Reaching out for support after reading the Essays

[Vort]

Discredit my reference if you want but, one of us has provided a reference the other has not.

Your reference has as much credibility as a reference to Jerald and Sandra Tanner, or John Dehlin, or Joanna Brooks.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

Sounds like the personal opinions of the church leaders on this one.  Turns out they were wrong.....

 

http://www.mormonnew...cle/race-church

 

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

 

 

How do you know which statements of what is and is not "doctrine" are personal opinion then?

 

Me -- I think they are both accurate ...because...it WAS doctrine. Now it is not. That's the only explanation that makes sense.

 

Doctrine (meaning what it actually means -- the teachings of an organization) can change.

Edited December 15, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

I will, to give the benefit of the doubt to our fearless leaders that they were using the words "policy" and "doctrine" interchangeably.  But of course we know that they are not interchangeable.  

 

Now who's using words interchangeably?

 

Keep your "we" to yourself please.

[mdfxdb]

I will go out on a limb and say that George Albert Smith statements are opinion.

My prior post and link from the lds news room is pretty clear about all those previous statements regarding the doctrinal validity of blacks and the priesthood as being incorrect and opinion only.

I think the church has been clear on this point.

Those that say it was doctrine are incorrect.

[Vort]

Perhaps the issue lies on the definition of doctrine.  It seems to me that the church’s current definition is that doctrine “resides” in the canonized standard works and the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles establishes church doctrine consistent with their collective understanding of the scriptures. Back in the 1940’s there was a letter where the First Presidency declared that the teachings of the curse of Cain and pre-existence fence-sitting were revealed doctrine.

 

Please substantiate this claim. I believe it is false. The closest I can find is a 1949 First Presidency statement declaring that:

 

It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.

 

This same statement then continues to quote, without additional comment, a statement by Brigham Young saying that the Priesthood prohibition on the "Negroes" stems from "their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God."

 

Perhaps you think that a First Presidency statement that mentions without further comment a Brigham Young quote constitutes "revealed doctrine". But I don't. And in any case, that particular Young quote says nothing of pre-existent fence-sitting.

 

If you have something else to establish your bold claim above, I'll be interested to see it.

 

 However, as we know, the church presently and clearly disavows those teachings:

 

Let us be very clear about this. The Church does NOT disavow the teachings in the sense that it declares them false. Rather, the Church disavows that such teachings have ever constituted officially established, revealed Church doctrine. This important and rather obvious distinction seems to elude many, especially those with an agenda to pursue and an axe to grind.

 

It seems to me that the Church is distancing itself from giving the Priesthood ban any doctrinal mantle (How could they state it is doctrinal and at the same time disavow the theories that caused its placement in the first place? Makes no sense) by calling it a policy, a practice that originated with Brigham Young.

 

How it seems to you is not really under discussion. The Priesthood ban was and is a doctrinal teaching. Insisting that it isn't, and wasn't, is a sad, pathetic attempt at retconning the gospel.

[Vort]

If the restriction on blacks having the priesthood ever was doctrine, then it must have changed.   

 

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

 

This is just so hard for some to understand. I confess, I don't get what's difficult about it. It seems obvious.

 

The restriction on blacks having the Priesthood before 1978 was doctrine, is doctrine, and will be doctrine.

 

The diverse explanations offered by many in an attempt to explain the origins and purposes of, and the reasons for, the doctrinal ban, are "personal statements" and "do not represent Church doctrine."

 

To make it really easy:

 

DOCTRINE: Between about 1849 and 1978, blacks of African descent were prohibited from holding the Priesthood or engaging in temple rites. This practice required divine revelation to change.

 

NOT DOCTRINE: Black folks couldn't hold the Priesthood because in their premortal state they were not valiant in fighting Satan's evil, but instead sat on the fence and waited to see how things would turn out.

 

There. *dusting hands* That should explain everything and put an end to silly claims in the future.

[Vort]

Sounds like the personal opinions of the church leaders on this one.  Turns out they were wrong.....

 

That would be you who is wrong, mdfxdb. A First Presidency statement is not a statement of personal opinion.

 

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

 

Nothing in the above quote contradicts anything TFP wrote.

[Vort]

Doctrine (meaning what it actually means -- the teachings of an organization) can change.

If by "doctrine" you mean "current teachings", then I agree. But in this case, it still was the doctrine of the Church that blacks of African descent could not hold the Priesthood etc. (As I am sure you agree.) Denying this is a staggering case of retconning.

[The Folk Prophet]

If by "doctrine" you mean "current teachings", then I agree. But in this case, it still was the doctrine of the Church that blacks of African descent could not hold the Priesthood etc. (As I am sure you agree.) Denying this is a staggering case of retconning.

