Apology
I think it is important for someone to present a rational perspective in answer to the concerns presented by Paul in his last post. Although my perspective is not necessarily "authoritative", I believe that there are points which need to be made in response.
Before I attempt to answer any of the individual concerns, however, I would like to address an implication that seemed to be one of the themes of the post. Namely, that the church should change its perspective on issues such as homosexuality, the historical nature of the book of Mormon, and the idea that church policies are guided by revelation (as opposed to, for example, the racist tendencies of Brigham Young). Perhaps I misunderstood what you were advocating, but it seems apparent to me that certain issues, including some of those mentioned, are so critical to the belief system of the church that it would be impossible to change them while still maintaining that "the Church is true". Of course, this has not prevented a great many churches from abandoning any sort of literal belief system. But if you want a church that believes that the Book of Mormon is a myth, that there is no literal priesthood authority/revelation, and a host of other more politically correct ideas you would be better served to seek another church than to wish changes upon the existing one.
Having said that, I do not believe that the issues you raised are indefensible. Let us begin with DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon. I agree that given our current understanding there is no preponderance of DNA evidence that would provide a scientific verfication of the theory that inhabitants of the New World emigrated from Israel. In fact, I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. However, it is important to point out that a lack of proof is not logically equivalent to a proof of the opposite. This is critical because most of the people who believe the Book of Mormon to be a literal account do not justify this belief based on DNA evidence to begin with. I would say that the justification has more to do with personal spiritual experiences that lead them to believe the account of Joseph Smith that he was visited by angels and led to discover gold plates. There are also witnesses who testified to the existence of the gold plates. So let us suppose for a moment that the testimony of these witnesses were sufficient proof to believe in the literal nature of the Book of Mormon. There would be no inconsistency in believing that such proof exists and also believing that DNA proof was not available. Surely, if DNA proof were evident it would be a lot easier to believe the other, but again, a lack of proof does not constitute a disproof. The Book of Mormon also explicitly says that those most likely to carry the original DNA markers (the Nephites) were essentially destroyed. It does not explicitly say that the only inhabitants of the New World were of Israelite descent. Still, the most important point is that if you have accepted the truth of the BOM for other reasons, the DNA evidence does not force a contradiction.
The issue of blacks receiving the priesthood is a very sensitive one, but I think your representation of the issue has been less than fair. First of all, one of the basic tenets of the gospel is the concept of foreordination. These days it is politically incorrect to say that any race has any special abilities or any special relationship to God, but the Bible is pretty clear about the concept of a chosen people. Also, it just so happens that the chosen people of the the Bible, the Jews, are demonstrably "chosen" in at least one very important way. Namely, they have an average IQ that is significantly higher than the rest of the population. Am I a racist for saying this? Perhaps, but it is a simple fact. That there are racial differences is a scientific fact. That God gives certain responsibilities and prerogatives to certain groups of people is a Biblical "fact". It is also true that the responsibilities that people assume within a society are to a large part determined by the level to which that society has advanced. For example, I would argue (and there is siginificant evidence to support) the idea that in many socieites, especially those at certain levels of development, the practice of polygamy is beneficial. I would also argue that given certain circumstances, a caste system such as existed in India is advantageous. Since God is responsible for the welfare of the whole race and not just each individual it is reasonable to assume that an institution which is beneficial on the whole might have His sanction.
When the church was established, a lot of effort was put forth to try and mimic the organization of the early church. Also, people had their own ideas of what was acceptable given their own social context. I do not believe that God micro-managed the church in every way. I believe that some things could have been done better. However, I also believe that there was Biblical justification for the development of the institutions as they stood (if we accept that it was taken as fact that the black races were not descendents of Israel, and were still subject to a "curse" inherited from their ancestors). I agree that not all of the institutions had their beginnings in the actions of Joseph Smith. But Jospeh Smith was never seen as God. He was seen as the first prophet of the modern age. There was prudence in the decision of subsequent prophets to wait until they felt they had explicit authorization from God to extend the priesthood to blacks if for no other reason than they felt that the job of a prophet is to act in God's name and not just make politically correct decisions.
