Has Our Church Made Mistakes?

[skippy740]

I'm not 100% Jewish. I have Jewish ancestry.

Big difference.

And thank you for your judgment about how we "violate policy". Ever heard of brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles? They are also a part of the family too... not just mothers and fathers.

[Wingnut]

Surely you don't mean to imply that it's OK for the Church to violate the will of God so long as we're only doing it because a non-Mormon asked us to?

Last time I checked, the scriptures taught that Jews were God's chosen people, not Mormons.

[skippy740]

It's the question of anyone who condemns the pre-1978 priesthood policy as spurious while upholding the Holocaust policy as divinely inspired.

If you don't fall into that category, then I whole-heartedly agree--not your problem. :)

No one said that the Holocaust policy is divinely inspired. It is an earthly compromise for us to get along with other human beings who happen to disagree on some things.

The pre-1978 priesthood policy was all internal... and many claimed that it was divinely inspired. It had to take a revelation to change that policy.

[skippy740]

Last time I checked, the scriptures taught that Jews were God's chosen people, not Mormons.

The House of Israel are God's chosen people.

[selek]

No one said that the Holocaust policy is divinely inspired. It is an earthly compromise for us to get along with other human beings who happen to disagree on some things.

So then, if it turns out that the pre-78 policy was nothing more than an earthly compromise designed to help us get along with our neighbors, you'd be okay with that?

Color me skeptical.

The bottom line is this: if the pre-78 restrictions were wrong, then so are the present restrictions on posthumous baptisms and endowments, and for the same reasons.

If the present policy is correct, then so is the pre-78 restriction.

And you're not helping your case by suggesting this "concession" is not divinely inspired.

Every dispensation, every Church, every people that put "what the neighbors thought" ahead of what the Lord commanded has brought damnation down on their heads.

Why would we as Latter-day Saints be any different?

Finally, though, in the name of accepting your premise; What other aspects of the Gospel are you willing to sacrifice to appease Babylon?

Shall we close the temples because others are offended that we will not solemnize gay unions?

Shall we recall the missionaries because others are offended that we "push our religion" on others?

Shall we stop teaching the Gospel as we know it because the Southern Baptists consider it heresy?

Shall we sell off the Church's properties and businesses because other people think we're "too wealthy"?

Shall we strip the Saints of their right to vote because others (falsely) accuse us of trying to establish a theocracy?

If not, then why this concession and not the others?

And where does one draw the line?

How much of our sacred commission and birthright are you willing to sacrifice at the altar of "getting along with the neighbors"?

The Church- and the Latter-day Saints- are subjected to bigoted, ignorant, emotion-driven attacks every day of the week and twice on days that end in "Y".

That will not change in some sort of ideological "land for peace" deal. Surrender, appeasement, and retreat serve only to embolden those who see us as amenable to pressure.

Where do you draw the line in trading your birthright in the name of an illusory and fleeting accomodation?

And how do you justify that stance rather than any of the others?

Edited June 11, 2013 by selek

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not 100% Jewish. I have Jewish ancestry.

Big difference.

And thank you for your judgment about how we "violate policy". Ever heard of brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles? They are also a part of the family too... not just mothers and fathers.

Skippy, I'm not trying to be a jerk and I apologize if I'm coming off that way.

But there's no way to put this delicately: the existing policy doesn't allow you to do the temple work for those people. You can view the original 1995 agreement here. From page 6 of the PDF, paragraph 4:

The Church will reaffirm its policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims (where identified or known as Jews), except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Church had the written approval of all members of the deceased’s immediate living family (immediate family is herein defined to mean parents, spouse and children);

A person with Jewish ancestry can do the work for his (or her) grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great grandparents, and so on. He can not do the work for any of their siblings or other children.

In fact, the policy as-drafted is broader than I remembered. It doesn't just cover Holocaust victims. It covers all deceased Jews.

[Suzie]

I admit, I'm confused. Why is it that we are focusing on the Jews that died during the Holocaust? I don't get it, the policy is clear and for everyone (not just Jews): We shouldn't submit names of those who are NOT related to us (Jew or not), it's more the Church says that the names of those who died and were born in the past 95 years should not be submitted for baptism without permission from their living relatives. (again Jew or not) so why we're talking about Jews particularly if the policy applies to EVERYONE regardless of race or ethnicity?

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . so why we're talking about Jews particularly if the policy applies to EVERYONE regardless of race or ethnicity?

