Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:
I’m all for open debate and questions so long as stupid people are not allowed to speak.
That is awesome wrapped in beast surrounded by sheer joy and sunlight. (That came from my teenage daughter when I read it to my kids.)“I am trying my hardest,” is my favorite answer. Another one, stated at the very beginning (prior to the actual questions), is: “I believe and want the help of the temple to overcome those things I struggle to believe. When I say, ‘Yes (or, ‘No’),’ that is what I mean.”
Another one, like Gail said, is, “I really hope so, and I want to get to where I know. I need the spirit of the temple to help me.”
Thanks, Mike. It’s good to see you here. It takes some realignment of perspective to see the Gospel and the Church the way I do, but I really like my current view. It is so freeing that’s it’s hard to explain. Ironically, my own testimony of the genius of the Restoration is stronger now than ever, as is my support of the Church. It’s a decision I made consciously, and I love how open and expansive my life is. Oh, and to the issue of it still being in our canon, I don’t think it is. When you look at the verses in the Book of Mormon that generally are quoted and read them figuratively ( and in light of what I wrote in my Mormon Momma post), we are left with the VERY clear verses that say God does not discriminate against people because of skin color – like 2 Nephi 26:33: Quote:For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him,
black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. That is pretty blunt to me, so I use it as the baseline scripture to understand the other ones – and all of the other ones can be read figuratively without any mental gymnastics at all, imo.
This is going to be LOOOONG, so I apologize in advance, but it is very personal to me – and I have written a lot about it. Here goes: One of the most vocal speculators said the following:
Quote:Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.
(”All Are Alike unto God” – Bruce R. McConkie, BYU devotional – August 18, 1978)
To me, it’s pretty simple:
Brigham Young and most of the Church couldn’t get past the racism of their upbringing. God basically said, “If you aren’t going to rely on revelation (which they didn’t) and depend on incorrect human interpretations of scripture (which they did), I’ll leave you alone to face the consequences and let you suffer for the incorrect traditions of your fathers – until everyone left in the highest positions and most of the membership can accept my will.”
I wrote the following post on Mormon Momma and comments on Times & Seasons:
A)
http://www.mormonmomma.com/index.php/2008/racism-as-a-barrier-to-becoming/
As to the length of the ban, consider the following from the allegory of the olive tree in Jacob 5:65-66.65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard.
66 For it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard; wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad, and the bad be hewn down and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard; and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard.
It is more than an implication that the Church will include “bitter fruit” that will be cleared away only at a pace that will not destroy the tree itself. I don’t accept the ban as God’s will, but I also see the clear fact that the lifting of the ban in 1978 had a *hugely* different affect within the Church leadership and membership than I believe it would have had even one generation earlier. Sometimes, a generation (in this case a full lifetime of exposure to bigotry among men who were born and raised in a deeply racist time) must pass away before a group can enter the Promised Land.
C) You ask if I have implored God and received a personal witness. Yes, I have. I might be wrong, but – yes, I have. One of the strongest spiritual impressions of my life (and I have had some very strong ones), came as I served in a Stake Mission Presidency in the Deep South
**after the revelation lifting the ban**– as I struggled with how to reach into the Black community and was allowed to see the continuing effects of racism on the Church where I lived (both within a small minority of members and a much larger percent of non-members, Black and White). I will never forget that impression and the lessons it taught me. I will never forget how that vision changed dramatically how I perceived this issue.Next, to answer your [request for my reasoning]:
1) Black men were ordained during the leadership of Joseph Smith. Nobody disputes that. Nobody.
2) Can we agree that there has not been unanimity among the apostles and prophets on this issue?
3) No unanimity means that apostles and prophets disagreed on this issue.
4) Disagreement on this issue means that it is not *obvious* that the ban was God’s will, given by direct revelation. Perhaps it is not obvious that it was not God’s will, but it is not obvious that is was.
5) Disagreement also means that I am not siding against the apostles and prophets in my belief. It simply means I am disagreeing with some and agreeing with others.