 

I'd say if you qualify "teachings" with "current" then, yes, we must need qualify "doctrine" with "current" as well.

[mdfxdb]

I see I must expand as you clearly don't understand.  It has never been doctrine to teach that blacks can't hold the priesthood because of Cain, or "fence sitting"

 

It has also not been "doctrine" / is not doctrine of the church that Blacks could not receive the priesthood.

 

 http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

 

I will quote from earlier in the statement referenced above: "It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members."

 

If revelation was never received making doctrine, how could it be doctrine.  And not just because some prophet voiced their opinion.  

[estradling75]

I see I must expand as you clearly don't understand.  It has never been doctrine to teach that blacks can't hold the priesthood because of Cain, or "fence sitting"

 

It has also not been "doctrine" / is not doctrine of the church that Blacks could not receive the priesthood.

 

 http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

 

I will quote from earlier in the statement referenced above: "It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members."

 

If revelation was never received making doctrine, how could it be doctrine.  And not just because some prophet voiced their opinion.  

 

 

It is a huge jump to go from... "We don't know"  To "Not revelation" and it is not supported

 

We don't know means.... we do not know.

[Just_A_Guy]

It seems to me that the desire to label the priesthood ban "non-doctrinal" comes from two desires:

 

1.  The idea that the doctrines of the Gospel are unchanging, in conjunction with the fact that the ban itself did change; and

2.  the desire, among certain sectors of the Church, to imply that the priesthood ban was not "true" or "divinely sanctioned"--either because the ban itself doesn't sit comfortably in our twenty-first century egalitarian culture, or because it establishes useful precedent for those who would "reform" the church.

 

I suspect that the doctrine-versus-policy paradigm is a relatively new thing in the Church.  Even modern church leaders can be imprecise about it; and I rather doubt that pre-Correlation church leaders observed it at all. 

 

 

If revelation was never received making doctrine, how could it be doctrine.  And not just because some prophet voiced their opinion.  

 

Without wading too deeply into the doctrine-versus-policy quagmire:  Where do you get this notion that there was no revelatory basis for the ban?  How do you define "revelation"?

 

It is true that there is no extant record of such a revelation.  That's not necessarily meaningful.  We can date Young's flip-flop on blacks and the priesthood to about an eighteen-month window between 1848 and 1849, during which time he was in Winter Quarters, or Salt Lake Valley (enjoying less-than-ideal living conditions at either place), or living out of a tent somewhere in between.  Have you taken the time to write down every revelation/vision/dream/confirmation/inspiration you received in your lifetime, regardless of whatever other crises you were dealing with at the time?

 

Young clearly felt he had divine sanction for implementing the ban; he invoked his prophetic status in teaching it.  His successors upheld it.  David McKay sought divine permission to rescind it and received a clear "no".  The Church has not said that the ban was uninspired, lacking in revelatory basis, or in contravention to the Lord's plan for the Church at that point in time.  Barring a political agenda, it seems strange to me that someone would be so bold as to positively assert that the priesthood ban had no revelatory basis.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

It seems to me that the desire to label the priesthood ban "non-doctrinal" comes from two desires:

 

1.  The idea that the doctrines of the Gospel are unchanging, in conjunction with the fact that the ban itself did change; and

2.  the desire, among certain sectors of the Church, to imply that the priesthood ban was not "true" or "divinely sanctioned"--either because the ban itself doesn't sit comfortably in our twenty-first century egalitarian culture, or because it establishes useful precedent for those who would "reform" the church.

 

I suspect that the doctrine-versus-policy paradigm is a relatively new thing in the Church.  Even modern church leaders can be imprecise about it; and I rather doubt that pre-Correlation church leaders observed it at all. 

 

 

 

Without wading too deeply into the doctrine-versus-policy quagmire:  Where do you get this notion that there was no revelatory basis for the ban?  How do you define "revelation"?

 

It is true that there is no extant record of such a revelation.  That's not necessarily meaningful.  We can date Young's flip-flop on blacks and the priesthood to about an eighteen-month window between 1848 and 1849, during which time he was in Winter Quarters, or Salt Lake Valley (enjoying less-than-ideal living conditions at either place), or living out of a tent somewhere in between.  Have you taken the time to write down every revelation/vision/dream/confirmation/inspiration you received in your lifetime, regardless of whatever other crises you were dealing with at the time?

 

Young clearly felt he had divine sanction for implementing the ban; he invoked his prophetic status in teaching it.  His successors upheld it.  David McKay sought divine permission to rescind it and received a clear "no".  The Church has not said that the ban was uninspired, lacking in revelatory basis, or in contravention to the Lord's plan for the Church at that point in time.  Barring a political agenda, it seems strange to me that someone would be so bold as to positively assert that the priesthood ban had no revelatory basis.