What I am advocating is that the morality of social institutions changes with the development of society. This may sound like "moral relativism", and in a sense it most certainly is. But by nature (especially when it comes to modern physics) I often fall in the camp of the relativists. In saying this, I would also like to point out that it creates a strong possibility of finding common ground on many issues. I think that in certain ways the church will, and should change. I think everyone would agree that it is better that blacks have the priesthood. I simply disagree with the idea that there was never any justification for racial, or gender, distinctions within the church. I adhere to the concept of spiritual and physical foreordination. I think that the house of Israel is a chosen people and that God literally placed certain people in certain ancestral relation to each other for a reason. A correlary of this is that certain people are not "chosen" in the same sense. But bitterness over not being "chosen" for whatever purpose you wish to be is the motivation for the first and many subsequent spiritual rebellions.
The final comment that I would like to make is that to believe in a religion is always going to require a leap of faith. This means that we are going to have to make a hard decision. On one side is always going to be what seems to be a preponderance of physical evidence that fails to justify belief. On the other side is going to be a desire to believe. It is the responsibility of the church to be true to the central tenets of faith that best represent our spiritual desire. It is not the responsibility of the church bend in the face of political pressure or a lack of scientific confirmation. If guided by the Spirit, this will not necessarily lead to physical conflicts such as the Catholic persecution of Galileo, since the Spirit has no need to get defensive about advances in science. However, I think that internal conflicts are inevitable, and a necessary part of our growth.
Before I attempt to answer any of the individual concerns, however, I would like to address an implication that seemed to be one of the themes of the post. Namely, that the church should change its perspective on issues such as homosexuality, the historical nature of the book of Mormon, and the idea that church policies are guided by revelation (as opposed to, for example, the racist tendencies of Brigham Young). Perhaps I misunderstood what you were advocating, but it seems apparent to me that certain issues, including some of those mentioned, are so critical to the belief system of the church that it would be impossible to change them while still maintaining that "the Church is true". Of course, this has not prevented a great many churches from abandoning any sort of literal belief system. But if you want a church that believes that the Book of Mormon is a myth, that there is no literal priesthood authority/revelation, and a host of other more politically correct ideas you would be better served to seek another church than to wish changes upon the existing one.
Having said that, I do not believe that the issues you raised are indefensible. Let us begin with DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon. I agree that given our current understanding there is no preponderance of DNA evidence that would provide a scientific verfication of the theory that inhabitants of the New World emigrated from Israel. In fact, I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. However, it is important to point out that a lack of proof is not logically equivalent to a proof of the opposite. This is critical because most of the people who believe the Book of Mormon to be a literal account do not justify this belief based on DNA evidence to begin with. I would say that the justification has more to do with personal spiritual experiences that lead them to believe the account of Joseph Smith that he was visited by angels and led to discover gold plates. There are also witnesses who testified to the existence of the gold plates. So let us suppose for a moment that the testimony of these witnesses were sufficient proof to believe in the literal nature of the Book of Mormon. There would be no inconsistency in believing that such proof exists and also believing that DNA proof was not available. Surely, if DNA proof were evident it would be a lot easier to believe the other, but again, a lack of proof does not constitute a disproof. The Book of Mormon also explicitly says that those most likely to carry the original DNA markers (the Nephites) were essentially destroyed. It does not explicitly say that the only inhabitants of the New World were of Israelite descent. Still, the most important point is that if you have accepted the truth of the BOM for other reasons, the DNA evidence does not force a contradiction.
The issue of blacks receiving the priesthood is a very sensitive one, but I think your representation of the issue has been less than fair. First of all, one of the basic tenets of the gospel is the concept of foreordination. These days it is politically incorrect to say that any race has any special abilities or any special relationship to God, but the Bible is pretty clear about the concept of a chosen people. Also, it just so happens that the chosen people of the the Bible, the Jews, are demonstrably "chosen" in at least one very important way. Namely, they have an average IQ that is significantly higher than the rest of the population. Am I a racist for saying this? Perhaps, but it is a simple fact. That there are racial differences is a scientific fact. That God gives certain responsibilities and prerogatives to certain groups of people is a Biblical "fact". It is also true that the responsibilities that people assume within a society are to a large part determined by the level to which that society has advanced. For example, I would argue (and there is siginificant evidence to support) the idea that in many socieites, especially those at certain levels of development, the practice of polygamy is beneficial. I would also argue that given certain circumstances, a caste system such as existed in India is advantageous. Since God is responsible for the welfare of the whole race and not just each individual it is reasonable to assume that an institution which is beneficial on the whole might have His sanction.