6) It is extremely easy to read the verses that were used to justify the ban differently than they were interpreted to justify the ban. Iow, the scriptures themselves (which were the foundation for the claim that God had spoken) are *not* conclusive that God had, in fact, spoken. It is extremely easy to read the more modern scriptures (the NT and BofM) as saying that the former practice of distinction by race had ended with the ministry of Jesus.
7) My mother was a secretary in David O. McKay’s office. That has given me a few insights into the workings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that are somewhat rare. Most importantly for this comment, it made it clear to me that much of the internal dissent and debate on this topic was not expressed publicly, since there was a deep and abiding belief among the brethren that airing their disagreements publicly simply was not to occur. Elder McConkie was a renegade in this regard, as were a few more who shared his view on the ban. Those who were the most vocal tended to be those who supported the ban, since the ban was the policy of the time [- and those who thought it should be rescinded didn’t speak publicly about their beliefs].
When I am faced with two viable options, even in the face of a lack of spiritual confirmation, I *always* side with the one that appears to be in line with the preponderance of scriptural evidence and harms the fewest people. Imo, the ban as a result of human weakness and prejudice fits those criteria *far* better than seeing it as God’s will.9) I tend to accept the words of current prophets over the words of former prophets. I also have read enough of modern and ancient scripture to understand that God has allowed prophets and apostles to make horrible mistakes all throughout time. He sometimes steps in and announces an ideal in very clear ways, but even then He steps back and lets His prophets and other leaders live it or reject it. Therefore, the ban has no fundamental impact on my testimony – my spiritual witness of Brigham Young and John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff and all other prophets who upheld the ban – even as I believe is was not God’s will.
10) My mind leans toward my current understanding, but my heart and soul is WAY beyond leaning. I know Black saints who could not hold the Priesthood and/or attend the temple prior to the lifting of the ban, and to even hint that they were less valiant in the pre-existence is simply abhorrent to my soul. Having seen their dedication, I know firsthand how much deeper and richer and fuller it was than mine and nearly all White members I knew at that same time. Frankly, I believe much of the acceptance of such a theory on a purely intellectual level is a result of not knowing intimately such people and the persecution they endured to remain true to the faith – persecution that was both blatant and subtle and which came from both outside and inside the Church.
11) This is not an intellectual understanding for me. It is deeply spiritual one – forged over multiple decades of observing and studying the roots and continuing traces of bigotry in this country and, unfortunately, the Church.
12) I might be wrong, notwithstanding the nature of my spiritual witness, but I would rather be wrong in my current opinion than to be wrong with the alternative. I am intelligent enough to construct a lucid and compelling justification for either view, so I have consciously chosen to follow my deeply personal, spiritual witness, my overarching belief in the messages of the scriptures and what my heart wants to believe – preferring in all ways my current position to its alternative. If I am wrong, I believe I will be better being wrong with this view than being wrong with the other one.
At the most basic level, I return to my first paragraph. Due to my calling at the time [Stake Mission Presidency], I believe I was given a perspective that is somewhat unique. It was burned into my soul in a way that I can neither forget nor deny. I cannot say I saw the Father crying for the hardness of the hearts of His children, but I can say that I understand that image in a way that would have been impossible without that experience. It has shaped the way I see many things over the years, and I would not trade it for the world.
Quote:“you’re a difficult guy to put into a box”
Yeah, conservatives think I’m too liberal, and liberals thinks I’m too conservative. Most people just think I think too much.
Quote:The way I approach these difficult topics is to look at the church as a evolving system and allow it the right to refine its teachings over time.
I really like this. I believe strongly that the term “Dispensation of the Fullness of Times” refers to the condition at the END of the dispensation, not the beginning. I also believe that the term “Restoration” refers to a process, not an event. Finally, I believe one of the central purposes of both is removing the natural elements or apostasy from the Church that were incorporated through the simple fact that it is made up of people who bring and pass on their own “incorrect traditions” within the organization.