 

But JAG... None of this has any meaning because some church website article said "These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

 

Don't you know anything?  A web article from the church supersedes any other point of logic, quotes, historical understanding, wisdom or argument.

 

The article has been quoted. We lose the debate! 

 

 

 

 

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

 

Edited December 16, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

I think it fair to point out that there have been various statements made that "doctrines do not change!" over the years. (Boyd K. Packer was particularly fond of this sort of declaration). Therefore, it has to be conceded that there is a way of defining "doctrine" that excludes the priesthood ban.

[The Folk Prophet]

I have to get back to this Kimball was wrong on sex thing though. Seriously, somebody...

 

What?!

 

Please explain.

[PolarVortex]

I have to get back to this Kimball was wrong on sex thing though. Seriously, somebody... What?!  Please explain.

 

I had a few moments free while on a really boring conference call and I Googled around.  I very quickly found a Web page that listed the direct words of President Kimball regarding this topic.  It was on an anti-LDS web site, and I decline to post the link here.

 

President Kimball's statements (assuming they were accurately quoted) seemed to take a very conservative view.  He categorized as sin a few practices that some Mormons today probably would not consider sinful.  (I heard that some of these practices were actually included as questions in temple recommend interviews a while back, but the tidal wave of outrage from Church members ended this line of questioning very quickly.  Can't claim this is true, just that I did hear it.)  Being a thoughtful chap inclined toward helpful and thorough answers, I'd make a list of these practices here, but it's not the kind of thing that polite people discuss in public, even anonymous people with avatars of white cats that cannot possibly be traced to anyone. 

 

So... uh.... er... do you think it will rain this weekend?

Edited December 16, 2014 by PolarVortex

[StallionMcBeastly]

I have to get back to this Kimball was wrong on sex thing though. Seriously, somebody...

 

What?!

 

Please explain.

 

Well, for starters, in Miracle of Forgiveness he said that masturbation will lead you to become homosexual..... also, it would better to die virtuous than to live and violate the law of chastity.  Seems a bit cooky to me.  Just my opinion.   That latter example is opinion and can't be proven on way or another, but I see no evidence that masturbation leads to homosexuality?  Am I mistaken? lol

 

Anyways, to the OP.  Hang in there!  It can be difficult to learn of things that don't fit into the whitewashed version of church history we've been taught.  It's okay, you can still maintain faith.  There are many things that can be troubling to some - even faith shaking - but you can still choose to believe.  It can be challenging.  Eventually, you will see that these feelings of frustration/confusion you feel now will get better and you will be able to accept the falability of past church leaders.  Good luck on your trial - stay strong!

[The Folk Prophet]

So... uh.... er... do you think it will rain this weekend?

 

Snow maybe?

[StallionMcBeastly]

Snow maybe?

Most def here in Idaho

[Vort]

My biases:

• I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the literal kingdom of God on earth.
• I believe that ONLY through the agency of that Church can people come to know God and his gospel and receive the covenants they absolutely need in order to again be one with their Father.
• I believe that the leaders of the Church will not be allowed to lead us astray, even if some idea they promulgate may be something less than the perfect mind of God.
• Based on the above, I believe that actions can be broken down pretty darn consistently into one of two camps: Those actions that seek to build up the Church and those actions that seek to tear it down.

Thus, any ideas which serve to tear down the Church are by definition evil. They are also all wrong at their foundation, though they may be factual in some sense.

 

For example, those who pretend to "defend" the prophets by saying, in effect, "Hey, they are only men, and are as liable to error as anyone. Therefore, they cannot be held responsible for teaching falsehoods now and then -- and by the same token, we need not believe anything they say and are free to reject anything we don't like by pointing out that they're only men." Such a teaching is technically true, at least the first part (before the "therefore"). Prophets are only men, and thus are indeed subject to error. But despite that truth, the above is in my estimation a devilish pronouncement, deeply false in the most important senses, despite speaking a (rather mundane and obvious) truth.

 

All members of the Church have covenanted to follow Christ. Those who have received their temple endowment have further made specific covenants to build the kingdom. Engaging in such activity as above is prima facie evidence of violation of covenant. I find such activity appalling. Moreover, I find it infuriating when such people then try to pass themselves off as "faithful" or "believing" members. Is that not the very definition of wolves in sheep's clothing?

 

I have something close to zero tolerance for disloyalty. There is little that sets off my disgust meter more quickly and clearly than backstabbing false friends. I find an openly and even aggressively anti-Mormon attitude preferable to someone who claims the religion while denying the power and authority of that religion.

 

I think (obviously) that my beliefs are correct. How to apply those beliefs to a given situation is much more debatable. While I am confident in my beliefs, I am much less confident in their application to a specific situation. Often, I have to back up and reassess both where a situation is at and what my perceptions are of that situation and the individuals involved.

