LDS

[TjW]

Your transparently false premise is that humans--even prophets--are capable of achieving absolute perfection in mortality. I think you know better than that. There are degrees of perfection. Whom will you follow? A person who has made minimal progress toward becoming perfect, or one who--like Brigham Young--made exemplary progress toward becoming perfect, warts and all?

All the hand-wringing discussion that occurs on this thread comes down to one overarching fact: You are a closed-case atheist by your own admission. Consequently, for you, God doesn't exist--and never will. What that means is that there is nothing a faith-based person can post that will be acceptable to you. Thus, exchanges with you are merely exercises in debate, which, I confess, does have value as entertainment.

The issue is not whether a prophet has achieved absolute perfection in mortality.

I have not achieved perfection in mortality. I can say true things, and I can say absolute tosh.

Brigham Young did not achieve perfection in mortality. He can say true things, and he can say absolute tosh.

The issue is, how do you tell the difference between the truth and the absolute tosh?

You can't use whether something comes from me or comes from Brigham Young.
Anyone is capable of truth, anyone capable of tosh.
If a person claiming to speak for God is wrong about what God wants, he's no prophet, he's a loss.

Janadele's position is actually more self-consistent than yours. I would paraphrase it as:
"God isn't racist now, but he was racist then. We can't know why." I wouldn't call it sensible, but it's self consistent.

I would paraphrase yours as "Brigham Young was a prophet, and spoke the Word of God in that role. So we should believe what he said. Unless what he said as a prophet is inconvenient or embarrassing. In that case, he was only a mortal man, subject to imperfection."

You want it both ways. Fallible infallibility. No one here -- not even, I think, Janadele -- is willing to let you have it both ways.

 

[jsfisher]

Your transparently false premise is that humans--even prophets--are capable of achieving absolute perfection in mortality.
...<snip>...

You continue to evade questions. Strawman this time. Variety is good, I suppose. Nevertheless, while the dodge and weave maneuvers are amusing, they are also telling. Here, though, in case you do have a direct response: How does the LDS Church now know that Brigham Young's proclamations regarding blacks was incorrect (and not the 1978 proclamation)?

It is really meant as a simple question. I can see where discussing the contradiction the question exposes could cause some LDS members some disquiet, but it is still a question worthy of exploration.

My simple (atheistic if you wish) tentative hypothesis is that the LDS Church is more pragmatic than faithful to its own teachings. As I learn more about the Church, I find evidence in support this hypothesis.

 

[jsfisher]

It's apparently your position that persons of color were ready to receive the priesthood in BY's day.

How about we put the strawman away for a bit, ok?, and save dodge ball for recess.

Some of the unanswered issues that have been raised are

• Was the racist proclamation that blacks were unfit for priesthood from God via Brigham Young, or did Young misunderstand or just ad lib that one? There should be no debate the proclamation was racist since it used race as its sole determinant, not readiness or any of several other potentially valid concerns.
• If the proclamation was not consistent with God's dicta, why did God wait 140 or so years to issue a correction?
• How does the Church determine that the 1978 proclamation is correct and Young's not? I do recall that Young phrased his as an absolute, never ever to change. Did never ever expire? Pete Rose will be so pleased.
• How does the Church distinguish true from false prophets? So far the answer seems to be "We know one with we see one." If that is the case, there is the old hag in the Philippines you simply must meet.

 

[Pup]

It's apparently your position that persons of color were ready to receive the priesthood in BY's day. How do you know that? It's possible that BY's statements--repugnant as they are to us today--had a kernel of truth to them. It's also possible that the Lord told BY "Not yet." And it's a certainty that you don't know what the Lord told BY, nor do I.

Ignoring for a minute how we define "persons of color" and "whites"...

My position is that persons of color were equal to whites in all ways except genetic heritage, both being a mix of good, bad, smart, stupid, kind, mean, etc.

My position is also that the priesthood is, by definition, what the church declares it to be. It has no meaning or existence outside of official church declarations.

Do you know, for a fact, that refusing the priesthood on race for 100+ years led the Church astray? If that were actually the case, why didn't the Church fail instead of thriving? You have constructed a false dichotomy.

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought your point about Brigham Young being a fallible human was because you felt that denying the priesthood to blacks was a mistake that led the church astray.

If that's not what you meant, what errors were you referring to in this post?

Is it not true that BY's errors were eventually corrected by the prophets that followed him?

What were you implying by listing the short terms of these prophets?

you might wish to reflect on the fact that Pres. Harold B. Lee, who opposed granting the priesthood to all worthy male members, had--with Pres. Howard Hunter--the shortest term of all the prophets that preceded him (1972-1973).

 

[tsig]

Guys it is so simple.