When the church was established, a lot of effort was put forth to try and mimic the organization of the early church. Also, people had their own ideas of what was acceptable given their own social context. I do not believe that God micro-managed the church in every way. I believe that some things could have been done better. However, I also believe that there was Biblical justification for the development of the institutions as they stood (if we accept that it was taken as fact that the black races were not descendents of Israel, and were still subject to a "curse" inherited from their ancestors). I agree that not all of the institutions had their beginnings in the actions of Joseph Smith. But Jospeh Smith was never seen as God. He was seen as the first prophet of the modern age. There was prudence in the decision of subsequent prophets to wait until they felt they had explicit authorization from God to extend the priesthood to blacks if for no other reason than they felt that the job of a prophet is to act in God's name and not just make politically correct decisions.
What I am advocating is that the morality of social institutions changes with the development of society. This may sound like "moral relativism", and in a sense it most certainly is. But by nature (especially when it comes to modern physics) I often fall in the camp of the relativists. In saying this, I would also like to point out that it creates a strong possibility of finding common ground on many issues. I think that in certain ways the church will, and should change. I think everyone would agree that it is better that blacks have the priesthood. I simply disagree with the idea that there was never any justification for racial, or gender, distinctions within the church. I adhere to the concept of spiritual and physical foreordination. I think that the house of Israel is a chosen people and that God literally placed certain people in certain ancestral relation to each other for a reason. A correlary of this is that certain people are not "chosen" in the same sense. But bitterness over not being "chosen" for whatever purpose you wish to be is the motivation for the first and many subsequent spiritual rebellions.
The final comment that I would like to make is that to believe in a religion is always going to require a leap of faith. This means that we are going to have to make a hard decision. On one side is always going to be what seems to be a preponderance of physical evidence that fails to justify belief. On the other side is going to be a desire to believe. It is the responsibility of the church to be true to the central tenets of faith that best represent our spiritual desire. It is not the responsibility of the church bend in the face of political pressure or a lack of scientific confirmation. If guided by the Spirit, this will not necessarily lead to physical conflicts such as the Catholic persecution of Galileo, since the Spirit has no need to get defensive about advances in science. However, I think that internal conflicts are inevitable, and a necessary part of our growth.
posted by Redbeard at 8:21 AM
6 Comments:
Mike, I think your argument for foreordination is fallacious! While foreordination is a principle of the gospel, one cannot prove that a person or race is “chosen” because of circumstantial evidence. To say that the higher IQ scores of Jews indicates they are the chosen people of God is like saying people with down syndrome were mighty warriors in the preexistence and were born mentally and physically retarded to buffer them from Satan’s targeted revenge or that stillborn infants were so righteous they had no need to be tested extensively in mortality. Perhaps people with down syndrome and dead babies are disliked by God and are being punished. Both interpretations are supported by the same thing: wild conjecture. There is no evident correlation between cognitive abilities and foreordination. Additionally, standardized tests are widely known to cater to the abilities of certain groups and aren’t objective in comparing cognitive abilities across cultures. For example, all widely used psychological tests in the US were developed in English. Someone where English is not their native language or someone who speaks a dialect of English other than what is proper (think ghetto children) will score lower on the verbal sections. And IQ tests are mostly about the verbal. Performance, yes, but weight goes to the verbal.
Given the Mormon doctrine, the demonstration of the foreordination of Jews is the fact that it is with them that God initially instituted the temple rites. It is to them that He gave the holy of holies where they could commune with Him and see eternity. Abraham was foreordained to be a prophet to further those sacred rites, Moses was foreordained to see the vision on Sinai and bring the law to his people. The gospel definitely states that Jews were God’s chosen people, but the only clear proof is that they were given the gospel. And God opened that boat as soon as the gospel was taught to the gentiles. If Jews could lose their birthright by refusing the gospel and gentiles assume it (the keys of the priesthood were given, taken away, and later restored to non-Jews), then why were black members denied the priesthood when they were receptive to the gospel?
I think that this problematic situation finds it roots in social inequalities. However, I agree with your statement that it was prudent for the prophets “to wait until they felt they had explicit authorization from God to extend the priesthood to blacks if for no other reason than they felt that the job of a prophet is to act in God's name and not just make politically correct decisions.”