1. Grandfather clauses, and marriage-definition propositions, also apply to "everyone" regardless of race or ethnicity. But we all know what they're really there for, and we all know what groups feel the brunt of those policies.

2. The Church's extraction program specifically excludes Jews and only Jews, regardless of when they were born or died. (At least, it does if they're adhering to the 1995 memorandum.)

3. "Closest living relatives", as it applies to Jews, was very carefully defined in the 1995 memorandum. If a Holocaust victim doesn't have a direct line descendant or a living parent, spouse, or child (not grandchild or cousin or nephew--child)--his work cannot be done now or ever. No other subset of the dead faces a similar restriction.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

2. The Church's extraction program specifically excludes Jews and only Jews, regardless of when they were born or died. (At least, it does if they're adhering to the 1995 memorandum.)

Sorry but I'm sick so I'm sort of slow tonight. Are you saying names of Jewish ancestors cannot be submitted? Because if that's what you're saying, that's not so (or at least that's not what I know is happening)

If a Holocaust victim doesn't have a direct line descendant or a living parent, spouse, or child--his work cannot be done now or ever. No other subset of the dead faces a similar restriction.

But if you need the approval of a living relative of someone who died within the last 95 years, if they don't give such approval.. aren't they also restricted?

Also, how come you make a connection between this and the Priesthood ban? Don't you think is a bit of a stretch?

Edited June 11, 2013 by Suzie

[Just_A_Guy]

Sorry but I'm sick so I'm sort of slow tonight. Are you saying names of Jewish ancestors cannot be submitted? Because if that's what you're saying, that's not so (or at least that's not what I know is happening)

No, I'm referring to the extraction program--the wing of the Church that grabs up names who aren't necessarily related to anyone, and submits them to the temples to be done by whichever random patron draws the card.

But if you need the approval of a living relative of someone who died within the last 95 years, if they don't give such approval.. aren't they also restricted?

Not in the same way. With a non-Jew, you finish out the 95 years and the name can be submitted.

Also, how come you make a connection between this and the Priesthood ban? Don't you think is a bit of a stretch?

I don't see it as a stretch at all. Why do you? The effect is the same: children of our heavenly father are denied sacred ordinances based on nothing more than their ethnicity.

So what if some modern-day non-Mormon intermeddler claims to have Anne Frank's spiritual welfare and legacy at heart? She's up there hearing the fulness of the Gospel from the likes of Joseph Smith, Moses, and perhaps Abraham himself. You think she cares three figs about Simon Wisenthal?

[Just_A_Guy]

Sorry but I'm sick so I'm sort of slow tonight. Are you saying names of Jewish ancestors cannot be submitted? Because if that's what you're saying, that's not so (or at least that's not what I know is happening)

No, I'm referring to the extraction program--the wing of the Church that grabs up names who aren't necessarily related to anyone, and submits them to the temples to be done by whichever random patron draws the card.

But if you need the approval of a living relative of someone who died within the last 95 years, if they don't give such approval.. aren't they also restricted?

Not in the same way. With a non-Jew, you finish out the 95 years and the name can be submitted.

Also, how come you make a connection between this and the Priesthood ban? Don't you think is a bit of a stretch?

I don't see it as a stretch at all. Why do you? The effect is the same: children of our heavenly father are denied sacred ordinances based on nothing more than their ethnicity. The only difference between your average young female Holocaust victim and--say--Jane Manning James; is that we have gotten used to ignoring the interests of the former because she is, conveniently, dead.

So what if some modern-day intermeddler who also happens to be a Jew claims to have Anne Frank's spiritual welfare and legacy at heart? She's up there hearing the fulness of the Gospel from the likes of Joseph Smith, Moses, and perhaps Abraham himself. You think she cares three figs about Simon Wisenthal?

Edited June 12, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

So then, if it turns out that the pre-78 policy was nothing more than an earthly compromise designed to help us get along with our neighbors, you'd be okay with that?

Color me skeptical.

The bottom line is this: if the pre-78 restrictions were wrong, then so are the present restrictions on posthumous baptisms and endowments, and for the same reasons.

If the present policy is correct, then so is the pre-78 restriction.

And you're not helping your case by suggesting this "concession" is not divinely inspired.

Every dispensation, every Church, every people that put "what the neighbors thought" ahead of what the Lord commanded has brought damnation down on their heads.

Why would we as Latter-day Saints be any different?

Finally, though, in the name of accepting your premise; What other aspects of the Gospel are you willing to sacrifice to appease Babylon?