 

But my self-imposed rules for participating here are that I will not respond to such situations. Either I am wrong, in which case I would be bearing a false witness and find myself guilty of a treacherous act against a fellow Saint, the very epitome of disloyalty; or else I am right, in which case I would be wasting my breath and sullying myself in the debate with such a person. I believe Covey defined that as "lose-lose". I need to adhere much more closely to my self-imposed rules.

 

Anyone who has been reading this thread knows where I stand and why I believe as I do. So that's good enough. If others want the final word, or wish to insist that the evils and foolishness of men are reflected in the doctrines and practices of the kingdom of God on earth, I suppose they have every right to believe and even to preach such ideas. I do believe that this site is the wrong forum for such preaching.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

Well, for starters, in Miracle of Forgiveness he said that masturbation will lead you to become homosexual..... 

 

He did not say "will lead". That is false. He said "too often leads".

 

also, it would better to die virtuous than to live and violate the law of chastity.

 

Conversely it would be better to die having broken the law of chastity?

[Misshalfway]

I have to get back to this Kimball was wrong on sex thing though. Seriously, somebody...

 

What?!

 

Please explain.

 

I'm sorry to have rocked the thread by my less than specific statements.  Perhaps "wrong" was the wrong term. :) What I meant to say was that in some of Kimball's writings, like the Miracle of Forgiveness, he was rather, I don't know, perfectionistic, rigid, or black and white about the subject.  And I think his writings contributed to a lot of misunderstandings and unnecessary shame about sexual feelings and actions.  I remember reading once that even Kimball himself thought  he had been too harsh with gay people in his earlier writings.  I'll add too, that I've spent long hours studying these writings and asking Father to please help me understand and I believe my spirit communications about sexual feelings, development, and behaviors feel a little more balanced than what I felt reading Kimball on the subject.  But this is just me as I try to understand the truth about these things so I can guide my little family.

 

Please know. I love president Kimball.  He was the prophet of my youth.  My point was to illustrate that prophets are humans.  That's all.  And that sometimes their efforts to communicate are flawed. And I meant to express that I personally don't need to idealize them in order to follow them. How many times do the prophets in the BofM asking us not to condemn the writings because of their imperfections?  It's the same thing.  I don't condemn any of them for their imperfection.  But I don't deny the imperfection either.

[StallionMcBeastly]

He did not say "will lead". That is false. He said "too often leads".

 

 

Conversely it would be better to die having broken the law of chastity?

You sure like to nitpick.

Lol ok, he said "too often leads".  Again, I see no evidence that masturbation "too often leads" to homosexuality, do you?  Where is the evidence for this statement?  This is a complete falsehood.  So yes, Kimball got this dead wrong - and that's okay.  Why is that so difficult for you to admit?  Prophets are not always right.  It's okay to disagree with statements in the Miracle of Forgiveness - you can still sustain him in his Prophetic calling.  I do.

 

President Kimball quotes David O. Mackay "Your virture is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives."  In my opinion, this is a harmful statement.

 

Would you rather have your child die a teenager, knowing they were a virgin and kept the Law of Chastity, or have them live a full life that was spotted with LoC violations?  Perhaps I'm interpeting it wrong, but to me it seems that President Kimball and President Mackay are suggesting the former would be better - and I find that crazy... but  I still sustain them as prophets!

[StallionMcBeastly]

 

 

 And I meant to express that I personally don't need to idealize them in order to follow them.

Could not agree more!  Preach it! :)

[Just_A_Guy]

Stallion-

I don't know about homosexuality; but I believe there are clinical studies out there to the effect that masturbation in conjunction with porn use re-wires the brain for addiction in a way that porn use alone does not. Sexual orientation is apparently the result of a complex stew of many, many factors. Who are any of us to say that masturbation doesn't play a part? What percentage of "practicing" homosexuals have never masturbated, do you suppose?

As for preserving virtue: first, the notion that Kimball is saying Mormons should resist rape even unto death is just plain wrong. Kimball himself points out, in MOF, that there is no fault where there is no consent.

Second; I know it has become fashionable to gloss over the temporal and eternal consequences of pre- or extramarital sex--but, working in the family law/child welfare legal world and also being in an LDS 12-step program for porn/sex addiction; I can tell you that the temporal and spiritual implications are real, horrendous, and not easily erased.

I believe Misshalfway is correct in suggesting that Kimball later expressed a wish that he had softened the overall tone of MOF; but I think a review of his ministry shows that his problem wasn't that he didn't understand the sins he condemned (or the people who committed them)--it's that he understood them far more clearly than most of us do today.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Just_A_Guy