The idea of continual revelation is a perplexing one. Joseph Smith revolutionized the way the scriptures could be regarded. He saw them as open to revision, needing to be corrected as their words had been manipulated and degraded over time. Entire visions had been lost, and he produced many texts that were not a translation (as The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham are), but straight revisions and new prophecy. (Hm-It’s hard to talk about visions and revisions in the same sentence without thinking that something is off.) By the time he was done, his texts proclaimed to contain the fullness of the gospel.
Paul nostalgically looks to the period of Joseph and in many ways, rightly so. People were open, ideas were tossed about, the church’s hierarchy wasn’t clear, there was drama and intrigue, things were being revealed. But as soon as the Saints faced an extermination order and had to go further west into the dangerous frontier, things had to be organized. One can’t really blame the church’s evolution into a highly organized institution as a bad thing, though, because it’s conceivable that the church would have ceased to exist if it hadn’t done so. The Mormon migration is THE grandest commune experiment in U.S. history. People’s lives were at risk in a wild territory, and they were doing so for the sake of their god. The leaders of the church became responsible by default for protecting the lives of all of the members. Their decision was to set out some pretty defined guidelines. So the leaders of the church have had two duties: the teach the gospel/give counsel and to oversee the physical welfare of their flock. The latter duty includes making administrative decisions that it would behoove church members to realize God may not have to be involved in.
But since the fullness of the gospel has already been revealed, the baptism and temple rites been established and supported through the years (I haven’t looked into the history of the rites extensively, but my understanding is that they have altered but within a reasonable amount), and everything has been pretty much retained thanks to the magic of the printing press, there has not been much need for the church leaders to speak in the prophetic voice of God. Even when I was an extremely faithful churchgoer, I never supposed that the talks I heard at general conference were of the same caliber and importance as BoM or D&C scripture. Paul corrects me by saying that we are told that those talks are the equivalent of scripture, but I would generally regard it as counsel and place it in a different category. It is commentary, things to help me understand gospel principles, or suggestions on how to live my life. Things inspired by God, but not the direct word of God. Personally, I find taking everything the prophet and apostles say as the literal word of God to be problematic. One of the main problems I have with Islamic laws is that they canonized every utterance Muhammad made and arranged their actions around them. Maybe he wasn’t always speaking for God! I think that it’s healthy to approach our religious leaders like we do other people and recognize that they have personal biases and tendencies. The attitude of “if the church is led by God, everything the church does or says is perfect” is dangerous because it allows people to manipulate statements in justifying wrongs. But I think that holding the church to perfection because it claims to be run by God is in the same vein and an unreasonable expectation.
Since the church claims to have the fullness of the gospel, it is important for church leaders to be sure that they have direction from God to change something as significant as who can receive the priesthood. Perhaps withholding the priesthood was instituted out of prejudice, but I think your interpretation that the leaders were making sure to speak for God is likely and shows real concern for their responsibility.
I think Paul’s objections to church policies are in many cases not doctrinal. It’s not necessarily a doctrine that all Native Americans and Polynesians are Lamanites, but a commentary on the BoM that has been perpetuated by practically every leader since the beginning. But the original text makes no such claim. I don’t think the church would really be sacrificing much by changing their statements. People would be confused, but the church could be candid and it will all blow over. I think that there would be a lot of benefits to not telling people their native culture comes from people who killed God’s chosen. I was shocked to find out about the foster home program the church ran in Utah where they place poor Indian kids with white families. There are so many problems with that program that I don’t care to expound on right now. It’s way past my bedtime.
It is interesting that as we each present what appear to be diametrically opposed opinions, it turns out that most of what we believe is quite similar.
This discussion is a good example. I agree with most of the substantive points made by both Paul and Kristin. There are only a few things I would like to say to clarify my position.
First, although the Native American culture had some very laudable aspects, I don't think it is very helpful to adopt the position that it is better than the Western culture that has essentially replaced it. In particular, I would object to the following quote: "They lived in harmony with nature and had a communal way of life that is much more closely related to the higher laws of the Gospel than the individualistic, bloodthirsty, environmentally destructive, voraciously materialistic traits of our current society..."
This is a little extreme and does not recognize a lot of the remarkable aspects of our own culture. Also, the Native American culture was not always a rose garden. Has anyone read Guns, Germs and Steel? Either that book, or another by the same author, describes how one of the Native American cultures drove itself into extinction by ruining their environment. Correct me if I am wrong.