Everything my church is saying right at this moment is flawless, perfect, incontrovertible, and without question. Everything they were wrong about before they were wrong about, but that can't call into question how perfectly right they are right now. Any thing they are proven wrong about in the future will retcon it so that whatever they are saying at that time will be flawless, perfect, incontrovertible and without question and that doesn't cause any mental problem with the fact that I am claiming the same thing right now.

So basically the only thing my church can ever be wrong about is the last time it claimed it was right about everything prior to the current time it is claiming to be right about everything.

And this all makes perfect sense.

I'm just not spry enough to be a believer, the Uneven Bars of Belief and the Pummeled Horse of Logic let alone all of the other mental gymnastics are quite beyond me.

 

[tsig]

Your transparently false premise is that humans--even prophets--are capable of achieving absolute perfection in mortality. I think you know better than that. There are degrees of perfection. Whom will you follow? A person who has made minimal progress toward becoming perfect, or one who--like Brigham Young--made exemplary progress toward becoming perfect, warts and all?

All the hand-wringing discussion that occurs on this thread comes down to one overarching fact: You are a closed-case atheist by your own admission. Consequently, for you, God doesn't exist--and never will. What that means is that there is nothing a faith-based person can post that will be acceptable to you. Thus, exchanges with you are merely exercises in debate, which, I confess, does have value as entertainment.

Straw man, no one is asking for moral perfection just a little accuracy in the prophesying.

 

[Cat Tale]

Let me be clear: I have never said nor even suggested that God will allow His prophets to lead the Church astray.

You actually said that Brigham Young goofed. So yeah, ya kinda did.

It's apparently your position that persons of color were ready to receive the priesthood in BY's day. How do you know that?

Because they were already holding the Melchizedek priesthood, and doing such with honor and integrity. That would seem to be the most obvious proof.

It's possible that BY's statements--repugnant as they are to us today--had a kernel of truth to them. It's also possible that the Lord told BY "Not yet." And it's a certainty that you don't know what the Lord told BY, nor do I.

I don't see why the Lord would tell Brigham Young, "not yet" since some blacks were already holding the Melchizedek priesthood; serving missions, etc., and being successful in both their lives and their callings.

Do you know, for a fact, that refusing the priesthood on race for 100+ years led the Church astray?
You assume that the priesthood ban implemented by BY led the Church astray. What evidence can you marshal to prove that? Moreover, you are not privy to what the Lord may have told BY, are you?

Well, for starters I'd say it promoted racism and bullying within the church.

FWIW, I think that President Hinckley made it clear that the Church/Brigham Young made a mistake, when he apologized to Rev. Cecil Murray of the AME Church in LA. (punctuation is mine) Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons.

I have learned of the background of your church [African Methodist Episcopal] and the founding of your church and I want to apologize for whatever role the Mormon Church played, not only there, but has played in racism in America.

For what it's worth the film was produced by Margaret Young and Darius Gray with support from the University of Utah. So it's interesting that President Hinckley actually apologized for slavery and racism within the Church, which means that Young was wrong.

Furthermore, President Hinckley, in his April 2006 General Conference report said,

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Perhaps so, although it was President Lee who stopped the momentum--created by Elder Hugh B. Brown--toward lifting the ban.

You're grasping for straws. Brigham Young goofed, as you originally said.

The legitimacy of your argument depends on what is meant by "leading the church astray."

To me, astray means to take something in a different direction than the initially sited goal. If we're to "do unto others..." than depriving a group of people the priesthood, after they've already shown they can do it, simply because of the color of their skin (Curse of Cain) then that's not heading toward the ultimate goal.

I am unaware that Woodruff claimed he was infallible.

The way I was taught in the church is that all the leaders of the Church are only human and therefore are prone to sometimes say or do things that only humans might do. But when they're acting as the mouth of God, they are then in the capacity of a Prophet and not a man, and what they say is truth.

What Brigham Young did to the African people is dispicable, there is no better word for it. I personally, don't believe that he was acting as the mouthpiece of God at that moment, but I believe that leaders of the church who followed never really questioned it. Most LDS at that time, and heck, even the potential converts were probably more comfortable with blacks not having the priesthood at that time, so it was never an issue until the Civil Rights movement. Why didn't God correct them? God only knows.

 

[skyrider44]

If one wants the prophets to be considered merely as other humans with no input from God, we can do that, but it seems that church members are the ones asking that something more be attributed to the prophets.

Obviously, as you know, that is not consistent with LDS doctrine. A prophet is a mouthpiece for God on earth, and is the only person who holds all the keys (the power, right, and authority) to preside over God's kingdom on earth. On what basis do you think Church members "are the ones asking that something more be attributed to prophets"?

: If we consider Brigham Young as just another person, then given all the people available to follow in his generation, I would not necessarily label him as one who "made exemplary progress toward becoming perfect."