Shall we close the temples because others are offended that we will not solemnize gay unions?

Shall we recall the missionaries because others are offended that we "push our religion" on others?

Shall we stop teaching the Gospel as we know it because the Southern Baptists consider it heresy?

Shall we sell off the Church's properties and businesses because other people think we're "too wealthy"?

Shall we strip the Saints of their right to vote because others (falsely) accuse us of trying to establish a theocracy?

If not, then why this concession and not the others?

And where does one draw the line?

How much of our sacred commission and birthright are you willing to sacrifice at the altar of "getting along with the neighbors"?

The Church- and the Latter-day Saints- are subjected to bigoted, ignorant, emotion-driven attacks every day of the week and twice on days that end in "Y".

That will not change in some sort of ideological "land for peace" deal. Surrender, appeasement, and retreat serve only to embolden those who see us as amenable to pressure.

Where do you draw the line in trading your birthright in the name of an illusory and fleeting accomodation?

And how do you justify that stance rather than any of the others?

Again, please direct your questions to the general authorities that we all sustain in their callings to direct the efforts of the Lord's Church here on earth.

[carlimac]

Backing up a little, I have a question. What specifically did the "church" do during the Prop 8 campaigning that caused so much pain for people. I've only heard from some that it was perfectly ghastly. But was it any worse than what we're doing now by prohibiting same sex marriage in our church or expressing tht we're against it in general? Were gays actually physically harmed by campaigners? Were they pushed around? Was their property destroyed or peed on? Were untruthful videos shown on TV ( like the ones against Prop 8 showing LDS missionaries storming lesbians apartments)? Were their businesses targeted? Did any gays lose their livlihood over this? Really, what does the Church have to apologize for? I don't live in CA so I don't know what went on. Someone please give specifics.

The Price of Prop 8

Edited June 12, 2013 by carlimac

[Just_A_Guy]

Again, please direct your questions to the general authorities that we all sustain in their callings to direct the efforts of the Lord's Church here on earth.

Skippy, would I be correct in interpreting your position as being that neither the priesthood ban for blacks, nor the priesthood/temple ordinance ban for dead Jews, are divinely inspired/sanctioned?

If so: Would you go so far as to say that the implementation and/or maintenance of those policies both violate(d) the Lord's instructions (either explicit, or implicit through the other revealed doctrines of the restored Gospel) to the Church's leadership?

On a somewhat different tangent: To what degree are the day-to-day policy decision of the Church "inspired"? A decision to grant or deny a sealing clearance--is that "inspired"? How about a decision to build a chapel, or a temple, or a cannery? How about a decision to change the age of eligibility for missionaries? Do those things come by inspiration, or are they bureaucratic decisions from which the Lord typically abstains?

Edited June 12, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

Since I live in CA, I suppose I dare to touch on the subject.

Our church leaders addressed this issue extensively... but not necessarily about the consequences should Proposition 8 not pass.

We were told to volunteer to get the vote out. Go door to door and simply ask questions to our neighbors about it and simply request that they vote - regardless of their stance.

I admit that it was uncomfortable to endure church meetings with such focus on a political election... but we did our part, the best we could.

My opinion: The LDS Church was better able to mobilize forces than those against this legislation that they're jealous and angry about it. Less than 5% of California is LDS... and this caused more hatred against those who had family values.

Second opinion: This is the same year that Senator Obama was running for President. As the first African American running, it probably brought out more African American voters to the voting booths... who also share in traditional family values.

An observation: I know that there were others in Utah who were helping to campaign in CA by contributing funds and even travelling to help 'get out the vote'. I don't think I liked that idea. Let CA determine its own destiny amongst themselves without those outside the state. But what's done is done.

[skippy740]

Skippy, would I be correct in interpreting your position as being that neither the priesthood ban for blacks, nor the priesthood/temple ordinance ban for dead Jews, are divinely inspired/sanctioned?

I agree with that.

If so: Would you go so far as to say that the implementation and/or maintenance of those policies both violate(d) the Lord's instructions (either explicit, or implicit through the other revealed doctrines of the restored Gospel) to the Church's leadership?

Yes. We can say that according to revealed doctrines. We can also say that we don't have all the information about the decision and agreement established in 1995 from the perspective of the general authorities at the time. Did they pray about this? I'm sure they did. Did they seek approval from the members? No, because our faith doesn't 'vote' on things from the membership up (unlike the RLDS/COC). We sustain our leaders - even in weakness.

