- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just wanted to share my wife’s reaction to the disavowal. She is largely TBM with some minor unorthodox tendencies, mostly toward the decisions of local leaders. I asked her what the priesthood ban disavowal means to her about the reliabilty of revelation from prophets.
She first said “was the priesthood ban REVELATION, or was it merely administrative policy?”. So, that was her first approach to preserving her inner peace given the dissonance the disavowal presents. It was to say it was simply church policy and not revelation, therefore, the disavowal has no impact on the reliability of prophetic revelation.
I didn’t want to get into a debate about this as I don’t know if Brigham ever claimed it was revelation (for me, it had to be, as it affected salvation and millions of people), so I said — I don’t know, but let’s assume it was actually revelation. Then how would you view the reliabilty of prophetic revelation in light of this disavowal? Would you still believe prophetic revelation wholesale?
She replied “Its not up to me to question God”.
Her response reminded me of an article someone gave me years ago. It was about “centrality of beliefs”. Apparently, we have central beliefs upon which a whole system of other beliefs rest. People put up a strong fight when others challenge central beliefs because the implications of changing these beliefs are distressing to people. The consequences are far-reaching in terms of affective, behavior, and cognitive change. I see her response as falling into this category.
It will be interesting to see what happens at church this week. I suspect that we will either hear nothing about it, or if we do, there will be a lot of people who dismiss it and reaffirm their faith.
I don’t have a problem with that, but I would like to be prepared for it. To me, the disavowal is cause for great discussion, worthy of greater dissemination, and exploration. To me, it is a huge statement about reliability of prophetic revelation in classes, talks, etcetera. But I know that initiating those kinds of discussions will be a mistake. But having a set of responses that respect the centrality of the belief in the prophetic reliability of revelation (including saying nothing), might be worth to explore here.
What do you think will be the reaction of traditional believers, and how will you react or respond when you hear rationalizations, or statements that minimize the implications of the priesthood ban disavowal?
Like most other things that have been “revealed” or “admitted to” by the church (Mountain Meadows, Joseph Smith and polyandry, for instance) I think most will be unaffected and even largely unaware. I think there is a blindness of faith in the church, and to a point that’s great (in the sense they have unquestioning faith). I really don’t think God expects us to have unquestioning faith. Nevertheless, I think the only ones who take note of these things are the loyal but thoughful questioners like us and the antis. The TBM crowd can easily dismiss things like this and focus on the marvels of the revelation while ignoring the just plain misguidedness of and hurt caused by prior leaders. My whole question about the whole race and priesthood thing has always been if it wasn’t a revelation to begin with (and was therefore policy) why did it take revelation to end it?
DarkJedi wrote:Like most other things that have been “revealed” or “admitted to” by the church (Mountain Meadows, Joseph Smith and polyandry, for instance) I think most will be unaffected and even largely unaware. I think there is a blindness of faith in the church, and to a point that’s great (in the sense they have unquestioning faith). I really don’t think God expects us to have unquestioning faith. Nevertheless, I think the only ones who take note of these things are the loyal but thoughful questioners like us and the antis. The TBM crowd can easily dismiss things like this and focus on the marvels of the revelation while ignoring the just plain misguidedness of and hurt caused by prior leaders.
My whole question about the whole race and priesthood thing has always been if it wasn’t a revelation to begin with (and was therefore policy) why did it take revelation to end it?
Good question to the people who say it was never revelation so it doesn’t have any implications. I am concerned if I asked that question, however, it might be taken as an affront.
The fact that people will defend the church on so many fronts, while ignoring the facts like the ones you quote — shows that their commitment goes far beyond reason. It’s tradition, it’s habit, its some kind of spiritual loyalty that transcends logic. I think it’s also a result of how much people have invested in the church — to admit that time honored beliefs generated by prophets who speak for God would nullify at least part of the investment they made — and opens up all current beliefs and statements from prophets to question.
That is part of the reason I’d like to know what others will say when someone starts talking about the priesthood ban like the disavowal never happened, or is even unaware that it occurred. Just leave it alone? Let them know about the recent statement disavowing it? Give a short opinion on how even prophets make mistakes – even on matters of core doctrinal concepts?
SilentDawning wrote:What do you think will be the reaction of traditional believers, and how will you react or respond when you hear rationalizations, or statements that minimize the implications of the priesthood ban disavowal?
DW and I chatted briefly about the disavowal last night. She had an interesting perspective on the issue. Namely that perhaps the revealed priesthood ban wasn’t the result of a curse or any supposed unworthiness on the part of the people banned from the priesthood. Perhaps it was more for the general membership of the church and for the world culture that existed at the time; meaning the church/world wasn’t ready for black males to hold the priesthood, it would have just created strife and contention.
In that light the ban could still be considered revelation but the reasons behind the ban were sorely misinterpreted.
Disclaimer. I haven’t read the disavowal letter yet. I need to.