To answer Kristin's criticism: I was not implying by my IQ comment that there is a direct connection between the pre-existant behavior of the Israelites and their present IQ. I was pointing out the fact that races are different. Regardless of whether the tests are biased, higher IQ is helpful in this world. The Jewish race is remarkable in its disproportionate number of Nobel Prize winners, students at top universities, and a number of other powerful and respected societal positions.
The fact is that genes matter. I put "chosen" in parentheses to indicate that the Jewish race is chosen if only due to the fact that on average they have a higher IQ. Were they heros in the pre-existence? I highly doubt all of them were. But if you believe in a pre-existence at all it is reasonable to believe that God puts people on earth in their chosen place and time for a reason (at least some foreordained people). This has nothing to do with Down's Syndrome, and I happen to agree that the argument you mentioned is ridiculous if taken as a general explanation. I leave open the possibility that such a thing actually might have happend, however, since I do not know the mind of God well enough to say for sure.
In any case, I appreciate the gist of what both of you have said.
More thoughts:
I’d like to add to what Kristin says about the issue of Jewish IQ. The idea that this shows in some way that these people are “chosen” doesn’t make sense to me for a couple of reasons. First, aren’t Latter Day Saints considered the chosen people now? Do they have a higher IQ than other people? No. Second, numerous studies show that people that hold religious beliefs have a significantly lower IQ than people that don’t. One study shows that only 10% of men with an IQ of over 140 (18% of women) hold religious beliefs. Many other studies report similar findings. If high IQ points to people being “chosen” then atheists would be the choice people of God.
Something that continues to bother me about the denial of the priesthood to blacks is that I can find no evidence of priesthood being denied to anyone based on their race anywhere in the New Testament or in the Book of Mormon. Christ taught that His gospel should be taken to all people, even the vilified races in his locale. He did not distinguish between Jew and Gentile in the choice of his Apostles in the early Church, but accepted any who would come unto Him. In Book of Mormon times, the Lamanites were also cursed with a dark skin, but if they repented, they were able to join the Church of Christ and participate fully in it. Samuel the Lamanite is just one example of a leader of the Church that held the priesthood as evidenced by his ability to baptize. Why should it have been different for blacks?
The only reasonable explanation for this denial of the priesthood to blacks is that the leaders of the early Church were either racist themselves or influenced by the racist climate of the time. The exception is Joseph Smith who announced a revelation on Dec. 16 1833 that “it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another”, causing major problems with pro-slavery Missouri neighbors. As I mentioned before, he also ordained a black man to the priesthood.
I would posit that rather than acting in prudence by waiting for the authorization from God to give blacks the priesthood, that Brigham Young and others were acting on the prevalent social norms of their day. In fact, the decision to take away that which had already been given by the founder of the Church, would have been the more “politically correct” thing to do at the time, to justify the prevalent beliefs and actions of the times.
I have heard many people excuse doctrines espoused by early leaders of the Church under the assumption that not everything said by a leader is to be taken as official doctrine or scripture. I’m not saying that everything said should be taken as scripture, but several leaders of the Church have pointed out what should be taken as the voice of the Lord. Here are some examples:
On January 2, 1870, Brigham Young preached: "I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95).
During the following General Conference, October 6, 1870, Brigham Young added, "I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life… that Brigham Young has said 'when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.' I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God…" (Ibid., p. 264).
During his closing address at the April, 1973, General Conference President Harold B. Lee exhorted the people, "If you want to know what the Lord has for this people at the present time, I would admonish you to get and read the discourses that have been delivered at this conference; for what these brethren have spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost is the mind of the Lord, the will of the Lord, the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation" (Ensign, July, 1973, p. 121).
In light of these statements, we understand that these men’s words are the words of the Lord in the context of conference addresses and official discourses. It becomes more difficult to discount the doctrines preached about African Americans as mere opinions when see them in this light. Here are a few of the statements that leaders have made:
In a General Conference address, October 9, 1859, Brigham Young taught: "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. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. 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" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
During the Civil War, on March 8, 1863, Brigham Young taught: "The Southerners make the negroes, and the Northerners worship them; this is all the difference between slaveholders and abolitionists. I would like the President of the United States and all the world to hear this.
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 109).