On a somewhat different tangent: To what degree are the day-to-day policy decision of the Church "inspired"? A decision to grant or deny a sealing clearance--is that "inspired"? How about a decision to build a chapel, or a temple, or a cannery? How about a decision to change the age of eligibility for missionaries?

The same way it is done on a ward or stake level.

I'll quote President Hinckley on this subject:

2. An assignment. Activity is the genius of this Church. It is the process by which we grow. Faith and love for the Lord are like the muscle of my arm. If I use them, they grow stronger. If I put them in a sling, they become weaker. Every convert deserves a responsibility. The bishop may feel that he is not qualified for responsibility. Take a chance on him. Think of the risk the Lord took when He called you.

Of course the new convert will not know everything. He likely will make some mistakes. So what? We all make mistakes. The important thing is the growth that will come of activity.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes. We can say that according to revealed doctrines. We can also say that we don't have all the information about the decision and agreement established in 1995 from the perspective of the general authorities at the time. Did they pray about this? I'm sure they did. Did they seek approval from the members? No, because our faith doesn't 'vote' on things from the membership up (unlike the RLDS/COC). We sustain our leaders - even in weakness.

On a different tangent:

If the Church's maintaining the priesthood ban in place was in violation of the Lord's will, then why did He deny President McKay's request for permission to rescind it?

[skippy740]

While we're on the subject of deceased Jews (since they are denied the blessings of proxy ordinance work), let's talk more about the living:

Is it a ban on those that we follow and sustain the laws of countries that we are not allowed to preach the gospel... like in China? Over 1 billion Chinese are not allowed the blessings of the gospel.

Why is that? Because we honor and respect the local laws of their leaders. (12th Article of Faith)

Until then, their leaders are the ones who are 'banning' those blessings from their people.

[skippy740]

On a different tangent:

If the Church's maintaining the priesthood ban in place was in violation of the Lord's will, then why did He deny President McKay's request for permission to rescind it?

I have an answer and opinion on that... and it's kinda 'off the record'. I have a meeting to go to tonight, but I'll be back in a couple of hours to respond.

[Just_A_Guy]

No problem; I look forward to seeing it.

Incidentally, I meant to express appreciation for the consistency of your position regarding the two policies; so thanks for that. :)

While we're on the subject of deceased Jews (since they are denied the blessings of proxy ordinance work), let's talk more about the living:

Is it a ban on those that we follow and sustain the laws of countries that we are not allowed to preach the gospel... like in China? Over 1 billion Chinese are not allowed the blessings of the gospel.

Why is that? Because we honor and respect the local laws of their leaders. (12th Article of Faith)

Until then, their leaders are the ones who are 'banning' those blessings from their people.

I think you have a very good point on that. And although we may differ about the degree of "inspiration" that goes into decisions like this, I would argue that it illustrates the larger point I've been sort of driving at all along--that I think the Lord does sometimes keep some segments of His children waiting for the Gospel in order to move the overall work forward more efficiently in the long run.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

No, I'm referring to the extraction program--the wing of the Church that grabs up names who aren't necessarily related to anyone, and submits them to the temples to be done by whichever random patron draws the card.

Not in the same way. With a non-Jew, you finish out the 95 years and the name can be submitted.

I don't see it as a stretch at all. Why do you? The effect is the same: children of our heavenly father are denied sacred ordinances based on nothing more than their ethnicity. The only difference between your average young female Holocaust victim and--say--Jane Manning James; is that we have gotten used to ignoring the interests of the former because she is, conveniently, dead.

So what if some modern-day intermeddler who also happens to be a Jew claims to have Anne Frank's spiritual welfare and legacy at heart? She's up there hearing the fulness of the Gospel from the likes of Joseph Smith, Moses, and perhaps Abraham himself. You think she cares three figs about Simon Wisenthal?

Now, I understand exactly where you're coming from. Not sure if my position will be of any surprise but I didn't agree with the move of the Church making those negotiations. I deeply respect the view of the Jewish organizations but I am not sure if I liked how it was handled.

Having said that, I still don't see the connection between this prohibition to Jews and the Priesthood ban. Blacks who were denied the privilege of holding the Priesthood were not only alive but they were also members of the Church and were denied ONLY based on their race.

In the case of Jane, she requested the permission to be sealed several times (and she was refused every single time) and even though yes, we did the work for her after 1978, we all know she was a faithful member of the Church until the day she died.