Edit: I don’t think it will fly under the radar. I saw the letter in my facebook feed and thought I don’t remember who shared it I can all but guarantee that it was a TBM. Of course I don’t need to state it but if this was policy and not revelation that should raise the question… so what else is policy and not revelation?
Quote:DW and I chatted briefly about the disavowal last night. She had an interesting perspective on the issue. Namely that perhaps the revealed priesthood ban wasn’t the result of a curse or any supposed unworthiness on the part of the people banned from the priesthood. Perhaps it was more for the general membership of the church and for the world culture that existed at the time; meaning the church/world wasn’t ready for black males to hold the priesthood, it would have just created strife and contention.
I think this is the customary TBM response, at least for the more thinking group of TBMs. However, here’s where that should give them pause: isn’t it likely then that the same holds true for women and gay people? Personally, I think so. But it’s also a lot like saying that it’s OK to ostracize people that society ostracizes; until society is ready to accept them, we don’t have to either. That is emphatically NOT what Jesus did.
nibbler wrote:SilentDawning wrote:What do you think will be the reaction of traditional believers, and how will you react or respond when you hear rationalizations, or statements that minimize the implications of the priesthood ban disavowal?
DW and I chatted briefly about the disavowal last night. She had an interesting perspective on the issue. Namely that perhaps the revealed priesthood ban wasn’t the result of a curse or any supposed unworthiness on the part of the people banned from the priesthood. Perhaps it was more for the general membership of the church and for the world culture that existed at the time; meaning the church/world wasn’t ready for black males to hold the priesthood, it would have just created strife and contention.
I really dislike this interpretation. To me, it’s a double standard. Whenever I mention how the one-year penalty for gettign married civilly caused a huge rift in my non-member family that even apology and contrition can’t rectify, people are quick to quote the scripture about how the gospel will put “son against father” etcetera — open acceptance that doign what is right causes pain and contention. Our history and other policies demonstrate that suffering, lack of popularity etcetera is often the price of doing what is right “Do what is right, let the consequence follow”. We should not have shrunk from giving blacks the priesthood because it would cause too much contention.
On other matters of morality the price of principle is suffering, contention, etcetera. And through history, religious people are more than willing to take the stand of “courage” and “standing up for what is right”. Some appear to see it as the own badge of discipleship. We have stories about prophets demanding that good members give up their wives to prophets as a show of sacrifice, and the church even allowed their members to be thrown in prison over plural marriage — with grave consequencs to their businesses, their families, their freedom. Talk about suffering and contention as an accepted consequence of doing the right thing.
But this argument — that avoiding contention as a reason for banning blacks from the priesthood — seems to root firmly in the minds of many members. I find it a terrible explanation, full of double standards and rationalization. Glad we are willing to face the fallout now. But given the faith of many members, I have a feeling this will be a non-event at Church.
For me the disavowal is an “admission”. Brigham Young and his associates were nineteenth century white men…and racists. Surprise?
The underpinning issue is “infallibility”. If you believe in prophetic infallibility the, yes, your world should shake a little. If you don”t? No big surprise. Remember, cultural doctrine is heavily in play here.
nibbler wrote:I don’t think it will fly under the radar. I saw the letter in my facebook feed and thought I don’t remember who shared it I can all but guarantee that it was a TBM. Of course I don’t need to state it but if this was policy and not revelation that should raise the question… so what else is policy and not revelation?
Exactly. I do believe there is a sizable segment of the church membership that believes and/or assumes every policy is revelation (and I’ll use lowering the mission age as an example). The priesthood revelation apparently got a lot of fanfare (it was a few months before my time on the church – BC if you will, but was still getting buzz). I think if all of these things were really revelation we’d know, but I also think the leadership of the church has purposely let us believe so because it’s easier to control us, or at least get buy in, that way.
hawkgrrrl wrote:isn’t it likely then that the same holds true for women and gay people? Personally, I think so.
Funny, that was my first response as well.
Thanks for the thoughts SilentDawning and hawkgrrrl.
Random thought… there is a bit of precedent to be found in the episode of attempting to live the United Order. It was revealed, the saints couldn’t live it, a preparatory law was given. Still it is apples and oranges considering the ban dealt with not treating some of God’s children as equals. That should never be acceptable.
I think many TBMs aren’t in the mindset that the prophets/leaders of the church are infallible. They know the leaders aren’t perfect. I think the real challenge is getting the average TBM to consider the fallibility of the leaders following
everystatement made as opposed to just when conflict or contradictions arise. In many ways the disavowal statement can fit very well into a TBM’s framework. They still aren’t being critical of the leaders, the leaders are being critical of the leaders. The criticism did not well up from within, it was from an external, trusted source. Given the origins of the criticism I don’t think the disavowal will be hard to process. I feel awful for saying it, but others still did the thinking for them, so it won’t be a thinking experience for them.