The early history of the Church was incredibly messy on many levels, not least of which was the need to sort through all of the assumptions early leaders (including Joseph himself) would make about the impressions and visions and revelations they were receiving in such a rapid-fire way. It’s like they were riding a tidal wave of spiritualism and trying to figure out where it was taking them – trying to establish a firm foundation from everything that was swirling around them.
Personally, I don’t fault those that couldn’t take it and left – just as I don’t fault those now who yearn for rock-solid, never-changing stability and leave for the exact same reason. On-going revelation means on-going change – and that change often is radical and unsettling.
Orson, your concluding paragraph is exactly my feeling. I believe what I believe (largely because it is what I want to believe), but, as I’ve said, there are all kinds of possibilities to which I am open ultimately. If one particular option helps someone else find the joy and strength and divine connection I have found in its pages, who am I to try to make them see it as I see it? I’m just not invested emotionally in being 100% “right” on the details. cjonesy108, I should have made my own perspective clearer. I personally believe Joseph’s account – that the plates Moroni showed Joseph were the actual plates he had buried. I understand the difficulties others have with that belief, but I do believe it. All I was saying is that it doesn’t have to be that way for the Book of Mormon to be a “true” record (an accurate account of what the earlier prophets actually wrote) – and Joseph didn’t have to be “reading” the plates (or even seeing them physically) in order to “translate” them. As I said, there are all kinds of ways for it to be inspired and of God – even if I personally believe the account Joseph recorded. Fwiw, one of the reasons I have no problem accepting the plates as having been buried in New York (no matter where the people lived and even if the final battle happened as far away as the southernmost regions of South America), is that Moroni’s time line says he was alone with the plates for over 30 years. In that time, he could have circumnavigated the entire earth to get to New York. It’s just one of the small details that fits the overall picture so perfectly.
Monkey, Please don’t ever feel out of place because of what you might perceive about intellects. One of the most amazing, Christ-like persons I have ever known struggled through and hated school. He is a wonderful man, and his common sense approach to the Gospel is, I believe, much more important than any intellectualizing I might do – as much as my mental journeys mean to me. If I had to choose between a dizzying intellect and his spiritual condition, I would take his situation every day – without hesitation. The length of words and complexity of sentences has nothing to do with spiritual insight and righteousness and simple goodness. Nothing.
Roasted Tomatoes is J. Nelson-Seawright, who posts and comments at BCC regularly. Serenity Valley is his wife, Taryn Nelson-Seawright. She is now a permablogger on FMH (
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=2084 ), although she doesn’t post very often.Please pardon this, but I am going to nit-pick a little bit simply to illustrate what I said earlier about the Book of Mormon being misunderstood. (it really is a bit nit-picky, but, as a dedicated parser I think it’s important, so please bear with the length.) I’m going to tackle two little statements, and I simply ask that those who wrote them understand what I am trying to say by quoting them: Quote:The Book claims to be a translation from an ancient record handed down through generations and preserved to come forth in the latter-days.
A) No, it doesn’t – at least in any way that would be accepted by linguists and historians as a translation. Joseph Smith claimed the book was a translation, but he didn’t even attempt to claim that it was a translation in the classic sense of how that word is used almost universally by others. The most striking example of this is the fact that his dictation method not long into the process wouldn’t be considered “translating” by anyone who saw it. If we really look at how it came to be, it was the result of an on-going “vision”, not a translation. Frankly, I think it only was called a translation because Joseph really believed the words he was seeing were an accurate representation of what was on the plates – and because the idea of a visionary account would have been even easier for the world to dismiss as not really an accurate historical account recorded by ancient prophets.
Some people talk of it as being “inspired fiction”, but I prefer to think of it as “inspired non-fiction”. I have never experienced that to the extent that I believe Joseph did in this instance, but I have had experiences that I would classify without hesitation as having produced inspired “non-fiction” – particularly in three instances with a Priesthood blessing that lasted MUCH longer and included way more specific detail of the past and future than I possibly could have known on my own. I literally “saw with my mind’s eye” what I should say, and, in each case, what I saw actually did happen or was confirmed to have happened. I have had a couple of similar experiences where I suddenly understood details of someone’s past that they hadn’t shared with me – and I could have written a short story about those details that would have been accurate enough to be classified as non-fiction.