Judaism is not a race because Jews do not share one common ancestry, therefore we cannot even start comparing this "ban" (sort of speak) with the one prior to 1978. I see Judaism as a religious identity therefore, how can then be connected or even compared?

[Just_A_Guy]

Having said that, I still don't see the connection between this prohibition to Jews and the Priesthood ban. Blacks who were denied the privilege of holding the Priesthood were not only alive but they were also members of the Church and were denied ONLY based on their race.

How is the fact that they are alive or dead, of any moment whatsoever? They're still conscious. They still want the blessings, and those blessings are/were being withheld. Jews can't even be members of the Church, for goodness' sake!

In the case of Jane, she requested the permission to be sealed several times (and she was refused every single time) and even though yes, we did the work for her after 1978, we all know she was a faithful member of the Church until the day she died.

Again--the only difference between her and countless deceased Jews, is that we can hear Jane's pleadings. Those of the Jews fall--quite literally--on deaf ears. That doesn't mean they don't exist or that they don't come from real feelings of deprivation and even desperation. There's a reason we call it "spirit prison".

Jane, at least, knew someone was listening.

Judaism is not a race because Jews do not share one common ancestry, therefore we cannot even start comparing this "ban" (sort of speak) with the one prior to 1978. I see Judaism as a religious identity therefore, how can then be connected or even compared?

I think that's a dramatic over-simplification. Define "race" however you want--they were most certainly an ethnicity; something one was born into. You couldn't opt out of a concentration camp by converting to Christianity.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

On a different tangent:

If the Church's maintaining the priesthood ban in place was in violation of the Lord's will, then why did He deny President McKay's request for permission to rescind it?

Going back to this question. We don't know the official answer to President's McKay's request... except that it wasn't time. Why? We don't have an official explanation. We can speculate as to why, but it doesn't do us much good to speculate.

However, we can look forward a few years.

Using Wikipedia to help me a little bit:

In 1969 church apostle Harold B. Lee blocked the LDS Church from rescinding the racial restriction policy.[69] Church leaders voted to rescind the policy at a meeting in 1969. Lee was absent from the meeting due to travels. When Lee returned he called for a re-vote, arguing that the policy could not be changed without a revelation.[69]

I've *heard* that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were all unanimous on rescinding this restriction... while President Harold B. Lee was away. When he came back and it was presented to him, I was *told* that he said something to the effect of "Not while I'm the President of the Church!" Then he passed away a few months later... indicating the idea that the Lord would remove someone from their place if they are not fulfilling their calling.

I say *heard* and *told* on purpose because I can't verify it, nor do the dates coincide between this meeting in 1969 and his death in 1972. That's why I say that it isn't 'official' or 'on the record'.

This makes me think that we had some "40 year saints" that needed to wait for whatever reason. I say "40 years" because of the time that Moses had to travel with the Israelites before they could enter into the promised land. Some just had to die off to allow the Lord's will to be done.

It's just our job to sustain our leaders. They are not perfect. They're human beings. And they are working with other human beings who have their own faults and ideas about things. We do the best we can with what we've got.

[skippy740]

I think you have a very good point on that. And although we may differ about the degree of "inspiration" that goes into decisions like this, I would argue that it illustrates the larger point I've been sort of driving at all along--that I think the Lord does sometimes keep some segments of His children waiting for the Gospel in order to move the overall work forward more efficiently in the long run.

I'm going to agree with you in a different way.

I don't think the Lord is creating obstacles to prevent others from having the Gospel. That's like saying the Lord hardened Pharoah's heart.

When we read Exodus 7:13, we read:

13 And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.

But the JST says:

JST Ex. 7:13 And Pharaoh hardened his heart …

The Lord does not take away the agency of man... any man... in order to bring about His purposes. The Lord can help soften hearts, but he won't do it against one's will.

Until all leaders of the countries around the world have softened their hearts sufficiently to allow the preaching of the gospel... we will do what we can within the confines of their laws.

Otherwise, what kind of respect are we showing for their customs and laws if we circumvent them? We are a law abiding people and are honest in our dealings with our fellow man.

[skippy740]

Incidentally, I meant to express appreciation for the consistency of your position regarding the two policies; so thanks for that. :)

And I also appreciate the way that you and I can disagree and debate things and still be okay about it later. As moderators, we are supposed to be good examples on the forum, and I think we do pretty good! :)

Of course, I think it would take Pam to separate us into our rooms if we couldn't get along after a while!