Most “deep thinking members” (and I honestly don’t mean that negatively toward others, no matter how it sounds) who had any decent understanding of the history of the ban already believed what the explanation says – and many of them are fully active members many here would call TBM’s. For them, their reaction to the explanation has been largely the same as it was for most members when the ban was lifted. It is, basically, “Whew. Glad that’s over.” Most members aren’t as ignorant as many people stereotype them to be. There are some members I would call ultra-orthodox (if I had to pick a label) who believe the current leadership has condemned the previous leadership. They haven’t, but it’s a reaction from a place of ignorance (and, sometimes, basic reading comprehension skills
😈 ).Frankly, I believe most “traditional” members are going to react with, essentially, a “so what?” attitude. They will say, “Yup,” and move on. They won’t think about the bigger picture issues and simply file it away, since most members aren’t racists and won’t get into the deeper, philosophical ponderings we tend to obsess over here. They just don’t think that way, and I am completely fine with that.
I’m fine with it if it preserves their inner peace. But I’m also very frustrated by it. I’m not sure why – perhaps it will become clear to me through discussion, but I am really frustrated with the fact that my wife doesn’t care. And not just my wife, by the way, anyone who just brushes it off, and then continues making snide comments about democrats, about people in the church who “know better” and are not following the textbook, down to the little things like the fact people in our new Ward just ignore us because we are not following the geographical boundary rule. Perhaps my angst is about church culture, and the fact so few people care about the implications of the disavowal for other parts of our culture (such as prophets never leading people astray), is what is causing me frustration here.
Again, I wish no ill will to others who brush it off, but I do find it frustrating. It seems really illogical to me that they would also let the church direct so much of their behavior (as I have done) and not feel there is a certain amount of accountability for church leaders to actually be what they imply they are. Inspired oracles of God who should be followed out of sheer obedience.
Anyway, I’m not sure how I feel, but I went from feeling elated to deflated today. My wife helped me see that many TBM’s are committed for reasons that go well beyond core reasons I was once committed.
This is one thought, for many of us, life has a thousand important daily issues. We worry about our families, we worry how we approach God, we worry about responsibilities we chose to take on – callings, school volunteer, birthday observances, etc. All of us have personal pains we carry, disappointments, losses, feelings of worth or worthlessness. Every day we are living with the above mentioned as our personal priorities. Most likely our most important act is protecting our heart, and creating our worth. Whether Traditional Practicers or Ex-member, or non-member, we live for number one. Because of that – an article of this nature effects us differently. For Darius Grey it was the best thing. He is rejoicing – loudly and happily. He is a black man who has waded this water deeply. No criticism, no crying out for an apology. Just joy and rejoicing.
Many of us on the faith transition group want more – we are fightin’ mad – why I am not sure, but we are. It might be important to figure out why it angsts us.
For others, it is really so far down on the list of what is vital to them and their hearts, that it barely bumps them. Maybe we should find out what they are fighting for, what are their dreams, wishes, worries, fears. I worry that the casting out of one race is now moving to the casting out of other souls. Neither idea is modeled in word or deed by Christ, Buddha, Ghandi, Mother Teresa – The Greats. I hope I can build a loving or respectful enough heart, to let unnecessary anger go, and somehow let love win.
Quote:“In the quiet heart is hidden sorrows that the eye can’t see.”
That line comes to mind. Thank you for your comment, mom3.
I’ve often said that someone’s reaction to something says more about them than it does about anything else – and I don’t mean that negatively toward anyone with regard to in this particular issue. People are reacting very, very differently about this, so I prefer to look at myself and see what my reaction says about me than be upset about how someone else is reacting.
Don’t get me wrong: I do get a bit upset at how some people are reacting, but it usually is fairly easy to guess why they are reacting as they are – and, in many cases, “guess” is correct word. Even when I know people pretty well and think I understand their reaction, I’m certain there are plenty of times when my view is not completely right. Two people can react in essentially the same way and have very different reasons for that reaction. Therefore, I try to make that more of an academic issue and focus my emotions and my time on understanding myself and what I can learn about me to make me a better person.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:“In the quiet heart is hidden sorrows that the eye can’t see.”
That line comes to mind. Thank you for your comment, mom3.
I’ve often said that someone’s reaction to something says more about them than it does about anything else – and I don’t mean that negatively toward anyone with regard to in this particular issue. People are reacting very, very differently about this, so I prefer to look at myself and see what my reaction says about me than be upset about how someone else is reacting.
Don’t get me wrong: I do get a bit upset at how some people are reacting, but it usually is fairly easy to guess why they are reacting as they are – and, in many cases, “guess” is correct word. Even when I know people pretty well and think I understand their reaction, I’m certain there are plenty of times when my view is not completely right. Two people can react in essentially the same way and have very different reasons for that reaction. Therefore, I try to make that more of an academic issue and focus my emotions and my time on understanding myself and what I can learn about me to make me a better person.
What it says about me was that I think I hoped people would see the church in a different light, and then perhaps I’d feel I belonged a little more in the church because people would see eye to eye with me more than they do. I think that was I was first elated, and then disheartened after my wife didn’t care. So, the belonging thing – – the disavowal isn’t going to make that happen in the near future….back to my non-profit work for belonging and fulfilment.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.