. I believe it was literally established by God through many specific heavenly visitations and revelations. I believe that ancient apostles literally gave the priesthood to Joseph Smith. Since I believe those things, my expectations for the integrity of doctrine is much higher than if I belonged to a Christian denomination which was man made with self appointed or elected leaders. That's not a dig on such churches. It's just a very different model.

Again: these high standards weren't violated by a century of racist policies and rhetoric?

 

[Scott C.]

So a century of institutional racism is compatible with the core values of the Church of Jesus Christ?

I suppose what you said flows logically from that premise, but it's not a premise I would have assumed. Interesting.


Again: these high standards weren't violated by a century of racist policies and rhetoric?

Core value: God loves all races the same - The lifting of the priesthood ban aligned church policy with the core value.

Core value: Chastity, no sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman - A "lifting of the ban" on premarital or homosexual sex would put the church out of alignment with it's core value. It would not be a change of policy, it would be a change of core values.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Core value: God loves all races the same - The lifting of the priesthood ban aligned church policy with the core value.

So the policy did violate a core value? I thought you said it didn't.

... or am I conflating core values with doctrine?

Core value: Chastity, no sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman - A "lifting of the ban" on premarital or homosexual sex would put the church out of alignment with it's core value. It would not be a change of policy, it would be a change of core values.

So in 1850 when the ban was implemented, this was a change of core values for the Church?

 

[Scott C.]

So the policy did violate a core value? I thought you said it didn't.

... or am I conflating core values with doctrine?


So in 1850 when the ban was implemented, this was a change of core values for the Church?

God's equal love and trust for all races is a core value of my church. Pre-1978, I saw the ban as a restriction placed on blacks for unknown reasons, none of which could be out of step with that core value. In retrospect, since there seems to be no valid reasons that God would have ever had the ban, I'm left to conclude that the ban was motivated by biases inconsistent with that core value. I can't judge the extent to which individual leader's hearts were or were not attuned to the core value of love and respect for all races, when they implemented and continued the ban.

 

[Sapiens]

... I can't judge the extent to which individual leader's hearts were or were not attuned to the core value of love and respect for all races, when they implemented and continued the ban.

[sarcasm]That's awfully white of you[/sarcasm]

I sure as hell can make that judgement, it does not require a high IQ or any special abilities.

 

[Scott C.]

I sure as hell can make that judgement, it does not require a high IQ or any special abilities.

And yet it requires skills which you apparently lack.

 

[Sapiens]

And yet it requires skills which you apparently lack.

With all due respect, you seem to be the one unable to make a simple and obvious decision.

 

[Scott C.]

With all due respect, you seem to be the one unable to make a simple and obvious decision.

I made a decision. The ban was wrong. My church leaders misinterpreted scripture and came to the wrong conclusion. You are mistaken to assume that those who misinterpreted scripture were motivated by a sense of white superiority and some inherent desire to put down people of color. You may find that hard to believe. But, I sense that you do not understand the nature of my church, it's people, or it's leaders. I'm not saying that there have been no racist arrogant bigots in my church, who enjoyed putting down people of color. But, my experience growing up in my church, is that such is the exception, including among those who believed the ban was mandated by God. If you assume the worst about those who supported the ban, I believe you are mistaken.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I made a decision. The ban was wrong. My church leaders misinterpreted scripture and came to the wrong conclusion. You are mistaken to assume that those who misinterpreted scripture were motivated by a sense of white superiority and some inherent desire to put down people of color. You may find that hard to believe. But, I sense that you do not understand the nature of my church, it's people, or it's leaders. I'm not saying that there have been no racist arrogant bigots in my church, who enjoyed putting down people of color. But, my experience growing up in my church, is that such is the exception, including among those who believed the ban was mandated by God. If you assume the worst about those who supported the ban, I believe you are mistaken.

So the person who said this didn't look down on "people of colour"?

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind .... Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the 'servant of servants'; and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.

... or was Brigham Young one of those exceptions that you described?

Edit: these views came from somewhere. If they didn't come from the scriptures themselves and they didn't come from the biases of the people interpreting them, where did they come from?

 

[sojourner]

Any time absolute statements are made concerning a religion, beliefs, practices, ecclesiology, doctrine, polity, etc., there has to be a lot of double-speak and backpedaling in order to keep the mistakes from tainting the "God-bestowed purity" of the subject.

Example:
"Mormonism adheres to the original teachings of the bible, and Brigham Young was a true prophet."

"What about slavery?"

"Well... he made a mistake. It was later corrected."

"So, Mormonism doesn't 'adhere to the original teachings' and Brigham Young wasn't a true prophet?"

"Um..."

When the spiritual milieu is proclaimed as black-or-white, what do you do with all the gradients in between?

"Um..."