President John Taylor, August 28, 1881, taught that, "…after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God…" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 22, p. 304).
Ideas of cursing and the sins of the fathers being visited on the heads of the sons are in conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ that preach a doctrine of equality through the ordinances of His gospel. Any curse that has been placed upon a people in ancient times would be invalidated by the Atonement; through repentance and baptism all are purified. One of the Articles of Faith of the Church states: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Application of this principle negates a person’s accountability for sins of their other ancestors too.
I realize that in the end, all things must be settled through faith in regards to religion. A choice must be made to believe. I have not made the ultimate decision not to believe. There is much that I don’t understand and many things that I do believe in that are choices of faith rather than tangible evidence. Nonetheless, my search for the truth will continue and I am grateful for the responses from believers of all different levels of faith. The conflict will likely never end for me but my hope is that I can see it as a paradox rather than a dichotomy and that I can continue to grow as a result.
Thanks, Mike for your kind, thoughtful way of stating your opinions and for giving me new ways to look at the issues. My exploration and knowledge have been enriched through the discussions on this blog and I look forward to continuing the dialogue.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Why can't we edit comments?!? What type of site is this?
Mike, I think my attempt to illustrate my point by comparing your theory of foreordination with prevalent perceptions of mental retardation made my point fade into the background. Imagine that! I never interpreted your statements about IQ to be an assumption about Jews' behaviors in the preexistence. I did, however, mean to show that the assumption that people are chosen of God because they happen to have a specific attributes, cognitive, physical, or otherwise, has no basis. Specific races and ethnic groups definitely have differences, and some of those differences put some at an advantage over others. A high IQ, as you point out, is certainly an advantage. But it is very simplistic to say that because someone (or an entire group of people) has specific physical attributes, they are blessed or cursed by God. The evidence is circumstantial and leaves those avenues open for anyone to make similar claims. Hence my examples and the two possible readings on God's attitude.
Paul, you stated that the general authorities are regurgitating the same messages and you would like them to start talking about the important and controversial issues the members of the church are facing. But I think it is the status quo that supports my argument that the leaders aren't speaking in the most literal of prophetic voices. What are they saying? Read the scriptures, pay your tithing, repent, contemplate the atonement, attend church, be a home teacher, be chaste, obey the Word of Wisdom, etc. They are continually giving us basic counsel on what actions will keep us safe and in an appropriate position the feel the spirit and commune with God. Their mode of giving counsel is by telling stories, parables, and most of them are simply and predictably constructed. What they aren't doing is delving into deep doctrine. So when I am told to regard these talks as scripture, I can only assume that they are telling me so to stress the importance of these actions.
I think that denying blacks the priesthood and statements demeaning black people had nothing to do with God but everything to do with racism, and I completely agree that there is no basis in The New Testament or The Book of Mormon. The original texts of the religion offer no support to the policy at all. But I don’t think that necessarily disproves the priesthood authority the church claims to have. My understanding of the gospel is that the covenants and belief in Jesus Christ are key, and those have consistently been supported by the priesthood leaders. I think that the history of the church is full of scandalous things, but if I were a believer, I don’t think that would sway me. I do and would think those things are terrible, but I would see them as the outcome of people thinking and acting on their perspective which naturally doesn’t always align with what the meat and bones of gospel really are. I think that overall I am confused by what you are advocating for. You pointed out that people, leaders included, aren’t allowed to say what they want. That was one of the criticisms you had of the integrity article when we spoke. You felt like the leaders in the examples were forced to give up their individual integrity by not being free to express their ideas. You say, and I know you truly desire, that you want people to be able to speak freely about church matters. Yet you regard many, if not all, things that leaders say as the official stance of the doctrine. Your use of the Young and Lee quotes gave me that impression, anyway. Perhaps Young was living up to his pompous flair and self-aggrandizement, speaking his own individual ideas and not the literal word of God. Joseph Smith complained of not being able to speak for himself because people were always taking his words, his ideas, and his convictions to be those of God. I suppose that what I am calling for is a reevaluation of what the doctrine, the priesthood, and the role of revelation really are.
I second Paul and say that I appreciate this discussion. The ideas of you two are thought-provoking and they have given me the opportunity the explore my own. Rock on.
I am fascinated perusing through everyone's perspectives and ideas. Do you ever think that thinking so hard about these things might be the problem?
Post a Comment
<< Home