Note the following: "With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. . . . The opinions and views even of prophets may contain errors unless those opinions and views are inspired by the Spirit" (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, 2nd ed., p. 608).

: Personally, I'm not big on being a follower of people rather than principles, but I don't see him as the obvious stand-out among the many people with flaws who tried to do their best: Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Frederick Douglass, Clara Barton...

That's fine. I understand. I respect your opinion, although I must ask, how are principles formulated without the active participation of people?

 

[jsfisher]

FWIW, I think that President Hinckley made it clear that the Church/Brigham Young made a mistake, when he apologized to Rev. Cecil Murray of the AME Church in LA.

Thanks, Cat Tale. That tells me the Church, through its president, did formally declare Brigham Young's proclamation as wrong. I consider this a positive for Mormonism.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . My position is also that the priesthood is, by definition, what the church declares it to be. It has no meaning or existence outside of official church declarations.

That being your position, why does any of this topic matter to you? I should think you would regard it as irrelevant and not worth your time. It's ancient history, and today all worthy male members can hold the priesthood.

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought your point about Brigham Young being a fallible human was because you felt that denying the priesthood to blacks was a mistake that led the church astray.

I did say BY "goofed." Subsequently, however, I find I need a clear definition of what constitutes "leading the church astray."

If that's not what you meant, what errors were you referring to in this post?

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

What were you implying by listing the short terms of these prophets?

I was simply speculating that perhaps the Lord felt it was time for new prophets to assume the mantle. Recall that President Lee stopped the momentum Elder Hugh B. Brown had developed re. lifting the ban. I emphasize, however, that I was only speculating, which I should not have done.

 

[kerikiwi]

True, God is never wrong, but those called to do His work in mortality are not infallible; i.e., they are, indeed, sometimes wrong.

Who calls them? Surely not God, because he is never wrong and would not call someone who will get it wrong.
So, again, who calls them?

 

[Pup]

Obviously, as you know, that is not consistent with LDS doctrine. A prophet is a mouthpiece for God on earth, and is the only person who holds all the keys (the power, right, and authority) to preside over God's kingdom on earth. On what basis do you think Church members "are the ones asking that something more be attributed to prophets"?

I mean that church members are doing just what you did in the above paragraph: asking/stating/proposing that the prophet is a mouthpiece for God on earth and similar supernatural attributes. Other people aren't asking that the prophet be considered as anything more than just another normal person with no special powers.

That's fine. I understand. I respect your opinion, although I must ask, how are principles formulated without the active participation of people?

Actually, I don't think that the principles are formulated by anything other than the active participation of people. It's just that I'm a lot more comfortable saying, for example, that I'd follow the principle of humble leadership rather than that I'd follow Robert E. Lee, or that I'd follow the principle of personal improvement rather than Frederick Douglass.

If one follows the person, it's too easy to get caught up in trying to justify or excuse or follow other parts of their character that aren't actually tied to the principle.

 

[RandFan]

Your transparently false premise is that humans--even prophets--are capable of achieving absolute perfection in mortality. I think you know better than that. There are degrees of perfection. Whom will you follow? A person who has made minimal progress toward becoming perfect, or one who--like Brigham Young--made exemplary progress toward becoming perfect, warts and all?

Brigham Young was an ugly racist. I'm willing to judge him by the light of his times but I do not accept that the character of god in the Bible would allow such a person to be his spokesperson. More importantly, why would such a god if it did exist allow Young to say something so ugly?

All the hand-wringing discussion that occurs on this thread comes down to one overarching fact: You are a closed-case atheist by your own admission. Consequently, for you, God doesn't exist--and never will. What that means is that there is nothing a faith-based person can post that will be acceptable to you. Thus, exchanges with you are merely exercises in debate, which, I confess, does have value as entertainment.

There is no logically valid argument here. You are just ad hominem poisoning the well. You are also throwing out red herrings. This isn't about me. You are breaking forum rules by personalizing the discussion. If you have evidence then present it. My mind can be changed. I've changed my mind about many things.

 

[Pup]

That being your position, why does any of this topic matter to you? I should think you would regard it as irrelevant and not worth your time. It's ancient history, and today all worthy male members can hold the priesthood.

Because I'm interested in history, 19th century U.S. history in particular. I recently wrote a book in the general field of slavery and abolitionism in the antebellum US, that'll be out next fall from a university press, and am working on another, so if I don't have a basic understanding of antebellum race relations, I'm gonna look kinda stupid.

Brigham Young's attitude toward blacks was typical of a large segment of the population at that time, even though he couched it in the terms of his own particular worldview, that he was a prophet of God. Because he wrote a lot, and a lot has been written about him, he's a fertile field to study, though admittedly I'm more interested in the east coast than the west.