So, the book itself simply claims to be a record of an ancient people. Nothing more, nothing less. The book itself makes NO claim about how it would be brought to light, other than that it would be by the power of God. (That is critically important. The book itself does not say exactly how it would be “translated”.) That leaves many, many possibilities open – including a very loose definition of translation that could include exactly what Joseph did, no matter whether or not the actual plates he used (and then didn’t use) contained the record itself.
Quote:I think it could be a historical record. It’s possible. It just doesn’t seem to be what I was raised to think it was. It might not be the historical record of the Native American Indians.
A) The book itself never makes that claim.
I personally believed something similar to the limited geography model LONG before I ever heard that phrase, and I also believe that we have absolutely no idea where it occurred in the Americas. None whatsoever. (I think the research into the Old World location is compelling, but not the New World research.) I also believed that the “principle ancestors” phrase was wrong at a very early age. ( I think the Jaredites might be the principle genealogical ancestors, and that they were Asiatic, so I believe the most recent DNA research actually comes close to validating the Book of Mormon [and I believed the Jaredite connection long before I knew of the DNA controversy] – but that is for another discussion.)
So, just because it isn’t what members assumed it was doesn’t mean it isn’t what it actually claims to be.
Honestly, I have never encountered an actual claim within the pages themselves that I believe is demonstrably false. There are numerous assumptions of people on both sides of the validity debate that I think are incorrect, lame, ludicrous and even frightening – but there’s no actual claim of the book itself that I have found to be indefensible or preposterous. Over the decades I have been reading it, otoh, there are numerous things that have snapped my head back and made me realize I had misunderstood it previously.
I enjoy almost any lesson, since I don’t go into them with any expectations. I don’t enjoy every class. There is a difference, and it’s important. That EQ class did not include a lesson, and it can be hard to sit through that.
I’ve made this point more than once in other discussions, but I realized fairly early in my life that I could construct a reasonable argument for just about anything I wanted to do or believe. I mean that; if I apply my mind to construct a justification for almost anything, I can do it. Everyone does it to one degree or another; the key is controlling it and directing it to what I really desire. That discovery is the truth that made me free, if you will. I have found in my life what brings me joy. I know what I want to believe, so I consciously work out a reason to believe it. As ironic as it is to phrase it this way, I know I will never know in this life every detail well enough to have absolute certainty concerning most things. I certainly understand how impossible it is to be positive of historical things, particularly motivations and others’ understanding. I have come to realize that I see through my own glass, darkly – and, more importantly, I have come to embrace that as a wonderful thing. Knowing I can never be absolutely certain has freed me from the black and white world that limits the possibilities of what I can believe. I’m not locked into any particular puzzle, since I know I don’t know enough to put the outlining pieces properly in place. That means I can explore ways to understand my faith that wouldn’t be available if I was locked into absolute knowledge.
The ironic result of this freedom is that I have been blown away by the depth and the breadth of the Restored Gospel. it is simply astounding how expansive and universal and powerful that Gospel is – especially when compared to the rest of Christianity. The only other religion that approaches it, imo, is Buddhism – and the overarching similarities are striking. That also is a testimony to me of the prophetic inspiration of Joseph Smith – the near mirroring of Mormonism with what I consider to be the great religion of the East.
I might post more on that at some point, but the summary version is that I believe in “intellectual faith” (where “faith” is the subject and “intellectual” is the qualifier), NOT “faithful intellectualism” (where the intellect comes first). I want my intellect to deepen my faith, however the outline of that faith ebbs and flows. I want my intellect to help my spirit soar – to free me to experience the cosmic and the divine – to provide valid justifications to not wallow in the world. I want to dream, but I want to dream intelligent, inspiring dreams.