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

I meant the errors you mentioned in the line I quoted just below that sentence. Sorry if that wasn't clear. What errors were you referring to in the follow sentence? "Is it not true that BY's errors were eventually corrected by the prophets that followed him?"

I thought you meant that disallowing blacks to hold the priesthood was one of his errors, which a subsequent prophet corrected, with the implication that such an error would be leading the church astray.

 

[Myriad]

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

As interesting as the discussion of prophetic accuracy or infallibility has been, it should be kept in mind that in the Christian faith, as the passage above shows, the new covenant brought by Jesus sets a somewhat different -- and in practice considerably higher -- bar for prophets than applied in the Old Testament.

I don't, in other words, particularly care about the failures of prediction of past and present Mormon leaders. It's the failures of love that have been, and are still, the problem.

That's what the the applied anti-black bigotry of the past was, and what the applied anti-gay bigotry of the present is.

It's the same backtalk to Jesus that's been going on for millennia: "When you said love thy neighbor, surely you didn't mean them!" Yes He did mean them, and you should stop calling Him Shirley.

The problem isn't change, it's failure to change when love calls for change.

For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[skyrider44]

How does the LDS Church now know that Brigham Young's proclamations regarding blacks was incorrect (and not the 1978 proclamation)?

In BY's era, bias against blacks was rampant. That bias was incorporated into ordinances and statutes, making discrimination perfectly legal. Ignorance about blacks was pervasive, even among some well-educated men and women. Was BY, being fallible, influenced by that environment? I think he probably was. When he implemented the ban, was he acting under the Spirit? I don't know, and neither do you.

The 1978 proclamation was correct for a multiplicity of reasons, foremost of which was that President Kimball sought guidance from the Lord to such an extent that he actually made himself ill (spent long days/nights in the temple).
Did secular pressure play a part? Of course, the first Civil Rights Act had been passed years earlier. Additionally, bias against blacks, based principally on ignorance, had been proven unjustified.

My simple (atheistic if you wish) tentative hypothesis is that the LDS Church is more pragmatic than faithful to its own teachings. As I learn more about the Church, I find evidence in support this hypothesis.

In my view, the reason the Church has a living prophet is to enable it to
implement the Lord-sanctioned changes that are essential for its survival.
As I have said before, no institution can survive if it unable to adapt to the changes that are inherent in a dynamic world. Otherwise, Emerson would still be manufacturing b&w TVs with 13-inch screens.

 

[RandFan]

In BY's era, bias against blacks was rampant. That bias was incorporated into ordinances and statutes, making discrimination perfectly legal. Ignorance about blacks was pervasive, even among some well-educated men and women. Was BY, being fallible, influenced by that environment? I think he probably was. When he implemented the ban, was he acting under the Spirit? I don't know, and neither do you.

In short you are saying that we cannot trust Mormon prophets.

Mormons: We have the truth because we have a prophet.
Question: Why did your prophet make ugly racist comments?
Mormons: Prophets are fallible.
Question: Then how can you trust that the prophet is just telling you his opinion?

 

[tsig]

In BY's era, bias against blacks was rampant. That bias was incorporated into ordinances and statutes, making discrimination perfectly legal. Ignorance about blacks was pervasive, even among some well-educated men and women. Was BY, being fallible, influenced by that environment? I think he probably was. When he implemented the ban, was he acting under the Spirit? I don't know, and neither do you.

The 1978 proclamation was correct for a multiplicity of reasons, foremost of which was that President Kimball sought guidance from the Lord to such an extent that he actually made himself ill (spent long days/nights in the temple).
Did secular pressure play a part? Of course, the first Civil Rights Act had been passed years earlier. Additionally, bias against blacks, based principally on ignorance, had been proven unjustified.



In my view, the reason the Church has a living prophet is to enable it to
implement the Lord-sanctioned changes that are essential for its survival.
As I have said before, no institution can survive if it unable to adapt to the changes that are inherent in a dynamic world. Otherwise, Emerson would still be manufacturing b&w TVs with 13-inch screens.

Emerson managed to adapt and survive without divine instruction so why does your church need it?

 

[bruto]

Note the following:

"Mormons give to their churches at a much higher rate than other Christian denominations, three times as much in some cases. . . . [Mormons] are required to give 10% of their incomes to remain in good standing and almost 80% donate, according to a recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public life." (Tampa Bay Times, "Why Mormons are the most likely to tithe," Leonora LaPeter Anton, Feb. 5, 2012).

Please identify members of any other Christian church who pay tithing to the extent that Mormons do.

I imagine that the difference is here. Many Christians of many denominations are asked to donate and tithing is a traditional proportion, but most Christian denominations do not require it. Some would even go so far as to say that required tithing is antithetical to their beliefs.

 

[Janadele]

...